Keven Hofeling

As @Sandy Larsen has been diligently trying to point out to Mr. Speer on this thread, he is distorting Doug Horne's work when conflating Horne's concept of the upper forehead wound with Horne's concept of the right temple wound, and this is why and how: Instead of doing any research on Horne's theories about there being TWO frontal entrance wounds to JFK's head, Speer instead regurgitates Paramount's poor presentation of a frontal entrance wound theory which conflates the two frontal head wounds postulated by Dr. David Mantik and Doug Horne three head shot scenario. In "What the Doctors Saw," Paramount deceptively takes James Jenkins's account of the right temple wound and combines it with Doug Horne's conception of a high forehead wound, and whatever further explanation delineating the difference between these two different wounds -- that Horne surely provided to the Paramount producers -- has been cut and ended up on the studio floor, with what remains in the following segment from the documentary making for the misleading appearance which Speer has been flagrantly regurgitating, and attempting to mislead others into believing to be Horne and Mantik's articulation of the right temple wound as described by James Jenkins and Tom Robinson: Had Speer done his due diligence, and researched the subject, he would have learned that Horne and Mantik's three headshot scenario differentiates between the high forehead entrance wound and the entrance wound at the right temple described by Jenkins and Robinson, as elucidated by Doug Horne in the following video: YouTube link: https://youtu.be/NOSDgC_-4Ws 1. Doug Horne's Background and Book: The video begins by introducing Doug Horne, a former employee of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB). He worked as a senior analyst on the military records team and later became the chief analyst for military records. After the ARRB shut down, Horne published a five-volume book titled "Inside the Assassination Records Review Board" in 2009. This book presents his conclusions about the medical cover-up surrounding the JFK assassination, the alteration of the Zapruder film, and the reasons behind President Kennedy's death. 2. The Three Shots and Their Trajectories: Horne and Dr. David Mantik, a physician, agree that President Kennedy was shot in the head three times. They believe one shot came from behind and entered low in the skull, likely originating from the Dealey Plaza Dal-Tex building. Two shots came from the right front. One entered high above the right eye and exited the upper left rear of the skull, likely fired from near the corner of the fence on the grassy knoll. The second shot from the right front entered just forward and above the right ear, causing a large blowout at the rear of the head. Horne suggests this shot was fired from further down the fence line. 3. Tangential Wound and Parkland Hospital: Horne mentions Dr. Kemp Clark, the head of neurosurgery at Parkland Hospital, who described the head wound he saw as potentially a tangential wound, meaning it might have entered and exited at the same point. Horne connects this description to the shot that exited the upper left rear of the skull, indicating it might have been a near-tangential wound. 4. The Missing Exit Wound and the Orbit/Vomer Injuries: The shot from behind, according to Horne, likely did not exit the skull, explaining the cracked orbit of the right eye, displaced right eye, and crushed vomer (the bone in the middle of the nose) as noted by Dr. Boswell. Since no exit wound was observed on the front of President Kennedy's face, Horne believes this bullet was removed during surgery before the autopsy. 5. The Red Triangle Incision and the Postmortem Surgery: Horne explains that the second shot from the right front, which entered high above the right eye, had to be removed during the postmortem surgery. This explains the large red incision in the shape of a V on the president's forehead, which was not seen at Parkland Hospital. He highlights the significance of this point by mentioning that nobody at Parkland Hospital saw a red triangle of bloody damage above the right eye, and Jackie Kennedy, who was holding President Kennedy's head during the shooting, stated that there was "nothing" from the front. 6. Contradictions in Testimony and the Zapruder Film: Horne emphasizes the discrepancy between the absence of a red triangle at Parkland Hospital and its presence in the autopsy photographs. He argues that this red triangle is the result of an incision made to remove the third entrance wound, which was approximately the size of a dime. He further mentions the discrepancy between the lack of a visible right side of the head in the Zapruder film and the presence of a blown-out right side in the autopsy photographs. _________________ "Sloppy sloppy sloppy." This is the problem with Speer's "research," particularly that concerning Dr. David Mantik, Dr. Michael Chesser, and Doug Horne, against whom he has elsewhere admitted bearing a great deal of personal animosity. Speer fails to do actual research, and instead offers half-baked assumptions based upon shoddy productions such as "What the Doctors Saw," and attempts to pass them off as fact. If Speer were to do the honorable thing, he would make public apologies to Dr. Mantik, Dr. Chesser and Doug Horne, and publicly apologize to his readers for these efforts to mislead them which, at best, are the result inept research methods. Well, here we are again dealing with Speer's false assertions about the Tom Robinson testimony. It appears that no matter how many times I bring these misstatements about Robinson's testimony to his attention, he just keeps repeating them again and again, as if he is not at all concerned about the impact it has on his own steadily diminishing credibility. Speer's disinformation about Tom Robinson's testimony basically breaks down to three claims, as follows: 1) There was a tiny hole that was not a bullet entrance by [JFK's] temple. 2) that nineteen years later, before the ARRB, Robinson was no longer referencing the right temple wound, and testified instead "I think I saw two or three tiny wounds by [JFK's] right cheek," and 3) that fourteen years after that Doug Horne, without any actual reference to Tom Robinson's testimony at all claimed that "Robinson said he saw a bullet hole high on the forehead above the right eye." The sleight of hand parlor trick Speer is playing when characterizing Robinson's testimony as meaning "there was a tiny hole that was not a bullet entrance by the temple" misleads by implying that Tom Robinson believed the right temple wound could not have been caused by a bullet, or alternatively, that it could have been caused by a bullet, but was an exit wound rather than an entrance wound. As can be seen by reading Robinson's actual testimony below, Robinson did in fact testify that the right temple wound could have been caused by a piece of a bullet, by shrapnel or by a piece of bone. And as to Robinson's statement that it was an exit wound rather than an entrance, it would become clear in Robinson's Assassination Records Review Board interview that he was relying entirely on what he had overheard the pathologists saying at the Bethesda Morgue which accounts for his opinion that it was an exit wound; and pertinent to that fact is the likelihood that the pathologists were engaged in a cover-up of evidence of frontal bullet entry wounds. Thus, both Robinson's statement that the cause was a piece of a bullet -- rather than an intact bullet -- and that it was an exit wound rather than an entry wound cannot be regarded as a definitive expert opinion, as Robinson was not a pathologist or a ballistics expert, and the opinion was based merely on what he overheard the pathologists saying (pathologists who were engaged in a cover-up). Speer, in doing one of his infamous "McClelland jobs" on Tom Robinson takes the art of deception to a new level. Speer simply straight out writes bald faced misrepresentations. Pat Speer's misrepresentations about Tom Robinson were as follows: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30374-incision-made-on-jfks-head-kennedy-assassination-nothing-to-see-here-an-incision-made-on-jfks-head/?do=findComment&comment=534508 1). Pat Speer characterizes Tom Robinson's 1/12/1977 HSCA testimony as Robinson saying "I think I saw a small wound that was not a bullet hole by the temple": But as can be seen in the transcript of Tom Robinson's 1/12/1977 below, Tom Robinson testified that there was a little wound "at the temples in the hairline" on the "right" side that was "a quarter of an inch" in diameter (Speer deceptively claims this was instead a "large wound," consistent with his deluded top of the head wound paradigm), and was according to Robinson caused "probably [by] a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet" (but NOTE that the ARRB questioning of Robinson in 1996 makes it clear that Robinson's opinions of the cause of the wound were ALL based upon what he overheard the pathologists saying [as they engaged in the cover-up of the frontal wounds] as Robinson was not any kind of expert in pathology or ballistics): THOMAS EVAN ROBINSON INTERVIEW - ARRB MD 63 - Robinson-Purdy HSCA Interviews (1/12/77) https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=327⁠ ⁠ "...PURDY: Did you notice anything else unusual about the body which may have been artificially caused, that is, caused by something other than the autopsy? ⁠ ROBINSON: Probably, a little mark at the temple in the hairline. As I recall, it was so small, it could be hidden by the hair. It didn't have to be covered with make-up. I thought it probably a piece of the bone or a piece of the bullet that caused it. ⁠ PURDY: In other words, there was a little wound. ⁠ ROBINSON: Yes. ⁠ PURDY: Approximately where, which side of the forehead or part of the head was it on? ⁠ ROBINSON: I believe it was on the right side. ⁠ PURDY: On his right side? ⁠ ROBINSON: That's an anatomical right, yes... ⁠ PAGE 3 ⁠ PURDY: You say it was in the forehead region up near the hair line? ⁠ ROBINSON: Yes. ⁠ PURDY: Would you say it was closer to the hair? ⁠ ROBINSON: Somewhere around the temples. ⁠ PURDY: Approximately what size? ⁠ ROBINSON: Very small, a quarter of an inch. ⁠ PURDY: Quarter of an inch is all the damage. Had it been closed up by the doctors? ⁠ ROBINSON: No, he didn't have to close it. If anything I just would have probably put a little wax on it. ⁠ PURDY: Were you the one that was responsible for closing these wounds in the head? ⁠ ROBINSON: Well, we all worked on it. Once the body was embalmed arterially and they brought a piece of heavy duty rubber, again to fill the area (area in the back of the head) I remember treating the . . . organs, like I said, we all tried to help one another. ⁠ PURDY: O.K., you had to close the wound in the back of the head using the rubber, what other work had to be done on the head? ⁠ ROBINSON: It had to be all dried out, packed and the rubber placed in the hair and the skin pulled back over it as much as possible and stitched into that piece of rubber. They were afraid again of leaks, once the body is moved or shaken in the casket and carried up the Capitol steps and opened again, we had to be very careful, there would have been blood on the pillow. ⁠ PURDY: Was there any other work that you had to do on the head? ⁠ ROBINSON: I did the make up, cosmetic. ⁠ PURDY: Were there any other wounds on the head other than the little one in the right temple area, and the big one in the back? ⁠ ROBINSON: THAT'S ALL (emphasis not in original). ⁠ PAGE 4 ⁠ PURDY: Did you have to shave the head so you could tell if there were other wounds? ⁠ ROBINSON: No. In fact, we wanted the hair there to hide as much as possible. Putting the head into the pillow of the head of the casket would have hidden everything. ⁠ PURDY: Do you think it was possible that there was some other wound under the hair? Did you look for other wounds? ⁠ ROBINSON: Oh yes, we would have found that. ⁠ PURDY: So you are satisfied in your professional experience that there were no other significant wound of the head? ⁠ ROBINSON: I stayed on the left side of the body throughout the whole thing. ⁠ PURDY: Did you get a good look at that wound on the right temple area? ⁠ ROBINSON: Oh yes, I worked right over for some time. ⁠ PURDY: What did you feel caused that wound? ⁠ ROBINSON: I think either a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet. Or a very small piece of shrapnel...." 2). Pat Speer next characterizes Tom Robinson's 6/21/1996 ARRB testimony as Robinson saying "I think I saw two or three tiny wounds by the right cheek": But when we consult the actual 1996 ARRB report, we see that just as Tom Robinson did in his 1977 HSCA testimony, in his 1996 ARRB testimony Tom Robinson ALSO specifically describes the right temple wound separately from the shrapnel punctures in the cheek (See next to red arrow below). Tom Robinson additionally executed two drawings of the right temple wound for the ARRB (one of which is the skull diagram below). MD 180 - ARRB Meeting Report Summarizing 6/21/96 In-Person Interview of Tom Robinson: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md180/html/md180_0001a.htm 3). Then Pat Spear attempts to smear Doug Horne by writing "Doug Horne, fourteen years after that: Robinson said he saw a bullet hole high on the forehead above the right eye." As can be seen in the second video at the top of this post, and in the following graphic below, Doug Horne's reference to the upper forehead entry wound is an element of the three head shot scenario advocated by Dr. David Mantik and himself, having NOTHING to do with Tom Robinson's testimony. Speer's assertions to the contrary are the product of his shoddy research methods combined with his desire to slander Horne and Mantik, and should be dismissed as such:

