Keven Hofeling

Mortician Tom Robinson presents a huge problem to Pat Speer's distorted conception of the JFKA medical evidence so he resorts to doing a smear job on Robinson's testimony reminiscent of what he has done to Dr. Robert McClelland due to the huge problems McClelland presents to his project. It is thus appropriate to say that Speer has done a "McClelland job" on Tom Robinson. Recall Speer's highly deceptive presentation of Dr. McClelland's first day Admittance Note for President Kennedy in which Speer insults our intelligence with his claim that McClelland's Admittance Note is describing only one head wound (an entrance wound in the left temple McClelland described based upon Dr. Marion Jenkins's mistaken observation regarding same). The Note ALSO elsewhere describes a "massive gunshot wound of the head," consistent with all of McClelland's subsequent descriptions of the large avulsive wound in the back of JFK's head, but Pat Speer thinks we are all too stupid to read the Note for ourselves to unmask his deception. _________________ PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ADMISSION NOTE DATE AND HOUR Nov. 22, 1963 4:45 P.M. DOCTOR: Robert N. McClelland Statement Regarding Assassination of President Kennedy At approximately 12:45 PM on the above date I was called from the second floor of Parkland Hospital and went immediately to the Emergency Operating Room. When I arrived President Kennedy was being attended by Drs Malcolm Perry, Charles Baxter, James Carrico, and Ronald Jones. The President was at the time comatose from a massive gunshot wound of the head with a fragment wound of the trachea. An endotracheal tube and assisted respiration was started immediately by Dr. Carrico on Duty in the EOR when the President arrived. Drs. Perry, Baxter, and I then performed a tracheotomy for respiratory distress and tracheal injury and Dr. Jones and Paul Peters inserted bilateral anterior chest tubes for pneumothoracis secondary to the tracheomediastinal injury. Simultaneously Dr. Jones had started 3 cut-downs giving blood and fluids immediately, In spite of this, at 12:55 he was pronounced dead by Dr. Kemp Clark the neurosurgeon and professor of neurosurgery who arrived immediately after I did. The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple. He was pronounced dead after external cardiac message failed and ECG activity was gone. Robert N. McClelland M.D. Asst. Prof. of Surgery Southwestern Med. School of Univ of Tex. Dallas, Texas _________________ 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 lies. Pat Speer's wrote a series of lies about Tom Robinson, 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 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 corrupt 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). 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). 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." What Speer thinks we are all too stupid to read ourselves in the 1/12/1977 transcript of the testimony is that when Robinson was asked by HSCA attorney Andy Purdy whether the wound was "in the forehead region up near the hairline," Robinson replied in the affirmative, "yes." Furthermore, as can be seen in Robinson's marking of the right temple wound in the skull diagram above, Speer's claim that the wound was below the eye is also categorically false. Speer's fraudulent representations about McClelland, Robinson, Jenkins, and virtually every other person he includes in his twisted commentary are an insult to our collective intelligence, but to Speer, that apparently doesn't seem to matter, as he demonstrably believes we are all too stupid to fact check his deceptive claims. _________________ Setting aside Speer's manipulative treatment of the evidence of the right temple wound, it is simply indisputable that there was awareness at Parkland Hospital of the existence of the wound in the right temple. There is no way around this. Acting White House Press Secretary Malcolm Kilduff announced to the world on national television that Dr. Burkley had told him that it was a simple matter of a bullet right through the head, and when asked for clarification Kilduff specified that the bullet entered the head in the right temple. How the agents of the cover up managed to completely squelch mention of the entry wound to the right temple from the reports and testimony of the Parkland doctors and nurses is a good question, but there had to be awareness of that wound on the part of the trauma team in order for Dr. Burkley to be aware of it: Additionally, there was press coverage on the day of the assassination which suggests that the treating physicians were aware of the wound to the right temple, such as the following Telegraph Herald article in which Dr. Malcolm Perry is quoted as saying "the entrance wound was in the front of the head:

So, in Dr. Peter Peters professional judgment, this is an "incision" at the hairline on JFK's forehead. An insision that was not present when Peters inspected the body at Parkland Hospital. What do we see in the same region in the Zapruder film at frame 337 (compared with frame 312, a second and a half earlier, one frame prior to the headshot at Z-313): What is that we are seeing where JFK's forehead should be in Z-337, but Jackie's pink shoulder pad? How can that be? ZAPRUDER FRAME 337 Is that some kind of optical illusion? Well, let's look at Z-335 to see whether it also depicts Jackie's pink shoulder pad where JFK's forehead should be: ZAPRUDER FRAME 335 No, not appearing to be an optical illusion. How about if we look at all of the clear Zapruder frames between Z-314 and Z-337 to see if we can ascertain whether the catastrophic damage we are seeing in Z-337 is present in the other frames as well? What? Why do we see a cantaloupe sized segment of JFK's anterior skull being detached from his head, leaving a huge crater where his forehead should be? That is not consistent with the intact forehead we see in the autopsy photographs, is it? Could it be that the damage we are seeing in the Z-frames in question is the damage depicted in the autopsy photographs of the top of JFK's head? But if that is the case, how did that damage move all of that distance from the forward anterior region of JFK's head to the crown of JFK's head between the time of the assassination in Dealey Plaza to the time of the autopsy in the Bethesda morgue? Could the testimony of mortician Tom Robinson given when shown the top of the head autopsy photographs by the ARRB shed any light on this discrepancy? MD 180 - ARRB Meeting Report Summarizing 6/21/96 In-Person Interview of Tom Robinson: "...FOX AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHS: After completing his four drawings of head wounds and describing those wounds, ARRB staff showed Mr. Robinson a set of what is alleged to be the Fox autopsy photographs to see whether they were consistent with what he remembered seeing in the morgue at Bethesda. His comments follow, related to... PAGE 5