Your response to my post exacerbates rather than ameliorates the issue I was raising. The post to which I was responding is the following in which you were attempting to dismiss Dr. McClelland's observation of Dr. Malcolm Perry being threatened by Elmer Moore, or another government agent, to never repeat again that JFK's throat wound was an entry wound, and you claimed that if he were threatened it didn't work "as he testified the wound looked like an entrance would and continued to say as much for the rest of his life." Your self-aggrandizing response that you pioneered the research about Elmer Moore is completely unresponsive to my post, which I here present to you yet again: You seem to be unaware, or are failing to divulge, that it is well established by virtue of Secret Service agent Elmer Moore's confession to James Gochenaur that he had indeed pressured Dr. Perry, and had been ORDERED to do so by Inspector Kelly, as we can see Gochenaur describe in the following video at timemark 3:09, cued for you in advance via the following link: https://youtu.be/QRBaiNiyyqM?si=UO-V_pqn_7dJu4G_&t=189 And I now add to that Dr. McCLelland's description of the government harassment of Dr. Malcolm Perry from "What the Doctors Saw" in the following video at timemark 0:48, cued for you in advance via the following link: https://youtu.be/IN895BOvC3U?si=4N9b_8tBxfqI2rb_&t=48 It makes no sense to me why you presented that material from your website about Elmer Moore in defense of your dismissive comments about the threats Moore is said to have made to Dr. Perry when the material you presented appears to show that Moore's denials about the incident weren't credible. Don't you even read the passages from your website that you paste on these posts, or do you just assume that others will not read them to discover that they undercut your stated positions? As I have brought to your attention before, and you have denied, Dr. Perry was also threatened by the Bethesda pathologists who told him they would report him to the medical board if he continued to describe the throat wound as a wound of entry. New York Herald Tribune investigative reporter Martin J. Steadman wrote the following in his account of his December 2, 1963 interview of Dr. Malcolm Perry: http://evesmag.com/jfkassassination.htm "...But [Dr. Malcolm Perry] told us that throughout that night [the evening of the assassination - KH], he received a series of phone calls to his home from irate doctors at the Bethesda Naval Hospital, where an autopsy was being conducted, and the doctors there were becoming increasingly frustrated with his belief that it was an entrance wound. He said they asked him if the doctors in Dallas had turned the President over and examined the wounds to his back; he said they had not. They told him he could not be certain of his conclusion if he had not examined the wounds in the President’s back. They said Bethesda had the President’s body and Dallas did not. They told Dr. Perry he must not continue to say he cut across what he believed to be an entrance wound when there was no evidence of shots fired from the front. When he said again he could only say what he believed to be true, one or more of the autopsy doctors told him they would take him before a Medical Board if he continued to insist on what they were certain was otherwise. They threatened his license to practice medicine, Dr. Perry said...." [emphasis not in original] '50 YEARS FROM THAT FATEFUL DAY IN DALLAS...' | By Martin J. Steadman | http://evesmag.com/jfkassassination.htm Elsewhere on the forum, you have responded to this account of Dr. Perry's statements about being threatened published by Martin J. Steadman and the New York Herald Tribune on December 2, 1963 as follows: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30318-new-112263-video-of-dr-malcolm-perry/?do=findComment&comment=533279 "1. No one involved in the autopsy called Perry during the autopsy. They should have but they didn't. The official story is that Humes--by his lonesome--called Perry the next morning. And this makes the most sense. IF they had called Perry during the autopsy and told him he was to say the throat wound was an entrance, not exit, well, wouldn't they have told the FBI--the Federal Agency responsible--that there was a throat wound? That they believed was an exit? Of course they would..." No, Mr. Speer, the government cover-up story does not "make the most sense." The fingerprints of "cover-up" are all over the autopsy and the question of whether or not the pathologists had contemporaneous knowledge of the throat wound, and whether or not the pathologists communicated with Dr. Malcolm Perry about the throat wound the evening of the assassination and threatened to report him to the medical board. For example, Parkland Nurse Audrey Bell told Harrison Livingstone in 1991 that “Dr. Perry was up all night. He came into my office the next day and sat down and looked terrible, having not slept. I never saw anybody look so dejected! They called him from Bethesda two or three times in the middle of the night to try to get him to change the entrance wound in the throat to an exit wound,” and in a 2009 blog entry by Doug Horne, Horne wrote the following: "...What most of the public does not know---and what is detailed in my book, "Inside the Assassination Records Review Board," is that late on the night of President Kennedy's autopsy at Bethesda Naval hospital, Federal officials located at Bethesda began harrassing Dr. Perry on the telephone in an attempt to get him to change his mind about having seen an entry wound in the President's throat earlier in the day. Nurse Audrey Bell told me in 1997 that Dr. Perry complained to her the next morning (on Saturday, November 23, 1963) that he had gotten almost no sleep the night before, because unnamed persons at Bethesda had been pressuring him on the telephone all night long to get him to change his opinion about the nature of the bullet wound in the throat, and to redescribe it as an exit, rather than an entrance. In his 1981 book "Best Evidence," David Lifton documented that the Secret Service confiscated videotapes of the Parkland hospital press conference from at least one local television station, and that Secret Service Chief James Rowley had informed the Warren Commission in 1964 that no videotapes or transcripts of the press conference could be found. But as Lifton revealed, a White House verbatim transcript of the press conference (White House Transcript 1327-C) later surfaced. In my own book, "Inside the ARRB," I reveal that Chief Rowley lied to the Warren Commission when he said no transcripts could be found, for on the last page of transcript 1327-C, the document is stamped as received by Rowley's office on November 26, 1963. His statement to the Warren Commission was therefore false. A graduate student, James Gochenaur, revealed to both the Church Committee and to the HSCA in the mid-1970s that Secret Service Agent Elmer Moore had confessed to him in 1970 that he had "leaned on Dr. Perry" shortly after the Bethesda autopsy to get him to stop describing the bullet wound in President Kennedy's throat as an entrance wound. (The Bethesda autopsy report concluded it was an exit wound.) According to Gochenaur, Moore also told him that the Secret Service had to investigate the assassination in an expected, predetermined way or they would "get their heads chopped off." Moore, unfortunately, also told Gochenaur that sometimes he thought President Kennedy was "a traitor" because he was "giving things away to the Russians." [According to Arlen Specter, this same Elmer Moore was present when Chief Justice Warren, Gerald Ford, and he interviewed Jack Ruby in Dallas; and Arlen Specter also revealed in 2003 (at a conference in Pittsburgh) that Elmer Moore was the Secret Service Agent who showed him an undocumented photograph of President Kennedy's back wound during the May 1964 re-enactment of the Dallas motorcade conducted by the Warren Commission.] Unfortunately, after Federal officials at Bethesda (on November 22-23, 1963) and Elmer Moore (between November 29-December 11, 1963) "leaned on" Dr. Perry, he spent the remainder of his life straddling the fence and saying that the bullet wound in JFK's throat "could have been either" an entrance or an exit wound. But that is not what he said on the afternoon of the assassination, before there was an official explanation for the crime to fall in line with. White House Transcript 1327-C makes that very clear, as I reveal in my book, in Chapters 7 and 9. Former Chief Operating Room nurse Audrey Bell related to me in 1997 that Dr. Perry was in a state of torment on November 23, 1963, after being pressured by Federal officials all night long to change his mind, because, as he put it, "my professional credibility is at stake." Sadly, he appears to have decided for the remainder of his life that discretion was the better part of valor. The story does not end here. The chief prosector at the President's autopsy, Dr. James J. Humes, described the throat wound in the autopsy report as having "widely gaping, irregular edges," and in his Warren Commission testimony, Humes said the gaping wound in the throat was 7 to 8 cm wide. In contrast, Dr. Charles Crenshaw, a third year resident at Parkland in 1963, told ABC's "20/20" news magazine in 1992 that after the tracheostomy tube and flange were removed from the President's neck following his death, that the very small incision made by Dr. Perry closed of its own volition, and that the bullet wound had NOT been obliterated and was still clearly visible. When Dr. Crenshaw viewed the widely published bootleg autopsy photo (from Bethesda Naval hospital) showing the incision in JFK's neck, he expressed the opinion to ABC's "20/20" that the incision in that photograph was DOUBLE the width of the incision Dr. Perry originally made on the President's body. The descriptions of the incision in the anterior neck, provided by Dr. Humes and Dr. Crenshaw, together constitute de facto evidence that JFK's throat wound was tampered with prior to the start of the Navy autopsy at Bethesda Naval hospital. President Kennedy's body was in the custody of the U.S. Secret Service while enroute Washington D.C. from Dallas, Texas..." 'Dr. Malcolm O. Perry, Key Parkland Hospital Witness to JFK's Wounds, Dies' InsideTheARRB | By Doug Horne | December 8, 2009 | https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/2370.html And in the following extremely well documented excerpt from Dr. Gary Aguilar's "HOW FIVE INVESTIGATIONS INTO JFK’S MEDICAL/AUTOPSY EVIDENCE GOT IT WRONG," Dr. Aguilar chronicled accounts of contemporaneous knowledge of the throat wound at the Bethesda autopsy -- and in several cases, the 11/22/1963 phone calls from Bethesda to Malcolm Perry -- by pathologist James Humes, pathologist J. Thornton Boswell, historian William Manchester, Parkland doctor Paul Peters, pathologist Robert Karnei, radiologist John Ebersole, Coast Guardsman George Barnum, General Philip C. Wehle's personal aide, Richard A. Lipsey, and Dr. Malcolm Perry himself: "...The Case for the Autopsists Not Being Ignorant of Kennedy’s Throat Wound During the Autopsy The absence of word about Kennedy’s throat wound in the FBI report is far from proof of the surgeons’ ignorance. It only proves the doctors either didn’t know about the throat wound before the agents left, or that the surgeons kept quiet, and perhaps with good reason. Given their manifest lack of expertise in this sort of work, the surgeons might have wanted kept to their own counsels, lest they later be forced to confront an accurate, federal accounting of their errors and misjudgments. Moreover, the agents didn’t stick it out the entire night; they left the morgue at about 1:00 AM. And although by then the morticians were busy at work, there is evidence the autopsists were still engaged. Internal CBS memorandum reporting on Dr. Humes' admission that a path had been traced from back wound to throat wound during the autopsy. (see ARRB MD #16) In the mid 1960’s, Humes confided to a personal friend that, as a once-secret, internal Columbia Broadcasting System memo put it, “Although initially in the autopsy procedure the back wound could only be penetrated to finger length, a probe later was made – when no FBI men were present – that traced the path of the bullet from the back going downwards, then upwards slightly, then downwards again exiting at the throat. One X-ray photo taken, Humes said, clearly shows the above, as it was apparently taken with a mental probe stick of some kind that was left in the body to show the wound’s path.”[39] While several tantalizing details in this account will be explored in more detail later, its relevance here is that the agents didn’t see everything the surgeons saw or did. Moreover, unless they’d had some word about a bullet wound in the throat, Humes would hardly have passed a probe from the back to JFK’s throat if he’d had no reason to believe a wound lay there. What, then, about the report of the President’s physician? If he actually knew, why is Burkley also silent on the throat wound? It turns out that Burkley is silent about all of JFK’s wounds; his report concerns itself more with what Burkley did than what he saw. For example, regarding Kennedy’s injuries, Burkley speaks only about what he witnessed at Parkland: “I immediately entered the room, went to the head of the table and viewed the President. It was evident that death was imminent and that he was in a hopeless condition.”[40] It is scarcely a surprise Burkley is mum about the throat wound when he says nothing about JFK’s huge skull injuries. And, finally, what about Boswell’s technician, Jenkins? Boswell was never asked whether he confided in Jenkins during the autopsy. So, in light of the tenseness of the situation, it is quite possible that Boswell could have known of the wound, or strongly suspected it, without telling Jenkins about it. In fact, Boswell’s subsequent statements seem to bear that out. A reasonable case can be also made for the opposite conclusion: that knowledge of the throat wound had indeed seeped into JFK’s morgue. Perhaps the earliest evidence comes from a respected outsider. Although as per his custom he does not name his source, the famously well-connected historian William Manchester may have been the first to come up with it in his 1967 book, The Death of a President. Manchester discovered that the course of events that makes the most sense to us today is in fact what actually happened: that the autopsy team had indeed heard Perry’s comments on the afternoon of the murder, and that they had dutifully communicated with Dallas during the post mortem. “They had heard reports of Mac Perry’s medical briefing for the press, and to their dismay they had discovered that all evidence of what was being called an entrance wound in the throat had been removed by Perry’s tracheotomy. Unlike the physicians at Parkland, they had turned the President over and seen the smaller hole in the back of his neck. They were positive that Perry had seen an exit wound. The deleterious effects of confusion were already evident. Commander James J. Humes, Bethesda’s chief of pathology, telephoned Perry in Dallas shortly after midnight, and clinical photographs were taken to satisfy all the Texas doctors who had been in Trauma Room No. 1.”[41] (authors’ emphasis). One imagines that Manchester intended to convey that the autopsists hoped the pictures would satisfy the Texas doctors that the throat wound Perry had called an entrance wound was instead an exit wound.) Transcript of Nov. 22 afternoon press conference given by Parkland Hospital physicians Dr. Malcolm Perry and Dr. Kemp Clark. (see ARRB MD #41) Manchester gave a compelling reason for the autopsists’ concern about comments emanating from the doctors in Dallas: “Bethesda’s physicians anticipated that their findings would later be subjected to the most.”[42] Ironically, Dallas was generous with reasons for a searching scrutiny of the autopsists’ claimed ignorance of the throat wound. Parkland witness, Paul Peters, MD, told Boston Globe journalist, Ben Bradlee, that “We did find out almost immediately (sic) after President Kennedy was taken to Bethesda that there was a hole in the neck that we had not seen a the time … But it was only a few (sic) hours later when we began to get calls back to (sic) from Bethesda … See it was only, it was only going to be a few (sic) hours before I would know that the bullets were fired from behind.”[43] Author Harrison Livingstone reported another Parkland source for nighttime contact between the morgue and Dallas. In a 1991 interview, Livingstone said that Parkland Hospital nurse Audrey Bell told him, “Dr. Perry was up all night. He came into my office the next day and sat down and looked terrible, having not slept. I never saw anybody look so dejected! They called him from Bethesda two or three times in the middle of the night to try to get him to change the entrance wound in the throat to an exit wound.”[44] In 1966 even Dr. Boswell himself weighed in, echoing Manchester by apparently disgorging to a stringer for the Baltimore Sun, who reported that, “before the autopsy had began, the pathologists had been apprised of JFK's wounds and what had been done to him at Parkland. In particular, Boswell said: ‘We concluded that night that the bullet had, in fact, entered the back of the neck, traversed the neck and exited anteriorly.’”[45] (author’s emphasis) Under oath in 1996, Boswell told the ARRB much the same thing. “Did you reach the conclusion that there had been a transit wound through the neck during the course of the autopsy itself?”, he was asked. “Oh, yes,” Boswell answered.[46] [On the other hand, Pierre Finck told the ARRB that at the end of the evening they had not concluded a throat transit.[47]] But regarding what they knew before they plunged in, Boswell seemed to give a slightly different version to the ARRB than he had the Baltimore Sun. He was asked, “Prior to the time you first saw the President Kennedy’s body, had you heard any communications about the nature of the wounds that he had suffered?” “I don’t think specifically. I think just the fact that he had a head wound,” Boswell responded.[48] Boswell kept to Humes’ claim the calls to Dallas happened the next day. “When was the first conversation with doctors in Dallas?” he was asked in 1996 by the ARRB. “Saturday morning,” Boswell answered.[49] Boswell’s account seems to contradict the comments of another pathologist who was present during the autopsy, though not as a member of the surgical team, Robert Karnei, MD. During an interview, author Harrison Livingstone clumsily commented to Karnei about the autopsists’ alleged ignorance: “They didn’t know there was a bullet hole in the throat. All they saw was the trach (sic) incision.” Karnei: “Right. Once they talked to the doctors in Dallas, this is around midnight, I think.” Livingstone: “No, it was the next day when he called Perry.” Karnei: “Next day?” Livingstone: “Yes. The body was already gone.” Karnei: “I was convinced they talked to somebody that night, and finally decided that had to be the exit wound. Pierre Finck, I think, talked to somebody … For some reason I thought they had discovered that around midnight. Maybe it was the next day.”[50] Karnei was not the only morgue physician who was confused about information from Dallas and when the team had decided there had been a bullet wound in JFK’s throat. In the suppressed HSCA interview of autopsy radiologist Dr. John Ebersole, Ebersole told the medical panel that Humes was in telephone contact with Dallas doctors during the autopsy. (see ARRB MD #60. p. 64) After a telephone interview with the autopsy radiologist, John Ebersole, MD, David Mantik, MD, Ph.D. reported that, “Ebersole had told me during our first conversation that they had learned about the throat wound from Dallas that night. In prior conversations, he had also stated that he had learned of the projectile wound to the throat during the autopsy – that, in fact, he had stopped taking X-rays after that intelligence had arrived, because the mystery of the exit wound – corresponding to the back entrance wound – was solved.”[51] Moreover, Ebersole told the HSCA that the two hospitals had communicated by phone during the autopsy.[52] By the later stages of the autopsy, Admiral Burkley was apparently talking to others about a wound in JFK’s throat, according to a Bethesda witness reported by author David Lifton. On 11/29/63, Coast Guardsman George Barnum wrote up a memo that concerned a conversation he had had with Admiral Burkley at Bethesda Hospital on the night of the autopsy. Barnum reported that Burkley had told him Kennedy had been hit twice, “The first striking him in the lower neck and coming out near the throat … .”[53] Barnum’s account is incomprehensible without accepting that Burkley’s remark suggests that either there was knowledge of the throat wound or, as per Boswell and Karnei, that a throat wound had been inferred by the autopsy team. Either way, Humes’ assertion to the Warren Commission to the effect a throat wound only dawned on him the next day, after a call to Dallas, seems open to dispute. Other witnesses add to the doubts. General Philip C. Wehle's personal aide,[54] Richard A. Lipsey, a witness to the autopsy, told the HSCA that sometime during the autopsy the prosectors concluded that three bullets had struck the President. “Lipsey said that one bullet entered the upper back of the President and did not exit,” the HSCA reported, and that, “one entered in the rear of the head and exited the throat; and one entered and exited in the right, top portion of the head, causing a massive head wound.”[55] Although this is not what finally made it into the autopsy report, it is hard to understand how a non-physician would recall linking the head wound to the throat wound unless he’d heard of a wound in the throat from the surgeons. Then there is the odd answer of tracheotomist, Malcolm Perry, MD, one that called to mind Dr. Peters’ previously cited comment that, “it was only a few (sic) hours later when we began to get calls back to (sic) from Bethesda”: Arlen Specter asked: “And will you relate the circumstances of the calls indicating first the time when they occurred.” Perry: “Dr. Humes called me twice on Friday afternoon, separated by about 30-minute intervals, as I recall. The first one, I, somehow think I recall the first one must have been around 1500 hours, but I'm not real sure about that; I'm not positive of that at all, actually.” Specter hastened to correct Perry, following up with: Specter: “Could it have been Saturday morning?” Perry: “Saturday morning – was it? It's possible. I remember talking with him twice. I was thinking it was shortly thereafter.”[56] While Perry’s turnabout may have come completely from the heart, that his instantaneous recall of a contact on Friday happened to match the recollections of so many others is surely quite a coincidence...." [39] CBS Memorandum from Bob Richer to Les Midgley, 1/10/67. Reproduced in: The Effectiveness of Public Law 102-526, The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, Hearing Before the Legislation and National Security Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, First Session, November 17, 1993, p. 233. Also reproduced in ARRB Medical Document # 16. [40] Affidavit of Admiral George Burkley. In: Warren Commission Exhibit # 1126. 22H93-97. [41] William Manchester. The Death of a President. New York: Penguin Books, 1977, p. 432 – 433. [42] William Manchester. The Death of a President. New York: Penguin Books, 1977, p. 432 – 433. [43] Tape recorded interview of 1 May 1981; transcript supplied by Harrison Livingstone. [44] Harrison Livingstone. High Treason 2. New York: Carroll & Graf, 1992, p. 121. [45] Richard H. Levine, 25 November 1966, page 1. [46] ARRB interview with J. Thornton Boswell, p. 34. [47] ARRB interview with Pierre Finck, p. 91 “miniscript,” or p. 18 of published text. [48] ARRB interview with J. Thornton Boswell, p. 30. [49] ARRB interview with J. Thornton Boswell, p. 27. [50] Harrison Livingstone. High Treason 2. New York: Carroll and Graf, 1992, p. 186. [51] See transcript of David Mantik’s interview with John Ebersole in: James Fetzer, ed., Murder in Dealey Plaza. Chicago: Catfeet Press 2000, p. 437. [52] HSCA Agency File # 013617. Also reproduced in ARRB Medical Document # 60. [53] David Lifton. Best Evidence. New York: Carroll & Graf, 1980, p. 671. [54] HSCA-V7:9. [55] HSCA-V7:20, footnote #95. See also a now-declassified audio recording of the HSCA's interview with Lipsey from 1-18-78. [56] 6H16. [Mr. SPECTER. And did you and I sit down and talk about the purpose of this deposition and the questions which I would be asking you on the record, before this deposition started? 'HOW FIVE INVESTIGATIONS INTO JFK’S MEDICAL/AUTOPSY EVIDENCE GOT IT WRONG' By Gary L. Aguilar, MD and Kathy Cunningham | May 2003 | https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1a.htm And as for the false claims that you made in your previous post about Dr. Perry in subsequent years not behaving as if he had been threatened, are you pretending not to know about the turnarounds that Dr. Perry did in his Warren Commission and HSCA testimony, and about Dr. Perry's well-known reluctance to be interviewed and to participate in JFKA conferences and other related activities? Malcolm Perry's colleague and friend, Dr. Donald W. Miller, in 2013 wrote about the intimidation that Dr. Perry had undergone, about Perry's revisions of his position on the throat wound before the Warren Commission and HSCA, and about Perry's well-known reluctance to speak of the matter as follows: "...I have had the unique experience of personally knowing ... the Texas surgeon who performed a tracheotomy on Kennedy after he was shot, Dr. Malcolm Perry.... Dr. Perry was the first physician to speak publicly about the President’s injuries in a televised news conference an hour after his death. A newsman asked him, “Where was the entrance wound?” Dr. Perry informed the American public and the world that “There was an entrance wound in the neck…It [the bullet] appeared to be coming at him…,” which he repeated two more times at the news conference. This did not sit well with the Warren Commission. The bullet hole in Kennedy’s neck had to be an exit wound for Oswald to be the assassin. Presented with its single bullet theory when testifying before the Commission several months later, Dr. Perry obligingly changed his view of the matter and said that the bullet wound he observed in the neck “certainly would be consistent with an exit wound.”... ...Dr. Perry publicly changed his view of the neck wound for the Warren Commission after a Secret Service Agent came to Dallas, threatened him, and coerced him to testify that it was an exit wound. In 1970, that Agent, Elmer Moore, confessed to a friend that he had acted “on orders from Washington.” He regretted that he had “badgered Dr. Perry into making a flat statement that there was no entry wound in the neck.” As ordered, he said, “I did everything I was told, we all did everything we were told, or we’d get our heads cut off.” The friend he admitted this to was (appropriately enough) a University of Washington graduate student named Jim Gochenaur. Thirteen years later, Dr. Perry and I performed surgery on a patient with a thoracoabdominal aneurysm. I removed the thoracic, or chest part of the aneurysm, and Dr. Perry, the abdominal part. When the residents were closing the incisions Malcolm and I sat together alone in the surgeons’ lounge drinking coffee. Dr. Perry had always refused to discuss the Kennedy assassination, but that night, after we had been operating together for many hours on a complex case, I once again asked him about it. This time, however, Dr. Perry told me that the bullet wound in Kennedy’s neck was, in fact, unquestionably a wound of entrance. A year later, when called to testify to the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) Dr. Perry once again publicly supported the government’s single-bullet-theory official truth and agreed with the committee that the bullet wound in the neck must be an exit wound, explaining that the wound was so small that he had initially mistaken it for an entrance wound. But in 1986, Dr. Perry told another physician, Dr. Robert Artwohl, that it was in fact an entrance wound...." 'Reflections on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, 50 Years Later' By Donald W. Miller, Jr., MD | November 16, 2013 | https://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/11/donald-w-miller-jr-md/jfk-thought-control-and-thought-crimes/ I know, due to my familiarity with your website, that you are well aware of all of the information I presented above, and yet you still deny the bulk of the evidence showing the massive cover up of the fact that the throat wound was a wound of entrance. Well I think I have a pretty good guess about why that is. My suspicion is that it had to do with the fact that the information above all leads to the alteration of President Kennedy's throat wound that took place between the time that the body left Parkland Hospital and the start of the "official" autopsy at Bethesda, as explained by Doug Horne, as follows: "...The story does not end here. The chief prosector at the President's autopsy, Dr. James J. Humes, described the throat wound in the autopsy report as having "widely gaping, irregular edges," and in his Warren Commission testimony, Humes said the gaping wound in the throat was 7 to 8 cm wide. In contrast, Dr. Charles Crenshaw, a third year resident at Parkland in 1963, told ABC's "20/20" news magazine in 1992 that after the tracheostomy tube and flange were removed from the President's neck following his death, that the very small incision made by Dr. Perry closed of its own volition, and that the bullet wound had NOT been obliterated and was still clearly visible. When Dr. Crenshaw viewed the widely published bootleg autopsy photo (from Bethesda Naval hospital) showing the incision in JFK's neck, he expressed the opinion to ABC's "20/20" that the incision in that photograph was DOUBLE the width of the incision Dr. Perry originally made on the President's body. The descriptions of the incision in the anterior neck, provided by Dr. Humes and Dr. Crenshaw, together constitute de facto evidence that JFK's throat wound was tampered with prior to the start of the Navy autopsy at Bethesda Naval hospital. President Kennedy's body was in the custody of the U.S. Secret Service while enroute Washington D.C. from Dallas, Texas..." 'Dr. Malcolm O. Perry, Key Parkland Hospital Witness to JFK's Wounds, Dies' InsideTheARRB | By Doug Horne | December 8, 2009 | https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/2370.html And when Robert Groden first showed the autopsy photographs to Dr. Malcolm Perry, Perry had a similar reaction, saying "I didn't do that. That's a butcher job." From Robert Groden’s appearance at a 2003 conference: […] As far as alteration of the body goes, the only evidence of that is the fact that when I interviewed Dr. Perry, he told me that he did not create that wound, he said- he stood up shocked and he pointed- pointed at the photograph, which I- again, I had shown him for the first time, he said I didn't do that. He said that's a butcher job. A tracheotomy hole is the size of a pencil to put a tube down there. If it leaks, it defeats the purpose. This hole is large enough to stick a fire hose down. It didn't work that way at all. It- it's sad but that's the case. […] From another conference with Robert Groden, undated, uploaded to Youtube 9/28/2021 by the Lone Gunman channel UCAG--Ai7Xh56gr6nxnX-24A: As far as alteration of the President's body goes, I believe that there’s there's- it's unquestionable that something was done to the president's throat. I interviewed Dr. Perry in 1978 and I showed him the autopsy photographs which he had never seen before, and he took a look at the throat wound in the photographs and he stood up at his desk and he was just shocked. He was silent for a moment, then he said ‘I didn't do that’, he said ‘that's a butchered job’. He said ‘I didn't do that’, and then he relived the entire tracheotomy, he stood up and he had his- what was supposed to be a- a scalpel in his hand and he showed doing it- doing the- the incision and said it was only about a little over an inch long he says- he just went on and on about why that couldn't have been what he had done. [...] PARKLAND DOCTOR MALCOLM PERRY DISAVOWS JAGGED THROAT WOUND The short and simple of this is that you are ignoring, and most often distorting, a helluva lot of evidence in order to maintain your confirmation bias that there was no body alteration, and that the autopsy (and especially the X-rays and photographs) are legit. I have seen ER doctors testify as to whether wounds were of entrance or exit during trials, particularly when the victim survived, and there was no need for an autopsy or pathologists. ER physicians qualify as expert witnesses and do in fact testify on these matters. Perhaps you have read studies that suggest this should not be the case, and perhaps you have not. We don't know because you have cited none, and as the result of finding many distortions, omissions, and falsifications in your research, I do not believe your claims about anything are credible. What we do know is that the Parkland doctors and nurses were seasoned professionals who worked in a busy metropolitan hospital and dealt with gunshot wounds on a daily basis, and such professionals acquire a great deal of expertise on these matters, which is not meaningless, as you are attempting to suggest. In particular, Dr. Malcom Perry was a highly respected surgeon, whom Dr. Charles Crenshaw in the following 1992 interview characterized as "an artist with a blade." You want to dismiss the expertise of the Parkland physicians because of your agenda dedicated to dismiss all of their testimony and reports in order to prove the existence of wounds they never saw, and to argue that the wounds they did see and report were just the product of a mass hallucination. It's just a modified version of the cover-up of the head wounds that the HSCA perpetrated, and it is unconscionable.

You seem to be unaware, or are failing to divulge, that it is well established by virtue of Secret Service agent Elmer Moore's confession to James Gochenaur that he had indeed pressured Dr. Perry, and had been ORDERED to do so by Inspector Kelly, as we can see Gochenaur describe in the following video at timemark 3:09, cued for you in advance via the following link: https://youtu.be/QRBaiNiyyqM?si=UO-V_pqn_7dJu4G_&t=189 Here's a summary of the transcript in 5 bullet points with timestamps: (00:00) During the evening of the assassination, Dr. Malcolm Perry was pressured by calls from Bethesda to change his opinion about JFK's throat wound from an entrance to an exit wound. (00:35) In his Warren Commission testimony, Dr. Perry retracted his original statement and was intimidated into changing his opinion. (01:09) Dr. Donald Miller, who later worked with Dr. Perry, recalls Perry privately admitting the wound was "unquestionably an entrance wound." (02:31) Secret Service agent Elmer Moore was reportedly responsible for pressuring Parkland doctors, including Perry, to change their testimonies about JFK's wounds. (03:13) In 1970, Moore admitted to a graduate student that he was ordered by SSA Inspector Kelly to convince Perry that the wound could be either an exit or entry wound, not just an entry wound. ______________ It only makes little sense to somebody who denies that there was a well-coordinated high level government conspiracy in motion from the very start... No, Perry always testified that it was an exit wound, to the Warren Commission, and to the HSCA, contradicting his first day reports that it was an entrance wound, while privately affirming, on several occasions over the years, that it was indeed an entrance wound. See the video above.

Secret Service agent Forrest Sorrels was in the developing room at the Dallas Eastman Kodak Company while the camera-original Zapruder film was being processed by "A shift" Kodak Production Supervisor John Kenny Anderson who indicated in his 6/28/1997 and 7/28/1997 telephone conversations with Roland Zavada, as well as in his 7/24/1997 letter to Roland Zavada, that the edge processing light was turned off at SSA Sorrels's request (See highlighted sentences of Anderson letter and Zavada notes memorializing phone conversations with Anderson below). John Kenny Anderson told Rollie Zavada during the 7/28/1997 phone call that he believed that SSA Forrest Sorrels "was disturbed by flashing edge light and requested it turned off," and Kodak "B shift" Production Supervisor Tom Nulty during a telephone conversation on 8/19/1997 with Zavada corroborated Anderson's account when he stated that he remembered "Kenny commenting to him that the Secret Service Agent did not like seeing the edge printer light flashing on-and-off and requested that it is turned off" (See Zavada's notes of 8/19/1997 telephone conversation with Tom Nulty below). This means that the indications of edge processing in the extant "original" Zapruder film would not be there if the film were the genuine camera-original film... As for your question of why SSA Forest Sorrels would "know an arcane detail of movie film processing to request that the edge printer be turned off," John Kenny Anderson told Roland Zavada during their 7/28/1997 telephone conversation that it was because the flashing light "disturbed" him. Sorrels was either disturbed by the flashing light due to it being a visual irritation in the dark room or was disturbed by the imagery of the Zapruder film that is visible in the dark room via the edge printer light. Sorrels could have been concerned about John Kenny Anderson viewing the Zapruder film during his criminal investigation of the Zapruder film (which may have been standard Secret Service practice concerning developing films in dark rooms), or Sorrels might just have been disturbed by the graphic imagery of the shooting. Thus, the Secret Service agent did not need to know any arcane details to request that the edge printer be turned off, the blinking edge printer light just disturbed him for whatever reason. The obvious explanation would be shortage of time and the unfamiliarity of the Hawkeyeworks technicians with the standard operating procedures of the Jamieson film company and the Dallas Kodak company. With regard to your question about why the extant "original" three first day copies would have been mistakenly bracketed (or as you described it, conveniently balanced between underexposure, normal exposure and overexposure) by the Hawkeyeworks technicians, one has to take into consideration that the only film in the possession of Hawkeyeworks was the camera-original Zapruder film, so they were unable to test the first day copies to determine whether bracketing had been employed by the Jamieson Film Company (meaning each film would have been exposed using a different light level), or whether all three films were exposed using the same light level setting. At pages 21-23 of STUDY 1 of the Zavada Report, Roland Zavada described these two options as follows: Scenario 1 - If Mr. Zapruder had requested three "good" copies of his original, the prudent approach would be to print "one light", i.e. all three prints with the (same) best choice of filter pack and printer light setting. If this scenario was followed, Secret Service Copy 1 and Secret Service copy 2 should be a close match. Scenario 2 - If Mr. Zapruder had requested one "good" copy of his original, and provided three customer Type A film rolls for print stock to achieve this objective, a printer "light-bracketing" approach could have been considered. The procedure would be to select an aim printing light level for the first print and then possibly expose a half stop over and under for the second and third prints while maintaining the chosen filter pack. This scenario could be the basis of the density differences seen, especially if the Life Magazine copy density falls in-between the two Secret Service copies, and would be my personal best guess of what happened. https://archive.org/details/ZavadaReport/page/n85/mode/2up With the three first day copies being in various locations on the weekend of the assassination, and not in the possession of Hawkeyeworks, the CIA photographic technicians at Hawkeyeworks were forced to guess which method of exposing the three first day copies was used by the Jamieson Film Company, and the CIA technicians made the wrong choice, which is why the extant "original" first day copies of today are bracketed, despite the fact that Bruce Jamieson insisted three consecutive times to Roland Zavada that the first day copies had not been bracketed. Mr. Balch, the issue from my previous posts that you have ignored, which I believe to be one of the most compelling mistakes made by the Hawkeyeworks technicians on the weekend of the assassination which indicates alteration of the camera-original Zapruder film, is that the registration number 0183 was perforated onto the end of side A (the family scenes) of the extant "original" Zapruder film instead of at the end of side B (the assassination sequence), despite the fact that Eastmond Kodak Production Supervisor Paul Chamberlain and Jamieson Film Company Laboratory Manager Frank Sloan both signed sworn affidavits on the day of the assassination attesting that registration number 0183 had been perforated at the end of side B of the film, pursuant to the standard operating procedures at the Kodak plant in Dallas in 1963. While addressing this issue, Doug Horne also addressed your question about why the CIA Hawkeyeworks technicians would make all of these mistakes, as follows: In my view, the missing punched number 0183 which should be attached to the tails end of the extant film, and the atypical (and inconsistent) placement of the printed through 0183 and the punched 0186 in the 'first generation' copies, together suggest careless handling by the film's forgers at the CIA's "Hawkeye Plant" at Rochester, on Sunday, November 24, 1963. It cannot be doubted that a new 'original' was created at the "Hawkeye Plant" if Homer McMahon was correct about making enlargements from a 16 mm wide, unslit "original” Zapruder film Sunday evening at NPIC, following Dino Brugioni's processing of the true original, slit 8 mm Zapruder film on Saturday evening at NPIC, the previous night. If Brugioni handled the true camera original, 8 mm slit Zapruder film on Saturday night (which is consistent with the reports at Kodak that the original film was slit and then viewed as an 8 mm film in Dallas after the Jamieson dupes were developed successfully), and if Homer McMahon handled an unslit, 16 mm wide 'original' Zapruder film the next evening, then by definition the second film processed at NPIC, on Sunday night, had to be a forgery created at Rochester. A film cannot change overnight from a slit condition, where it is projected in an 8 mm projector, to an unslit condition, in which it is suddenly 16 mm wide again, contains opposing image strips, and is projected using an installed 16 mm projector in a briefing room. To the skeptic who says: 'Why would forgers be so careless with where they placed the punched identification numbers?' I say this: 'Why do any criminals leave clues after they commit a crime?' The obvious answer is: 'Because everyone makes mistakes,' and just as in the case of the medical coverup at Bethesda, numerous mistakes were made by the forgers at the "Hawkeye Plant," who were undoubtedly more concerned with image content issues and with edge print issues than they were with establishing the future provenance of the film through examination of punched identification numbers. (Time was very limited for the forgers.) Like all criminals, the forgers made mistakes, and like all forgeries, this one--of the Zapruder film--was detectable, and indeed, has now been detected. There are too many anomalies with the processing of the Zapruder film alone, for a reasonable person to subscribe to a benign explanation for all of them. Horne, Douglas. P. (2009). Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, Volume IV (4 of 5): The U. S. government’s final attempt to reconcile the conflicting medical evidence in the assassination of JFK: (pp. 1272-1277). In conclusion, I leave you with the sworn affidavits of Eastmond Kodak Production Supervisor Paul Chamberlain and Jamieson Film Company Laboratory Manager Frank Sloan both attesting that registration number 0183 had been perforated at the end of side B of the film, pursuant to the standard operating procedures at the Kodak plant in Dallas in 1963. This is same day sworn testimony from officials at both Eastman Kodak and Jamieson Film Labs, and as such, cannot be dismissed as old memories stated many years after the fact. It is powerful and compelling evidence that the extant "original" Zapruder film is an altered duplicate of the camera-original Zapruder film which trumps the rationalized conclusions about the matter made by Rollie Zavada thirty-four years later which were based on the altered extant "original" film and three first day copies themselves. These films are not the first day originals. ____________ 11/22/1963 SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY PRODUCTION SUPERVISOR PAUL M. CHAMBERLAIN, JR., SWEARING UNDER PAINS AND PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT REGISTRATION NUMBER 0183 WAS PERFORATED AT THE END ( SIDE B ) OF THE CAMERA-ORIGINAL ZAPRUDER FILM ON THE EVENING OF THE ASSASSINATION. IN CONTRAST, REGISTRATION NUMBER 0183 WAS PERFORATED AT THE END OF THE FAMILY SCENES ( SIDE A ) OF THE EXTANT "ORIGINAL" ZAPRUDER FILM CURRENTLY STORED AT THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES, BASED UPON THE IMAGES OF THE 0183 REGISTRATION NUMBER ON THE PURPORTED FIRST DAY COPIES (AS THE 0183 REGISTRATION NUMBER IS NOT PRESENT ON THE EXTANT FILM BECAUSE THE HOME MOVIE SIDE OF THE EXTANT FILM IS MISSING). THUS AND THEREFORE, THE EXTANT "ORIGINAL" ZAPRUDER FILM MUST NECESSARILY BE FRAUDULENT. ____________ 11/22/1963 SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF JAMIESON FILM COMPANY LABORATORY MANAGER FRANK R. SLOAN SWEARING UNDER PAINS AND PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT REGISTRATION NUMBER 0183 WAS PERFORATED AT THE END ( SIDE B ) OF THE CAMERA-ORIGINAL ZAPRUDER FILM ON THE EVENING OF THE ASSASSINATION. IN CONTRAST, REGISTRATION NUMBER 0183 WAS PERFORATED AT THE END OF THE FAMILY SCENES ( SIDE A ) OF THE EXTANT "ORIGINAL" ZAPRUDER FILM CURRENTLY STORED AT THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES, BASED UPON THE IMAGES OF THE 0183 REGISTRATION NUMBER ON THE PURPORTED FIRST DAY COPIES (AS THE 0183 REGISTRATION NUMBER IS NOT PRESENT ON THE EXTANT FILM BECAUSE THE HOME MOVIE SIDE OF THE EXTANT FILM IS MISSING). THUS AND THEREFORE, THE EXTANT "ORIGINAL" ZAPRUDER FILM MUST NECESSARILY BE FRAUDULENT. ____________ 6/28/1997 NOTATION OF ROLAND ZAVADA OF HIS TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH FORMER EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY PROCESSING FOREMAN TOM NULTY WHO TOLD ZAVADA THAT IT WAS HIS RECOLLECTION THAT THE CAMERA-ORIGINAL ZAPRUDER FILM "RECEIVED HANDLING SIMILAR TO CUSTOMER FILMS" ON THE EVENING OF THE ASSASSINATION, THUS PLACING IN QUESTION ZAVADA'S THEORY THAT REGISTRATION NUMBER 0183 WAS PERFORATED ONTO THE END OF THE HOME MOVIE SEQUENCE ( SIDE A ) RATHER THAN THE END OF THE ASSASSINATION SEQUENCE ( SIDE B ), THEREBY DEPARTING FROM KODAK'S STANDARD AND CUSTOMARY PRACTICES, BECAUSE THE FILM WAS "SPECIALLY" PROCESSED. THUS AND THEREFORE, WHEN CONSIDERED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE EVIDENCE ABOVE, THE EXTANT "ORIGINAL" ZAPRUDER FILM MUST NECESSARILY BE FRAUDULENT.

In the following excerpt from his autobiography, Constitutional law attorney Danny Sheehan tells the story of how in 1973, after he was recruited by F. Lee Bailey to assist in the representation of Watergate burglar James McCord, he learned that F. Lee Bailey had come to represent McCord due to being on 'Index Four,' a highly classified list of four accomplished American criminal defense attor­neys who had been covertly retained by the Central Intelligence Agency to defend active agents of the CIA if they were ever arrested in the midst of conducting a CIA covert operation inside the United States. In that context, Sheehan was exposed to the highly confidential attorney-client privileged account of mafia don, Santo Trafficante, detailing the origins of the S-Force, a CIA trained and funded assassination squad formed to kill Fidel Castro and his top lieutenants. According to Sheehan, Trafficante indicated it had been Richard Nixon, while serving as Vice-President in 1960, who had initiated the creation of the S-Force, which was later redeployed to assassinate President Kennedy; and due to DNC Chairman, Larry O'Brian's, close association with Robert Mayheu -- who had performed an integral role originally assembling the S-Force -- Richard Nixon in 1972 suspected that the Democratic National Committee possessed and intended to put to political use information revealing Nixon's role in the creation of the team that would ultimately assassinate President Kennedy, and that it was Nixon's desire to collect intelligence about this that served as his true motivation for ordering the Watergate break-in. From Danny Sheehan's autobiography, "The People's Advocate": "...It took [Bill Taylor, Sheehan's investigator] two days to get back to me. I was in the conference room at the Gold Key Motel, at a briefing of Kenneth Michael Robinson, the new attorney Lee had retained to represent Glenn W. Turner so I could work on the Watergate case. Bill came quietly into the back of the room and worked his way over to me. He asked me to step outside to speak with him. Bill told me that he had spoken the night before with Andy Tunney to get Andy to tell us what was going on behind the scenes in our Watergate burglary case. Andy had said to Bill, "You two boys are nice boys. You don't want to get involved in something like this." Bill had pushed back, insisting that we really wanted to know what was going on-that we needed to know-because Lee had assigned us to work on the case. But Andy had refused to budge. "You two boys should just get out of Dodge," he said, even going so far as to suggest that Bill and I should consider leaving Bailey's firm entirely, to avoid becoming involved in "something like this." But he wouldn't tell Bill what the "this" was all about. Bill persisted and finally got Andy to go out for a few drinks with him, knowing that that would loosen Andy up. They went to a bar far enough away that neither of them would be recognized, and Bill began buying Andy drinks. Then he started asking Andy, again, to tell him what he knew about the Watergate case. Bill told me that Andy was on the brink of tears, pleading for Bill to stop asking him what was really going on in the case. But after another couple of drinks, Andy finally began to open up. Andrew J. Tunney, the former commander of the Massachusetts State Police Special Task Force on the Boston Strangler, told Bill Taylor, on the night of May 26, 1973, that F. Lee Bailey was on “Index 4." Bill and I had never heard of Index 4 before. Andy explained to Bill that Index 4 was a highly classified list of four accomplished American criminal defense attor­neys who had been covertly retained by the Central Intelligence Agency to defend active agents of the CIA if they were ever arrested in the midst of conducting a CIA covert operation inside the United States. Two of the other attorneys on Index 4 were Edward Bennett Williams and Henry Rothblatt. Rothblatt in fact ended up representing Watergate burglary co-conspirators Frank Sturgis, Virgilio Gonzales, Eugenio Martinez, and Bernard Barker­ all of whom had histories of working directly for the CIA. I was shocked because it was-and still is-totally illegal for agents of the Central Intelligence Agency to engage in any form of covert operation inside the United States. Such action is expressly prohibited by the National Security Act of 1947, pursuant to which the CIA was created on July 26, 1947.1 was also shocked that Lee would have agreed to this without informing any of his associates in the firm. And finally, I was shocked to be confronted by the very real possibility that our firm's representation of James McCord might therefore, indeed, be some kind of covert operation itself, and that we were unknowingly being dragged into such a covert operation without ever having been informed of this fact by Lee. Andy then told Bill that when Lee had been contacted to represent James McCord, he had reached out to Santo Trafficante, the don of the Mafia in southern Florida, who was also the don in Cuba. As I would later learn, Trafficante was also a CIA asset, so Lee was convinced that Trafficante would be able to brief him on what was actually going on behind the scenes in the Watergate case. I remember being especially surprised when Bill told me this because neither Bill nor I had any idea that Lee had a line of com­munication to Santo Trafficante. We also had no idea why Lee had reason to expect that Trafficante, an organized crime figure of that magnitude, would know anything about the Watergate break-in, or that Trafficante would, in any event, have had any reason to agree to brief Lee Bailey about whatever he did know. Bill had asked Andy about this and was told that Lee Bailey was, in fact, Santo Trafficante's principal criminal defense attorney. Henry "Hank" Gonzales of Florida, who held himself out to the public to be Trafficante's principal criminal defense attorney, was nothing more than a front, disguising the fact that Bailey was the real attorney for Trafficante­ and therefore for the Mafia. Both Bill and I knew that Lee was the attorney for the Angiulo Brothers, a major Italian Mafia family in the North End of Boston. But this was the first time either of us had heard anything of this magnitude about Lee. Andy explained to Bill that, in fact, he was the person Lee had assigned to debrief Santo Trafficante about the Watergate burglary. This was surprising because 1 thought, at the time, that Lee would have wanted as few people as possible to know whatever it was Trafficante was willing to say about that. I remember wondering why Lee would not have wanted to debrief Trafficante himself. We later learned the reason: Andy had lived in Henry Gonzales's guest house in Miami for months and had become personally familiar with Trafficante during that time. Andy had kept this a secret, for obvious reasons. He didn't want anybody to know that he even knew Santo Trafficante. All these revelations were a total surprise to me, but that wasn't the most important or alarming information that Andy told Bill that night. The following is a summary of what Trafficante told Andy in 1972 about the Watergate break-in. Santo Trafficante, Andy said, knew all about what had happened in the Watergate burglary because the anti-Castro Cuban types involved in the burglary-Bernard Barker and Frank Sturgis were both direct former mob associates of Trafficante in his capacity as the don of the Mafia in Havana. Trafficante had remained very dose to these men after they had fled Cuba together when Castro took control in January of 1959. Trafficante's close relationship with these anti-Castro Cubans had continued even when these men became operatives of the CIA in Miami, working on a secret project code-named Operation 40, designed by the CIA to undermine the stability of the new Cuban revolutionary government. Trafficante had maintained contact with the anti-Castro Cubans who had fled with him, particularly with Bernard Barker when he went to work for E. Howard Hunt in 1971, when Hunt operated directly out of the White House. Santo Trafficante had told Andy, during this debriefing in 1972 following the burglary, that two of the Watergate codefendants, Frank Sturgis and E. Howard Hunt, who had helped plan and supervise the Watergate break-ins, were former CIA "case officers" for Barker, Gonzales, Martinez, and dozens of other former Trafficante Cuban Mafia associates from Havana who had fled Cuba with Trafficante in January 1959. Some of these former Trafficante associates had become covert operatives in that same Operation 40. However, Trafficante then told Andy that he had personally recruited a dozen former anti-Castro Cuban Mafia associates, who had earlier been recruited as members of Operation 40 by the CIA, to become members of a team to assassinate Fidel Castro, Raul Castro, Che Guevara, and five other leaders of the Cuban revolutionary government. This select group was codenamed the S-Force by Trafficante. He told Andy that the S-Force had been organized in July 1960 by then Vice President Richard Nixon. During his eight years as vice president, Nixon had been the chairman of the 5412 Committee of the National Security Council, which oversaw all covert operations of the U.S. government. As chairman of the 5412 Committee, Nixon had developed a close personal relationship with bil­lionaire Howard Hughes, who had become a "special consultant" to the National Security Council. Hughes created a business called the Summa Corporation that produced clandestine technology, such as the Glomar Explorer for the NSC, which could pick crashed Russian submarines off the bottom of the ocean so that Russian technology could be analyzed and the all-important codebooks in any such Russian submarine could be recovered from the submarine. According to Trafficante, once Nixon was confident he was going to secure the Republican Party nomination for the presidency in July 1960, he called Howard Hughes on the ultra-secure phone through which Nixon and Hughes communicated and said that he wanted Hughes to set up a team to assassinate Fidel Castro and other leaders of the new Cuban government. Nixon solicited Hughes's help to get this done in a manner that would keep the responsibility for such an operation completely away from the White House. Trafficante informed Andy that Hughes turned that task over to one of his new attorneys, a former FBI agent by the name of Robert Maheu. Maheu then reached out to Johnny Roselli, the liaison in Las Vegas for Mafia boss Sam Giancana of Chicago. Johnny Roselli was Giancana's "bag man" in Vegas for Giancana's casinos. Maheu explained to Rosselli that it was Richard Nixon who wanted this done, but Maheu raised the fact that Castro had shut down all the Mafia's gambling casinos and prostitution houses in Cuba and had shut off the all-important supply of heroin coming through Cuba from Southeast Asia. So the Mafia had its own reasons for wanting to get rid of Castro. After hearing Maheau’s proposal for the creation of this assassination team, Roselli had flown back to Chicago and set forth this request from Nixon to Sam Giancana. Giancana said that any decision like that was within Santo Trafficante's jurisdiction within the Familia. Even though Trafficante had left Cuba, he was still the Mafia boss of Havana, so Trafficante had to be the one to make such a decision. So Giancana, Roselli, and Maheu all flew down to Miami and had three strategic meetings with Santo Trafficante in July 1960 at the Fontainebleau Hotel. During the second of these three meetings, they agreed in principle that they were open to doing "this thing," but Trafficante wanted to be absolutely certain that the direction was coming from Nixon himself and that a decision of this magnitude was not simply some pipe­ dream on the part of Maheu or Howard Hughes. So Trafficante had insisted on receiving some kind of direct signal from Nixon himself for confirmation. So, when they convened their third meeting, a man who used the nom de guerre of Mr. Ed joined them. This man, according to Trafficante, was Sheffield Edwards, the chief of security of the Central Intelligence Agency under Richard Nixon. Trafficante told Andy that Sheffield Edwards personally gave him the green light to go forward with this project, which satisfied Trafficante, who agreed to move forward and do what Nixon had asked. However, Trafficante, being the wise guy that he was, wanted to use his old gunmen who had now been recruited to work for the Central Intelligence Agency to make up this special assassination team. That way, if his gunmen were caught, the trail would lead straight back to the CIA, and the agency would then have to step in and help cover up the involvement of the team. So Trafficante selected fifteen men from among his former Cuban gunmen who were then working for the CIA in Operation 40. To finance that team, Trafficante and the Mafia skimmed cash off casinos in Las Vegas. They drove the cash all the way to Miami, where it was deposited into the Miami National Bank, owned by Meyer Lansky. The fifteen men were periodically picked up by a private plane from paramilitary bases throughout the Southeast and flown directly to Fort Huachuca in Arizona. They would "sign in" there but then would immediately disappear. Trafficante said these fifteen men were flown directly from Fort Huachuca down to Oaxaca, Mexico, to a large private ranch owned by Clint Murchison Jr., who owned the Dallas Texans professional football team. At the ranch in Oaxaca, these men were trained in triangular fue team assassination techniques using high-powered rifles. Funds from the Las Vegas skim that had been deposited into the Miami National Bank were wired from the Miami National Bank to the International Credit Bank in Geneva, Switzerland, and from there to Banco Internationale in Mexico City. The account in Mexico City was handled by an attorney named Manuel Ogarrio, and money drawn from that account financed the private planes, equipment, and additional expenses of the S-Force. However, Richard Nixon had not been elected in November of 1960, as he and all of his associates in this assassination enterprise had assumed he would be. Instead, John F. Kennedy had been elected. But the S-Force was continued, since it had now been established to run independently from the White House-or from any other official government agency. It did, however, have CIA "handlers" made up of its former CIA trainers. By the spring of 1972, Howard Hughes had become a veritable vegetable, with long fingernails and hair down his back, and a power struggle for control broke out inside his empire. Lawrence O'Brien, his longtime D.C. lobbyist evidently lost this power struggle. Within weeks of leaving the Hughes organization, O'Brien was named head of the Democratic National Committee. Nixon became terrified that Larry O'Brien, in his capacity as chief lobbyist for Howard Hughes for so many years, might have come to know about Nixon's direct involvement in putting together the S-Force assassination team, which essentially combined elements of organized crime, the anti-Castro Cuban exile community in Miami, and the CIA. Nixon felt that the public revelation of his direct involvement with that team was the only thing that could generate any conceivable possibility that he might lose the upcoming presidential election to George McGovern, and he wanted to find out what Larry O'Brien knew about this very sensitive issue. Barker, Gonzales, Martinez, and Sturgis were therefore personally selected by Nixon to burglarize the Democratic national headquarters, because they already knew about Nixon's involvement. The Watergate burglary operation was to be run by E. Howard Hunt because he had been the CIA liaison officers who had overseen and coordinated the activities of the S-Force--so they too knew about Nixon's involvement in that sensi­tive operation. To put in the wiretaps, however, they had had to secure the expertise of a former CIA specialist in that field: James McCord. Nixon then ordered the Watergate burglars to go into Larry O'Brien's office in the Watergate building, wiretap his telephones, and search for documents that might reveal the fact that O'Brien knew about Nixon's involvement in creat­ing the S-Force. DNC headquarters in the Watergate Hotel' had in fact been burglarized more than once by that team. The wiretaps and bugs were first placed in late May. But one of those wiretaps had stopped working, so on June 17, when the team went in to replace that wiretap and to photograph documents, they were caught red-handed by a night watchman. Hunt and one G. Gordon Liddy (a high-risk-taking former FBI agent who had become part of the White House "Plumbers' Unit"), who were outside on radios, were arrested later. On June 23rd, within one week of the break-in, Nixon got word that Patrick L. Gray, the new director of the FBI, was being pressured by other high-level FBI officials to investigate the origins of a check found in Bernard Barker's sports jacket pocket when he was arrested inside the Watergate headquarters of the DNC. The check had been cleared through the very same bank account in Mexico City where funds had been previously directed to the S-Force. Gray was calling to find out whether an investigation of that bank account was going to cause any trouble for the White House. When Nixon learned of Gray's inquiry, he ordered his White House chief of staff, H. R. (Bob) Haldeman, to go with John Ehrlichman over to the CIA and to tell Richard Helms and Vernon A. Walters, the director and deputy director of the agency, that if they didn't get the FBI out of that particular investiga­tion immediately, all "the Mexico stuff about the Bay of Pigs guys" could come out. That was the famous "smoking gun conversation" that resulted in the House Judiciary Committee's returning an article of impeachment against Richard Nixon for obstruction of justice. However, when Bob Haldeman and John Ehrlichman went over to the CIA and personally delivered that message, Richard Helms became furious. Still, he called Patrick L. Gray that very afternoon and ordered the FBI to stand down from that part of the investigation. Pat Gray then refused to authorize FBI deputy director Mark Felt to go down to Mexico City to investigate the Ogarrio bank account. After Bill Taylor's meeting with Andy Tunney, in which Andy conveyed all the politics and corruption behind the Watergate scandal, neither I nor Bill Taylor had any difficulty in deciding that Lee Bailey's firm was not the place for us. However, I still had to return to Bailey's office in Boston. As soon as I arrived, Lee called me in to see him. When I stepped into his office, he was all smiles. "I understand you were out in South Dakota for your short vacation, at that occupation thing going on out there. Is that right?" "Yes, I was," I replied. "Well, which side of it were you on?" I was puzzled by Lee's question. "Well, actually, I wasn't on either side." I told him that I was there on behalf of the ACLU and one of my good law school friends. Lee wrinkled his brow. "Well, like what, for example, were you doing for them?" Trying to put a moderate spin on what Joe and I were doing for the ACLU and AIM, I explained some of the negotiations that had been conducted with FBI and ATF officers on the site near Wounded Knee about getting food and medical supplies to the natives occupying the village. After a few additional exchanges, during which Lee seemed to grow more and more frustrated with my answers, he finally said, "Jesus! Why weren't you more directly involved in helping the FBI or the Justice Department officials out there? At least that way you could have been earning some goodwill for our office there that we could translate later into helping get a better plea bargain or other deal for one of our clients." We were like two ships passing in the night. Here I was, trying to get F. Lee Bailey, the most famous and most accomplished criminal defense attorney in our country, to open himself up to doing something in the public interest realm. And there was Lee Bailey, trying to see how he could extract from a historical tragedy and from an avalanche of personal suffering being heaped upon the Native American people of our country some short-term advantage that might enable him to make a further hundred grand getting some gangster a lighter sentence. That was it for me. I proceeded to press Lee on why he was a lawyer at all. What was it he hoped to accomplish by doing what he did, and why didn't he seem to be more interested in justice or truth? But when I asked him these questions, he was genuinely puzzled. It was hard to believe, but he didn't seem to understand what I was even talking about. He then launched into what seemed to me to be an almost rehearsed rant about why it wasn't up to us, as lawyers, to determine what was true or not true. That was up to a jury. "My job," he said, "my responsibility is to do everything I possibly can-everything that I can get away with-to get my guy off. That's my job. That's what I get paid to do. And I am paid pretty goddamned well too," he pointed out. "And I do it pretty goddamned well-better than anybody else, to hear some people tell it." There it was-the absolute relativist! I knew I was done working for F. Lee Bailey...." In a very recent interview, published 8/22/2024, Danny Sheehan discussed what he learned about Watergate from Santo Trafficante (starting at 38:15 of the video) : Here's a summary of the key points from the transcript in 5 bullet points: The assassination of JFK was carried out by a 15-man "S Force" originally created by Richard Nixon in 1960 to target Fidel Castro and other Cuban leaders. This force was later repurposed to assassinate Kennedy when he planned to dismantle nuclear warheads with Khrushchev. The Watergate break-in was connected to the JFK assassination. The burglars included members of the S Force, and Nixon was paranoid about information on the assassination team being exposed through the Democratic National Committee. Brown Brothers Harriman, an investment firm, played a significant role in establishing the CIA and had connections to both World Wars and the rise of Nazi Germany. They were part of a powerful group of "robber barons" influencing U.S. policy. The MK-Ultra program, run by the CIA, experimented with LSD and other methods for interrogation and potentially creating "programmable" killers. This program had connections to high-profile cases like Charles Manson and possibly Sirhan Sirhan. The motivations behind Watergate were complex, involving Nixon's paranoia about the JFK assassination being exposed, personal vendettas within the FBI, and CIA operatives feeling betrayed. The scandal ultimately led to Nixon's downfall.

No, I just see behind the facade, that's all.

Pat Speer's conception of the large head wound: Versus reality:

The obvious explanation would be shortage of time and the unfamiliarity of the Hawkeyeworks technicians with the standard operating procedures of the Jamieson film company and the Dallas Kodak company. A series of additional mistakes like this were made. In addition to the bracketing mistake, there is edge-printing on the "original" film when there shouldn't be because Secret Service agent Forrest Sorrels, who was in the Eastmond Kodak Company dark room in Dallas, insisted that the technicians leave the edge-printer light off (See following letter received from J. Kenny Anderson about his recollection of events related to the processing of the Zapruder films - in response to Zavada's June 29, 1997 letter and telephone request for information; and following Zavada compendious notes of telephone conversations with former Dallas Laboratory processing personnel J. Kenny Anderson and Tom Nulty): https://www.jfk-info.com/zat1-13.pdf https://www.jfk-info.com/zat1-14.pdf The septum line seen in the intersprocket area of the extant "original" Zapruder film is inexplicably wide, and Rollie Zavada could not replicate this septum line through empirical testing (See Study 3 of Zavada Report): https://archive.org/details/ZavadaReport/page/n81/mode/2up And there are many problems with the registration numbers -- 0183 for the "original," and 0185, 0186 and 0187 for the first day copies. The actual perforated number 0183 is not today physically present on the extant "original" Zapruder film because side A of the "original" (containing the Zapruder family scenes) is missing from the "original" film at the Archives, but there are images of the 0183 registration number on the first day copies indicating that the perforated number was at the end of side A of the "original" film. However, Eastmond Kodak Production Supervisor Paul Chamberlain and Jamieson Film Company Laboratory Manager Frank Sloan both signed sworn affidavits on the day of the assassination attesting that registration number 0183 had been perforated at the end of side B of the film (containing the assassination sequence), which was standard operating procedure at the Kodak plant in Dallas in 1963. You can find my more extensive analysis of this particular issue in an earlier post on this thread as follows: ____________ 11/22/1963 SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY PRODUCTION SUPERVISOR PAUL M. CHAMBERLAIN, JR., SWEARING UNDER PAINS AND PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT REGISTRATION NUMBER 0183 WAS PERFORATED AT THE END ( SIDE B ) OF THE CAMERA-ORIGINAL ZAPRUDER FILM ON THE EVENING OF THE ASSASSINATION. IN CONTRAST, REGISTRATION NUMBER 0183 WAS PERFORATED AT THE END OF THE FAMILY SCENES ( SIDE A ) OF THE EXTANT "ORIGINAL" ZAPRUDER FILM CURRENTLY STORED AT THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES, BASED UPON THE IMAGES OF THE 0183 REGISTRATION NUMBER ON THE PURPORTED FIRST DAY COPIES (AS THE 0183 REGISTRATION NUMBER IS NOT PRESENT ON THE EXTANT FILM BECAUSE THE HOME MOVIE SIDE OF THE EXTANT FILM IS MISSING). THUS AND THEREFORE, THE EXTANT "ORIGINAL" ZAPRUDER FILM MUST NECESSARILY BE FRAUDULENT. ____________ 11/22/1963 SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF JAMIESON FILM COMPANY LABORATORY MANAGER FRANK R. SLOAN SWEARING UNDER PAINS AND PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT REGISTRATION NUMBER 0183 WAS PERFORATED AT THE END ( SIDE B ) OF THE CAMERA-ORIGINAL ZAPRUDER FILM ON THE EVENING OF THE ASSASSINATION. IN CONTRAST, REGISTRATION NUMBER 0183 WAS PERFORATED AT THE END OF THE FAMILY SCENES ( SIDE A ) OF THE EXTANT "ORIGINAL" ZAPRUDER FILM CURRENTLY STORED AT THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES, BASED UPON THE IMAGES OF THE 0183 REGISTRATION NUMBER ON THE PURPORTED FIRST DAY COPIES (AS THE 0183 REGISTRATION NUMBER IS NOT PRESENT ON THE EXTANT FILM BECAUSE THE HOME MOVIE SIDE OF THE EXTANT FILM IS MISSING). THUS AND THEREFORE, THE EXTANT "ORIGINAL" ZAPRUDER FILM MUST NECESSARILY BE FRAUDULENT. ____________ 6/28/1997 NOTATION OF ROLAND ZAVADA OF HIS TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH FORMER EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY PROCESSING FOREMAN TOM NULTY WHO TOLD ZAVADA THAT IT WAS HIS RECOLLECTION THAT THE CAMERA-ORIGINAL ZAPRUDER FILM "RECEIVED HANDLING SIMILAR TO CUSTOMER FILMS" ON THE EVENING OF THE ASSASSINATION, THUS PLACING IN QUESTION ZAVADA'S THEORY THAT REGISTRATION NUMBER 0183 WAS PERFORATED ONTO THE END OF THE HOME MOVIE SEQUENCE ( SIDE A ) RATHER THAN THE END OF THE ASSASSINATION SEQUENCE ( SIDE B ), THEREBY DEPARTING FROM KODAK'S STANDARD AND CUSTOMARY PRACTICES, BECAUSE THE FILM WAS "SPECIALLY" PROCESSED. THUS AND THEREFORE, WHEN CONSIDERED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE EVIDENCE ABOVE, THE EXTANT "ORIGINAL" ZAPRUDER FILM MUST NECESSARILY BE FRAUDULENT. Additionally, based upon the 1997 inspection of Secret Service copies 1 and 2 (which are 2 of the 3 first day copies) that were conducted by Roland Zavada and Doug Horne at the National Archives (See following tabulated description of Zapruder film copies at National Archives, March 31, 1997, draft by D. Horne), only Secret Service copy 2 is perforated with registration number 0186, and the registration number is missing from Secret Service copy number 1. Moreover, if Roland Zavada's bracketing hypothesis is correct, the registration numbers on Secret Service copies 1 and 2 should be 0185 and 0187, because Abraham Zapruder, based upon the Zavada hypothesis is presumed to have kept the first day copy that was exposed in between the two other films, which should therefore be the first day copy with registration number 0186, yet 0186 is perforated onto Secret Service copy 2 at the Archives. https://www.jfk-info.com/zat1-1d.pdf Rollie Zavada was able to inspect the first day copy that Abraham Zapruder had retained when the LMH company (the holding company LIFE had formed to exercise ownership over the Zapruder films and materials in its possession) turned it over to the Sixth Floor Museum in 1999, and Zavada discovered that, like Secret Service copy 1 at the Archives, there is no registration number perforated into the LMH copy. The basis of the identification of the LMH copy and Secret Service copy 1 as two of the first day copies is the appearance of the images of the registration number 0183 on them, but again, the images demonstrate that 0183 was perforated at the end of side A of the "original" film, and not at the end of side B where the Kodak and Jamieson technicians swore under oath on the day of the assassination that registration number 0183 was perforated into the camera-original Zapruder film. All of these differences between the camera-original film and three first day copies, as they existed on the day of the assassination, as described by the Eastmond Kodak and Jamieson Film Company technicians who exposed and developed the films on 11/22/1963, indicate to me that the duplicates of all of those films that are at the National Archives and the Sixth Floor Museum today are flawed due to the shortage of time the Hawkeyeworks technicians had to reproduce the films, as well as their apparent unfamiliarity with the standard operating procedures of the Dallas Kodak plant and the Jamieson Film Company. We owe a great debt of gratitude to Doug Horne, and more reluctantly to Roland Zavada, for doing an outstanding job during the ARRB Zapruder film study documenting the technical details which expose the differences between the actual original films as they existed on 11/22/1963, and the extant "originals" that were duplicated at Hawkeyeworks soon thereafter. Had these precise technical details not been documented, it would have been impossible to differentiate the extant films from the actual originals which preceded them, which is exactly what the elements of the United States Government responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy and the ensuing cover-up were counting on.

Does the following work better for you? Mr. Bojczuk’s Speculation Mr. Bojczuk reiterates the speculation of Kodak chemist Roland Zavada, who conducted the ARRB’s Zapruder film study. Zavada suggests that the density variations in the three alleged first day copies of the Zapruder film are due to “bracketing,” a contact printer procedure in which multiple exposures are made at different settings. Zavada’s Analysis Zavada’s analysis was based on density differences between the two first day Secret Service copies of the Zapruder film. In December 1999, the LMH Company (Time-Life’s Zapruder film materials ownership shell corporation) allowed Zavada to inspect the third first day copy purchased by LIFE in 1963. Zavada’s examination led him to conclude: All three films had different densities, with the LMH Co. copy in-between the two Secret Service copies. Criticisms of Zavada’s Analysis Harrison Livingstone expressed skepticism towards Zavada’s analysis, suggesting alternative explanations for the density differences. However, critics such as Doug Horne support Zavada’s bracketing hypothesis based on the density differences. Horne disputes that the three first day copies examined by Zavada are the original copies, citing Bruce Jamieson’s initial statements, the owner of the company that performed the contact printing of the three copies on the day of the assassination. Horne’s Concerns In a letter to Harrison Livingstone dated February 4, 1998, Bruce Jamieson initially stated that his company did not bracket the three duplicate exposures run off on November 22, 1963, for Mr. Zapruder from the unslit camera original film. However, in a May 26, 1999 correspondence to Livingstone, Jamieson expressed a change of opinion. Horne believes this change was the result of Zavada’s lobbying efforts, which he views as problematic for the following reasons: Zavada persuaded Bruce Jamieson, after the fact, to change his mind about the procedures followed at his lab the day of the assassination, based solely on Zavada’s observation of density differences in the ‘first generation’ copies. Bruce Jamieson’s initial recollections about procedures were more authoritative than his subsequent statements, which were influenced by Zavada’s questioning. Zavada’s Correspondence with Jamieson Horne provides excerpts from correspondence between Zavada and Jamieson that reveal Jamieson’s initial recollections in 1997 expressing doubt about any intentional change in exposure during the duplication process. However, in subsequent correspondence, Jamieson wavered in his position, ultimately offering a hypothetical scenario that accommodated Zavada’s bracketing hypothesis. Horne argues that Jamieson’s hypothetical scenario is not credible and suggests that the ‘first day copies’ we have today are not the ones made by the Jamieson lab on the day of the assassination. Horne’s Hypothesis Horne proposes an alternative hypothesis: The three ‘first day’ copies are indeed ‘bracketed,’ but since Mr. Bruce Jamieson’s initial strong recollection was that his laboratory personnel did not bracket the three duplicates, we can conclude that the three bracketed duplicates we have in evidence today are not the ‘first day copies’ made from the camera original film on the day of the assassination. Implications of Horne’s Hypothesis If Horne’s hypothesis is correct, it implies an altered ‘original’ film was created the weekend of the assassination, and substitute duplicates were made from this altered ‘original.’ The altered ‘original’ and the best quality print of the three bracketed duplicates would likely have gone directly to LIFE magazine on Monday, November 25th, and the true ‘first day copies’ would have been removed from circulation no later than the close of business that day. Therefore, Horne's hypothesis raises serious questions about the authenticity and integrity of the Zapruder film copies that have been studied and analyzed over the years. If his theory is accurate, it suggests a deliberate manipulation of the original film and the creation of substitute copies, potentially altering the historical record of the events surrounding President Kennedy's assassination. This revelation could have far-reaching implications for our understanding of this pivotal moment in American history.

A screenshot app would allow you to record footage and take screenshots, and you could post the footage on Youtube then post the YouTube videos. The screenshots you could post on a site such as Imgur (https://imgur.com/), and then post the links here without using any of your EdForum allotted memory space. I could walk you through it if you don't have experience doing those things... The key question is whether you are able to play the DVD on your computer in able to record the footage and screenshots. Windows has a good built in screenshot app, and there are many third party apps that can be downloaded. Top 10 Best Free Screenshot Software This Year: https://screenrec.com/screenshot-tool/best-free-screenshot-software/ 17 Best Free Screenshot Tools to Use [2024] Read more: https://www.movavi.com/learning-portal/best-free-screenshot-software.html

The Paul O'Connor signature appears to be consistent with the signature on this letter to Vince Palamara. As to your question about what remained of the head to support it in the stirrup, according to all accounts, the left side of the back of the head was intact, so it is that side of the head that is flush with the stirrup in the left profile autopsy photograph. The right side of the back of the head was missing, and although it is apparent that the right profile autopsy photograph has been staged to obscure that fact, the right side of the head in that photograph does not appear to be flush against the stirrup as it does in the left profile autopsy photograph: DOUG HORNE TO WILLIAM LAW FROM AT THE COLD SHOULDER OF HISTORY When we look at the autopsy photos in the collection today, two-thirds of that collection, I would say, just about all of the images except the back of the head and the open cranium view that is out of focus, that is, in all the images where we see the Bethesda towel with the blue stripe, and the metal head rest or stirrup, holding the head of the president while his body is lying supine on the examination table - in those images we are looking at the results of the radical, illicit, clandestine, post mortem cranial surgery. That is why the head wound is so large - you are actually looking at the results of a modified craniotomy done to gain access to the brain so that forensic evidence (bullet fragments and brain tissue) could be removed. In all of these photos JFK's head is resting in a metal stirrup so that you can't see the back of his head in the photos. This was an intentional subterfuge, and it did not require any visual special effects. All these "head in the stirrup" photos, it is clear to me, were taken immediately after the conclusion of the clandestine post mortem cranial surgery, and before the beginning of the "public autopsy." This is why no one present at the "public autopsy" remembers seeing such a metal head brace. For example, neither of the two Navy enlisted autopsy technicians who assisted Humes and Boswell with the autopsy from 8:00 PM until 11:00 PM - Paul O'Connor and James Jenkins - neither of them ever recalled it being used that night at the autopsy (or at any other time, for that matter). It was apparently used only for a quick ten minute photo shoot when very few people were present in the morgue, and then quickly disassembled. The photos taken with JFK's head in the U-shaped head brace, with the pristine towel underneath the head brace, are a con job, meant to persuade the viewer that the enormous damage he is seeing in the images was caused "by the assassin's bullet." The pristine towels are meant to convey the impression that the President's body has just arrived and has not yet been touched by the pathologists. Similarly, the autopsy sketch of the top of the skull made by Boswell on the reverse side of the body diagram (Autopsy Descriptive Sheet) is also a con job, made during the "public autopsy" as he sketched the head trauma supposedly caused by the "assassin's bullet" for posterity. You will note that although Humes said he destroyed - burned - autopsy notes to prevent any documents with blood on them from becoming objects of morbid curiosity, he most certainly did NOT destroy Boswell's sketch of the "head wound," which had blood stains all over it. Of course not! Boswell's drawing had to survive to provide support for the official cover story.

The three copies were made at three exposure settings: one at the presumed correct exposure, one at a slightly higher exposure setting (thus producing a slightly lighter image), and one at a slightly lower setting (producing a slightly darker image). The lightest copy would have lost some detail in its lighter areas compared to the other two copies, and the darker copy would have lost some detail in its darker areas compared to the other two copies. All three would have lost some detail compared to the original. @Kevin Balch and Mr. Bojczuk are here essentially repeating the speculation of Kodak chemist Roland Zavada -- who conducted the ARRB's Zapruder film study -- that the differences in density between the alleged three first day copies of the Zapruder film are the result of "bracketing," a term which denotes a contact printer procedure by which multiple exposures of a film are made at different exposure settings to allow a customer to select the best copy from multiple choices. In the context of the ARRB Zapruder film study, Zavada's speculation to this effect had been influenced by the observation of differences in density between the two first day Secret Service copies of the Zapruder film, and then in December of 1999, the LMH Company (the Time-Life shell corporation with ownership of LIFE's Zapruder film materials) allowed Zavada to inspect the third first day copy that had been purchased by LIFE in 1963, leading Zavada to conclude as follows in his February 2000 Addendum to his Zapruder film study: A side-by-side evaluation was made matching adjacent scene images of Secret Service Copy No. 1 and No. 2 and LMH Co. item No. 2 [the third first day copy]. All three films had different densities, with the LMH Co. copy in-between the two Secret Service copies. A good color version of Zavada's comparison of the film densities from his supplemental report is reproduced in Harrison Livingstone's Hoax of the Century: Livingstone, Harrison E. (2004). The Hoax of the Century; Decoding The Forgery of the Zapruder Film (p. 139): Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive. Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/hoaxofcenturydec0000harr/page/368/mode/2up?q=0183 Although Livingstone believed there were other adequate explanations for the differences in density between the first day copies, critics such as Doug Horne agree with Zavada's analysis that the differences in density support Zavada's conclusion that bracketing was employed during the contact printing of the three copies. What Horne disputes, however, is that the three first day copies compared by Zavada are in fact the original first day copies, an assertion Horne supports with the earliest statements of Bruce Jamieson, the owner of the Jamieson Film Company, which performed the contact printing of the three first copies the evening of the assassination. Horne cites Bruce Jamieson's letter to Harrison Livingstone dated February 4, 1998, as reproduced in Livingstone's Hoax of the Century: Livingstone, Harrison E. (2004). The Hoax of the Century; Decoding The Forgery of the Zapruder Film (pp.265-266): Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive. Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/hoaxofcenturydec0000harr/page/368/mode/2up?q=0183 At the bottom half of page 266 of Livingstone's Hoax of the Century (above), we see that by the time of Bruce Jamieson's correspondence to Harry Livingstone dated May 26, 1999, he had underwent a change of opinion resulting in him by then embracing Zavada's bracketing hypothesis, which was the result of a lobbying process carried out by Zavada, which Doug Horne sees as a big problem, as detailed by Horne as follows: "...The problem is-and it is a BIG PROBLEM as it pertains to the authenticity of the 'first generation' copies-Bruce Jamieson initially told Rollie Zavada-once orally and twice, in writing-that his company had not bracketed the three duplicate exposures run off the day of the assassination for Mr. Zapruder from the unslit camera original film. Just as he had in regard to the issue of whether the aperture on the contact printer was 'picture only' or 'picture plus soundtrack' (i.e., 'full frame'), Rollie Zavada persuaded Bruce Jamieson, after the fact, to essentially change his mind about what procedures had been followed at his lab the day of the assassination, based solely upon Zavada's observation of density differences in the 'first generation' copies in evidence today. And once again, Bruce Jamieson appeared to be more than willing to 'change history' to accommodate the desires of his questioner. But these changes of mind by Jamieson are not good oral history procedure, and are certainly not the proper way to conduct an impartial investigation of authenticity. In two different letters to Rollie Zavada in 1997, which I will quote below, Jamieson expressed the opinion that his employees did not bracket the original Zapruder film when it was duplicated on November 22, 1963. He was in a direct position to know, because he took the phone call from the Kodak lab expert (Mr. Erwin "Pat" Pattist) the day of the assassination, in which the problems involved in duplicating a Kodachrome II daylight film, using Kodachrome IIA tungsten balanced film stock, were discussed. Jamieson and his film printer then personally agreed on the best exposure (singular-not plural) to use when duplicating the film. In 1996 Zavada wrote this in his December 19th letter to the ARRB, after making his first telephonic contact with Bruce Jamieson: "...he and his printer estimated the best printer light and filter pack. (Note: Kodachrome IIA was balanced for 3400 degrees Kelvin whereas typical print stock is balanced for 3200 degrees Kelvin.)" The point here is that Jamieson was directly involved in the discussion of the criteria and procedures to be used in duplicating Zapruder's original movie, and anything he would subsequently recall about the event would therefore carry more weight than what he had to say about the printing aperture, which was really Jamieson taking Robert Colley at his word. The following excerpts from correspondence between Zavada and Jamieson are reproduced from the Appendix to the Zavada report. I am very glad, at this juncture, that the ARRB staff (namely, Jeremy Gunn and I) required Rollie Zavada to publish all correspondence between himself and either the ARRB or his witnesses, in the interests of transparency-for this correspondence (once again) reveals Bruce Jamieson's original recollections about a crucial matter in evidence, and the subsequent modifications he made to his memory to accommodate Zavada's viewpoints. In a letter from Rollie Zavada to Bruce Jamieson of October 8, 1997, Zavada documented in writing that Jamieson had told him orally in a telephone conversation that the three dupes his company ran off were not bracketed: In our telephone conversation on Sept. 25, I asked about the printer used for printing the Zapruder double 8 mm original onto Kodachrome 11A supplied by the Kodak Dallas Processing Lab. You indicated you printed all three copies with the same filter pack and light. [author's emphasis] Then, on October 21, 1997, Jamieson wrote Rollie Zavada a long letter about many technical issues, in which he said: Earlier you had mentioned to me that of the three prints you have seen [referring here to the extant Zapruder film and the two Secret Service copies], one was significantly over-exposed, differing from the other two. [See Figure 3-11 on page 22 of Study 3 of the Zavada report; and page 140 of Livingstone.] It is possible that some inadvertent light change could have been made between printing passes, but I really doubt that any intentional change was made. The basic filter pack and exposure index for printing onto Kodachrome stock was arrived at by joint discussion between our people and Kodak personnel, and I don't think any variation between prints was contemplated. [author's emphasis] This answer must not have pleased Rollie Zavada, for in his next reply Jamieson both reconfirms his original position that there was no bracketing, but also reveals an apparent ambivalence about what actually happened. In a letter to Rollie Zavada dated November 20, 1997, Jamieson wrote: Now a further comment regarding the print you observed to be much different [clearly, Secret Service copy no. 2] (over-exposed?) from the others. I have previously noted my doubt that there was any difference in the three prints we made, but it's always possible. [author's emphasis] Alarmingly, on April 21, 1998, Jamieson wrote back to Rollie Zavada after the two had conducted extended telephonic exchanges about the question of 'bracketing,' and by this time Jamieson was willing to give Zavada what he wanted in the form of a hypothetical scenario (which departed significantly from Jamieson's original position, which was that bracketing had not occurred): You have previously postulated that the varying exposures of the two Secret Service prints might be indicative of an attempt to bracket optimum exposure since conversion of the film speed of the Type A Kodachrome II to our normal print film was somewhat in question. / can rationalize this in the following manner. When Pat Pattist and I spoke on the phone in setting up the plan to print un-slit double 8 mm, the subject of exposure came up, and Pat offered some information in guiding us, which was passed on to our lab people. When Mr. Zapruder and the Secret Service arrived,[17] his principal concern was the security of his own film and protection of its exclusivity. That is why he insisted in accompanying the printer operator into the darkroom while the prints were being made. It is also obvious that he was already considering the value and marketability of his film because of previously putting the camera in his safe, and subsequently his action the next day of setting a schedule for a one­ time screening after which each media representative would make their best offer for exclusive rights. Obviously he would want the best possible print for that purpose, and this would be his only opportunity to obtain a timely print, so when questions arose about optimum exposure, he very likely insisted on bracketing the selected exposure with the three prints. He then took the best print for his own use, and turned over the other two to the Secret Service. I can't prove the foregoing hypothesis but it certainly makes sense to me as the onlv logical explanation for the wide exposure difference in the two archived prints. It certainly wasn't accidental. [author's emphasis] [17]. lt is my belief that the personnel at the Jamieson lab confused Zapruder's business confusion by misrepresenting who Schwartz really was in order to gain leverage over the technicians in the Jamieson lab.) The best reconstruction of events available to us today indicates that Secret Service agent Forrest Sorrels departed the Kodak lab before the developing of the original film was completed, and never went to the Jamieson lab. Well! This obliging hypothesis offered up by Bruce Jamieson, after being beaten down by Rollie Zavada over the 'bracketing' issue for almost 7 months, is certainly NOT "the only logical explanation" for the apparent bracketing seen in the two Secret Service copies (and later confirmed in December of 1999 at the Archives). The other logical explanation, of course, is that the Jamieson film Jab never did bracket the duplicates, and that the 'first generation' copies we have today are not the copies made by the Jamieson lab on the day of the assassination! Of course, neither Rollie Zavada nor Bruce Jamieson was willing to acknowledge that other logical possibility. If they did not think that likely, then that was certainly their prerogative, but Zavada should have at least acknowledged the possibility of substituted 'first generation' copies in his report. That he did not do so is another indicator of the extent to which Rollie was determined to conclude that both the extant film and the 'first generation' copies were authentic films, no matter what the evidence showed. If the 'bracketing' issue were the only discrepancy involving the Zapruder film-if we did not have other problems such as the major chain-of-custodydiscrepancy indicating that a new unslit 'original' was created at Rochester on Sunday; and the discrepancy about what the 3 duplicates should look like in the intersprocket area (due to the controversy over 'full frame' printing aperture vs 'picture only'); and the discrepancy over whether or not the processing edge printer lights were turned off when the original film was developed; and the discrepancy over whether the original film was slit before Zapruder left the Kodak lab at 9 PM on Friday, or left unslit-then I might be willing to adopt the generous mind set of a Bruce Jamieson and doubt my own recollections to the point where I would be willing to construct a 'hypothesis' that contradicted everything I had previously said about 'bracketing' of the duplicate films, simply because the films in evidence contradicted my best recollections from the day of the assassination. But this is not a normal situation involving a normal film; it is the John F. Kennedy assassination, in which almost every aspect and item of evidence appears to be either taintedy and/or in conflict with other key evidence. The Kennedy assassination was not solved in 1963 by assuming that 'all things were equal' with other murder cases and that all of the evidence could be trusted; and continuing attempts since 1963 to solve the assassination by assuming that the physical evidence is untainted, and trustworthy, have resulted in the case becoming literally insoluble, since the more we study a field of physical evidence that is clearly untrustworthy, the more problematic the evidence becomes, and the more we realize that the evidence in this case simply "does not come together," as Josiah Thompson has so aptly put it. Given all of the other apparent problems with the Zapruder film evidence in particular, the obliging hypothesis that Bruce Jamieson spun for Rollie Zavada's benefit-after clearly having been coached by Zavada-is simply not worthy of belief. Let me explain why. After meticulously and deliberately arriving at a joint decision with his printer operator about which filter pack and exposure to use when making the three duplicates, surely-if Zapruder had insisted upon bracketing his exposures while in the printing room with Marshall Collier-the printer operator would have said, "time out," and would have consulted with Bruce Jamieson first about how to conduct this hypothetical bracketing of such an important film. Everyone knew that the subject matter was the assassination of President Kennedy, and no single employee would have wanted to be responsible for screwing up the job of duplicating the film. In the case of such a unique situation-the use of indoor Kodachrome IIA film for a duplicating role for which it was not intended-surely, Collier would have consulted with his boss and the owner of the lab in which he worked, before bracketing the exposures of the duplicates. (After all, deciding upon which filter pack to use and what exposure was appropriate was tricky enough already that Kodak had already consulted with Jamieson directly over the matter.) The fact that Jamieson, who initially recalled that bracketing was not done, also recalled no such additional consultation with his printer operator after Zapruder entered the printing room, is persuasive evidence to me that bracketing did not take place. And yet Zavada concluded otherwise, even in his final report produced in September of 1998, before he had a chance to examine the LMH copy. He was enamored with the hypothesis offered up by Bruce Jamieson. It is no wonder that he was, considering that he surely planted that hypothesis in Bruce Jamieson's mind. In Study 3 of the Zavada report, Rollie wrote (on page 20 of Study 3): The difference in density [between Secret Service copy no. 1 and no. 2] is significant-more than one would expect from a printer operator trying to 'bracket' a presumed correct exposure. However, it is possible that three different light levels were chosen-and that the copies agent Sorrels received were the [sic] bracketed high and low and that Time-Life received the nominal. [emphasis in original] Zavada then reported, and endorsed, the 'Jamieson' hypothesis in full on the next page: The density difference issue is perplexing and has been discussed with Bruce Jamieson, Motion Picture Laboratory management and printing personnel. Trying to place ourselves in the position of the Jamieson Film Company in 1963, we hypothesized the following: a. They were faced with a significant time constraint-essentiallyimmediate. This constraint precluded scene testing of the original to assess the ideal print density and filter pack. b. The lab did not have 8 mm perforated print stock on hand to permit using familiar materials. This mandated the use of 8 mm Type A camera film as a print material (supplied by Kodak). The type A camera film is both faster (ASA 40) and balanced for a higher color temperature (3400 degrees Kelvin) than a typical print stock having a slower speed and a lower (neutral aim balance) color temperature of about 2800 degrees Kelvin. c. The lab consulted with Erwin 'Pat' Pattist, Quality Control Supervisor of the Kodak Dallas Processing Laboratory, (possibly) togain his assurance that the process was 'in control' and his opinion about the selection of filter pack and printer light. d. Handling of the films was complicated because Mr. Zapruder was present in the printing room while his original was being copied. Scenario 1 - lf Mr. Zapruder had requested three 'good' copies of his original, the prudent approach would be to print 'one light,' i.e., all three prints with the (same) best choice of filter pack and printer light setting. If this scenario was followed, Secret Service copy 1 and Secret Service copy 2 should be a close match. Scenario 2 - lf Mr. Zapruder had requested 'good' copy of his original, and provided three customer Type A film rolls for print stock to achieve this objective, a printer 'light­ bracketing' approach could have been considered. The procedure would be to select an aim printing light level for the first print and then possibly expose a half stop over and under for the second and third prints while maintaining the chosen filter pack. This scenario could be the basis of the density differences seen, especially if the LIFE magazine copy density falls in-between the two Secret Service copies, and would be my personal best guess of what happened. [emphasis in original] In his February 2000 Addendum, Zavada continued with his biased, one-way interpretation of the evidence by writing on page 9: The hypothesis that the Jamieson Film Company bracketed the printing exposure level to achieve an ideal 'good' copy from the three camera film spools of Kodachrome IIA provided by Kodak proved correct. This also confirmed our belief that Mr. A. Zapruder retained the best copy and provided the Secret Service the bracketed higher and lower density copies. I can just as easily compose the alternate scenario for what the bracketing could mean, and will do so now: The three 'first generation' copies in evidence today are indeed 'bracketed.' But since Mr. Bruce Jamieson's initial strong recollection was that his laboratory personnel did not bracket the three duplicates that they ran off in their Bell and Howell Model J contact printer, we can conclude that the three bracketed duplicates we have in evidence today are not the 'first day copies' made from the camera original film on the day of the assassination,and are instead substitute duplicates made from an altered 'original' and substituted for the three true first day copies' sometime after the weekend following the assassination. In other words, the presence of'bracketing' in the three extant 'first generation' copies is additional dispositive evidence that indirectly proves an altered 'original' film was created the weekend of the assassination (on Sunday, in Rochester at the "Hawkeye Plant"), and that substitute duplicates were then struck from this altered 'original.' The altered 'original' and the best quality print of the three bracketed duplicates would likely have gone directly to LIFE magazine on Monday, November 25th and the true 'first day copies' in the hands of: (I) the FBI in Washington; (2) the Secret Service in Washington; and (3) in the custody of Abraham Zapruder in Dallas, would have been collected and removed from circulation no later than the close of business Monday, November 25, 1963. Zapruder would simply have relinquished his own authentic 'first day copy' to Richard Stolley Monday afternoon after his contract was renegotiated, and Stolley would have forwarded it to LIFE, where the switch with its substitute duplicate could have been made in quiet by C.D. Jackson. In my view Rollie Zavada is incorrect when he wrote that Zapruder kept the best bracketed copy for himself. In reality I don't believe Abraham Zapruder ever saw the bracketed, substitute 'first generation' copy that later became known as 'LMH copy no. 2; I believe that Zapruder's heirs received this item from LIFE only in April of 1975 (five years after Zapruder's death in 1970), when Time, Inc. 'sold' the whole kit and caboodle back to the LMH Company for one dollar. I believe the Secret Service 'first day copy' in Washington, D. C., and the other 'first day copy' which was temporarily in the hands of FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C., were both swapped out first thing Monday morning, November 25th. This would have allowed the FBI all day long on Monday to run off its substandard 'second generation' prints from the substitute 'first generation' copy given to them (with their full cooperation) on Monday morning, November 25th. By Monday evening, all of the true 'first day copies,' as well as the true camera original film, were likely removed from official circulation, and all of the key films we know of today were probably in place. Most likely, either the true camera original film, or the true 'first day copies' (or perhaps all of them) were not immediately destroyed, and remained in private hands, resulting in the various accounts over the years that different people have seen (or owned) a different version of the Zapruder film than exists in the public domain today. Horne, Douglas. P. (2009). Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, Volume IV (4 of 5): The U. S. government’s final attempt to reconcile the conflicting medical evidence in the assassination of JFK: (pp. 1267-1272). And on what basis, you might ask, did Bruce Jamieson originally assert that the first day copies of the Zapruder film had not been bracketed? On the basis of Jamieson Film Company printer operator Robert Colley's recollections of the work performed. Doug Horne wrote: "...I reviewed the Appendices to the Zavada report to look for the correspondence in which Bruce Jamieson changed his mind about how the aperture was set on his contact printer the day of the assassination. In a letter to Zavada dated October 21, 1997 (before he wrote to Harry Livingstone), Jamieson wrote: I am advised by Mr. Robert Colley, who was a printer operator in our lab at that time, and who was in-and-out of the next printing room with our 3-head release printer at the time the Zapruder prints were made. He confirms that the Zapruder film was printed on a B&H Model J printer (not the 3-head printer as I originally believed). He further reminds me that our normal procedure was...the B-wind originals were printed FULL APERATURE [sic] (pix and sound area) from TAILS [meaning, starting with the tail end of the film on the supply reel]. Mr. Colley believes that this was the procedure used in printing the Zapruder film. By April 21, 1998, Zavada had clearly persuaded Jamieson that Robert Colley must have been incorrect about the 'full aperture' (pix plus sound area) printing setup, by using the present day appearance of the 'first generation' copies to get Jamieson to doubt Robert Colley's recollections, because in a letter of that date published in the Appendix of the Zavada report, Jamieson wrote: Next, the aperture setting on the printer was certainly in the 'picture only' position as evidenced by the unexposed section from picture frame edge to the film edge on the motorcade section of film. Both SS prints show that characteristic... [emphasis in original] Clearly, Zavada has gotten Jamieson to flip-flop on what was previously his best professional opinion about what had happened in 1963 by showing him what was in the official record in 1997 and by then getting him to modify his position-his best professional opinion as expressed to both Rollie in October of 1997 and then to Harry Livingstone in February of 1998-that the copies his lab printed were made at 'full frame' or 'picture plus soundtrack' aperture. This is not the proper way to conduct an investigation into authenticity. The details about techniques employed-as recalled independently by qualified, expert eyewitnesses-are crucially important to studies of authenticity. This is why Jeremy Gunn asked John Stringer about the procedures employed and type of film used to photograph President Kennedy's brain before he showed him the photographs-because all too many witnesses are willing to change their opinions and recollections to either please the person asking the question, or to conform to the evidence placed before them. Bruce Jamieson's original answers given to Rollie Zavada in October of 1997 and to Harry Livingstone in February of 1998 (about what aperture was used on his printer when copying Zapruder's camera original film) should not be any more subject to change than John Stringer's initial answers given about the procedures used to photograph President Kennedy's brain, or about the type of film he used to do it. The ARRB did not ask John Stringer to reassess his best recollection of how he shot the brain photographs, and about what kind of film he used, just because his recollections differed from the photographs in the Archives. Rollie Zavada demonstrated here a tendency to 'jawbone' his witnesses into changing their testimony until their testimony fit his preconceived assumptions about the authenticity of the films he was examining. He did the same thing to Bruce Jamieson over the 'bracketing' issue, as I will reveal later in this subsection. In summary, if Robert Colley's firm recollection-fully endorsed in writing, in October of 1997 by Bruce Jamieson and then expressed again as his own opinion, in writing, in February of 1998-that the camera original Zapruder film was copied with the B&H Model J printer set on 'full frame' (i.e., picture plus soundtrack) aperture JS CORRECT, then the 'first day copies' made on November 22, 1963 must have displayed the same intersprocket images recorded on the original film that day. Since the 'first generation' copies in the record today do not show the same type of full intersprocket penetration seen in the extant Ji.Im, the absence of such full-penetration intersprocket images on the motorcade portions of these films constitutes dispositive evidence proving that the 3 films represented as 'first generation ' copies today cannot be the 'first day copies ' duplicated at the Jamieson film lab on November 22, 1963. The implication here is that after a new 'original' (with 'full flush left' intersprocket penetration in every frame) was created at Rochester (at the "Hawkeye Plant"), three new 'first generation' copies were duplicated on a contact printer at Rochester, but the aperture was mistakenly set at 'picture only,' and not at 'picture plus soundtrack.' Under my working hypothesis, the technicians at the "Hawkeye Plant" would not have been aware of their error because they did not have in their possession any of the true 'first day copies' to examine before they made the three new substitute contact prints. On Sunday, November 24th when the three substitute copies were struck at the "Hawkeye Plant," one true 'first day copy' was in the hands of the FBI in Washington, D.C. (having been loaned to the FBI by the Secret Service in Dallas on Saturday); another was in the hands of the Secret Service in Washington, D.C. (having been flown there late Friday night from Dallas and having arrived early Saturday morning); and the third was still in the hands of Abraham Zapruder until Monday, November 251\ when his sale contract with Time, Inc. was renegotiated for an additional$ 100,000.00. In fact, it was his 'first day copy' that Dan Rather viewed on Monday, according to author Richard Trask (and as later agreed to by Dan Rather himself). The Kodak technicians at the CIA's Hawkeye Plant could not have known it, but they inadvertently left indirect evidence pointing to the forgery of a new 'original' film when they impropetly replicated the three substitute 'first generation' copies using different procedures than those that had been employed by the staff at the Jamieson film lab in Dallas. Horne, Douglas. P. (2009). Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, Volume IV (4 of 5): The U. S. government’s final attempt to reconcile the conflicting medical evidence in the assassination of JFK: (pp. 1258-1259). Thus, we have the earliest stated recollections of the film laboratory owner, Bruce Jamieson, and of the Jamieson Film Company printer operator, Robert Colley, attesting that the bracketing procedure was not employed during the contact printing of the three first day copies, and these accounts are by far the most probative and enjoy the greatest evidentiary weight out of all of the evidence involved in the consideration of the bracketing issue. Instead of proceeding upon the basis of that best evidence, Rollie Zavada followed his confirmation bias-based impulses and lobbied Bruce Jamieson to change his testimony, thereby revealing his flawed methodologies as an investigator, and placing in question all of Zavada's conclusions. Dr. David Mantik, writing in 2000, expanded upon Horne's analysis of the bracketing question, and addressed associated issues involving septum line inconsistencies in the first day Zapruder film copies which Zavada had conceded he was unable to reproduce: ADDENDUM: LMH "FIRST DAY COPY" In 1999, Roland J. Zavada examined the LMH Co. "First Day Copy" (hereafter described as LMHFDC) and published a report: "Addendum to Technical Report #318420P: Analysis of Selected Motion Picture Photographic Evidence." In this report Zavada claims that the third copy made by Jamieson on 22 November 1963 is the LMH copy (also known as the Life copy). In an unrelated matter, but still one of great interest, Zavada also reports (letter to Douglas P. Horne, 14 March 2000) that the Zapruder family transferred their copyright and complete inventory of films to the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas. Zavada's chief new finding is that the optical density of LMHFDC lies between SS #1 (a dark copy) and SS #2 (a light copy). New measurements show that the LMHFDC density is closer to SS #2, and Zavada advances technical arguments for why this is a reasonable expectation, although he did not predict it. He claims that this result proves that Jamieson bracketed the printing exposure level in order to achieve at least one good copy. Critics, on the other hand, might well argue that, since Jamieson had initially denied that such bracketing was done, these new results only constitute further proof that the bracketing of these films (SS # 1, SS #2, LMHFDC) was done at a later date and at some other site. In other words, since Jamieson reportedly did not use bracketing, he could not have made these copies. LMHFDC begins at about Z-214, when the limousine is near the Stemmons freeway sign. Therefore, nothing can be said about initial loading fog or the perforated number supposedly placed during developing. However, as in SS #1 and SS #2, terminal fog, and then an image of 0183, appears after the final image (of a scene) on the home movie side. Zavada again claims (as he did in his initial September 1998 report) that the septum line is characteristic of the Jamieson printer. He also adds that the line is the same in each of SS #1, SS #2, and LMHFDC. In his September 1998 report, however, Zavada had stated: I'm sure the reader is aware that our attempt to exactly replicate the 1963 JAMIESON [printer to] produce [a] septum line has not been successful." (What he should have said is that his attempt to match the septum line on the home movie sequence was not successful, he merely assumes that these copies were made on the Jamieson printer, but this is exactly what is being questioned.) Doug Mizzer (in a memo to Harry Livingstone) summarized this evidence: the septum line on the SS copies is about 0.036 inches wide, whereas the line on the filmstrip cited by Zavada and that produced on the Bell & Howell Model J Printer in 1959 was only 0.020 to 0.025 inches wide-a large, and easily visible, difference. This means that Jamieson's printer might very well not have made these purported first day copies. This question of the septum line is not trivial. It is Zavada's hypothesis that the intersprocket images on the home movie side were produced by a separate light source that also produced the septum line. But if the septum line is not authentic, then Zavada's explanation for the intersprocket images (on the home movie side) is also in doubt. In fact, Zavada reports on his trial with an old Model J printer that used an independent tungsten lamp. He concludes: "A trial print was made to determine the extent and penetration of the light along the perforation edge [intersprocket area] of the film. The results showed that although edge illumination was achieved, no light penetrated between the perforations." To make the above negative result even worse, Jamieson quotes Robert Colley (Jamieson letter of 21 October 1997 to Zavada), a printer operator who was actually in the lab on 22 November: "...in order to retain the original edge numbers, the B-Wind originals were printed FULL APERATURE [sic] (pix and sound area) from TAILS." Despite this clear statement, however, Zavada concludes exactly the opposite (Study 3, p. 3): "...the initial belief that the prints were printed 'full aperture,' picture plus sound, also proved incorrect based on the examination of the images of the resulting prints." In my view, this is a perfect example of circular reasoning - the question is whether the copies in question are indeed first day copies, but Zavada merely assumes that they are, and then proceeds to draw conclusions based on his assumption. Based on the above data, Doug Mizzer argues that because the SS copies do have edge printing, then, if they were made on the Jamieson printer, they should not have a septum line (on the home movie side). Therefore, since both SS copies do have a septum line and edge printing, they could not have been made on Jamieson's printer. The reverse statement is this (quoting Mizzer): " ... if the copies were made on Jamieson's printer in the pix only mode, there would be a septum line on both sides of the film [i.e., the motorcade side, too], but there would be NO EDGE PRINTING." (Author's note: In fact, both sides contain edge printing and the motorcade side in the SS copies has no septum line.) To further confound matters, Zavada received a letter from Herb Farmer (1 August 1998) of the USC School of Cinema and Television. Farmer, who had four old Model J's, stated: "None of our model J printers have had any modification for edge marking printing at the picture printing aperture." Furthermore, he then added: "If I were faced with the original printing problem, I would probably have printed the film on the model J with the printing aperture wide open which would expose everything from the inside edge of the sprocket hole on the printing sprocket side to the opposite edge of the film (the picture and track area)." In other words, both Robert Colley and Herb Farmer have implied that the motorcade side (for the first day copies) should contain intersprocket images, but, in fact, none are seen. In view of all of the above, many of Zavada's conclusions must remain in grave doubt. Unfortunately, he seemed quite unable to conceive of the possibility that the present three copies are not Jamieson copies. Instead, he obviously preferred to accept what he had been told-namely that these three are authentic first day copies. There is a distinct sense of 'deja vu here, this is the same mental state that so hampered prior investigations of the medical evidence. (See my essay, "The Medical Evidence Decoded," elsewhere in this volume.) Mantik, D. (2000). The Zapruder film controversy (pp. 38-39). https://www.academia.edu/69989816/The_Zapruder_Film_Controversy As we proceed to look at the technical issues which prove that the Zapruder film is fraudulent, you are going to see that the scenario above in which Rollie Zavada acts on his confirmation bias to manipulate the findings in his study of the Zapruder film is a scenario that rreccurs again and again, and that those manipulated findings are uncritically accepted and relied upon by hacks such as David Wrone, and in turn by unwary readers desperate to find uncontroversial solutions, such as yourself. My first installment on the subject of the technical issues was made in a previous post to which you have not responded, documenting that registration number 0183, which Eastman Kodak and Jamieson Film technicians swore under oath on 11/22/1963 was perforated onto the end of the film, ostensibly appears instead at the end of side A (the family scenes) instead of at the end of side B (the assassination sequence), as attested to, which we know only due to the image of 0183 appeaing on what are purportedly the first day copies, since side A is currently missing from the extant "original" Zapruder film. The link to that post is as follows (and following that link are the same day sworn documents showing that 0183 would be at the end of the extant"original" Zapruder film in the National Archives, were it an authentic film. ____________ 11/22/1963 SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY PRODUCTION SUPERVISOR P.M. CHAMBERLAIN, JR., SWEARING UNDER PAINS AND PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT REGISTRATION NUMBER 0183 WAS PERFORATED AT THE END ( SIDE B ) OF THE CAMERA-ORIGINAL ZAPRUDER FILM ON THE EVENING OF THE ASSASSINATION. IN CONTRAST, REGISTRATION NUMBER 0183 WAS PERFORATED AT THE END OF THE FAMILY SCENES ( SIDE A ) OF THE EXTANT "ORIGINAL" ZAPRUDER FILM CURRENTLY STORED AT THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES, BASED UPON THE IMAGES OF THE 0183 REGISTRATION NUMBER ON THE PURPORTED FIRST DAY COPIES (AS THE 0183 REGISTRATION NUMBER IS NOT PRESENT ON THE EXTANT FILM BECAUSE THE HOME MOVIE SIDE OF THE EXTANT FILM IS MISSING). THUS AND THEREFORE, THE EXTANT "ORIGINAL" ZAPRUDER FILM MUST NECESSARILY BE FRAUDULENT. ____________ 11/22/1963 SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF JAMIESON FILM COMPANY LABORATORY MANAGER FRANK R. SLOAN SWEARING UNDER PAINS AND PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT REGISTRATION NUMBER 0183 WAS PERFORATED AT THE END ( SIDE B ) OF THE CAMERA-ORIGINAL ZAPRUDER FILM ON THE EVENING OF THE ASSASSINATION. IN CONTRAST, REGISTRATION NUMBER 0183 WAS PERFORATED AT THE END OF THE FAMILY SCENES ( SIDE A ) OF THE EXTANT "ORIGINAL" ZAPRUDER FILM CURRENTLY STORED AT THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES, BASED UPON THE IMAGES OF THE 0183 REGISTRATION NUMBER ON THE PURPORTED FIRST DAY COPIES (AS THE 0183 REGISTRATION NUMBER IS NOT PRESENT ON THE EXTANT FILM BECAUSE THE HOME MOVIE SIDE OF THE EXTANT FILM IS MISSING). THUS AND THEREFORE, THE EXTANT "ORIGINAL" ZAPRUDER FILM MUST NECESSARILY BE FRAUDULENT. ____________ 6/28/1997 NOTATION OF ROLAND ZAVADA OF HIS TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH FORMER EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY PROCESSING FOREMAN TOM NULTY WHO TOLD ZAVADA THAT IT WAS HIS RECOLLECTION THAT THE CAMERA-ORIGINAL ZAPRUDER FILM "RECEIVED HANDLING SIMILAR TO CUSTOMER FILMS" ON THE EVENING OF THE ASSASSINATION, THUS PLACING IN QUESTION ZAVADA'S THEORY THAT REGISTRATION NUMBER 0183 WAS PERFORATED ONTO THE END OF THE HOME MOVIE SEQUENCE ( SIDE A ) RATHER THAN THE END OF THE ASSASSINATION SEQUENCE ( SIDE B ), THEREBY DEPARTING FROM KODAK'S STANDARD AND CUSTOMARY PRACTICES, BECAUSE THE FILM WAS "SPECIALLY" PROCESSED. THUS AND THEREFORE, WHEN CONSIDERED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE EVIDENCE ABOVE, THE EXTANT "ORIGINAL" ZAPRUDER FILM MUST NECESSARILY BE FRAUDULENT. I will respond to the remainder of your comments in a subsequent post...

https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/24050.html The JFK Skull X-Rays, 1963 and 1979 A Trail of Deceit Doug Horne on The JFK Assassination | Aug 13, 2024 "Douglas Horne a member of the staff of the Assassinations Records Review Board discusses his findings regarding the the JFK Skull X-Rays." The Two Brain Exams Following the Autopsy on John F Kennedy's Body Doug Horne on The JFK Assassination | Aug 13, 2024 "Douglas Horne, a member of the staff of the Assassinations Records Review Board discusses his findings regarding the two brain exams following the autopsy of President Johm F. Kennedy"

@Denny Zartman: We can date Audrey Bell's statement as to the existence of the "massive head wound" as early as 1967 (in stark contradiction to Pat Speer's claim that Audrey Bell inserted herself into the assassination literature in the 1980's at the behest of "buffs"): A November 1967 paper authored by Bell herself, published in the journal of the Association of periOperative Registered Nurses, titled Forty-Eight Hours and Thirty-One Minutes, contains references to events supporting the representations Bell would make in the 1980's, such as referencing her proximity to Dr. Perry and the performance of the tracheotomy, as well as her observation of the "the massive head wound": https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001209208700474 "...I helped cut the President's shirt from his right arm, and positioned the tracheotomy tray for Dr. Perry. It was then that I saw the massive head wound. Even though the prospect of surgery-after viewing the proportions of the wound and the general condition of the President-was improbable, I rushed off in search of a telephone to call the Operating Room...."

This post constitutes notice to you that your accusation that I am a covert government disinformation operative is a violation of the rules of the Education Forum, and if you have not retracted that allegation within twenty-four hours of the time of this post, I will report same to the forum administrators, and pursuant to the rules, your failure to ameliorate the violation will be given due consideration at the discretion of the administrators. There is a difference between the questions I have asked you, and the accusation with which you have responded to my questions, Mr. Varnell.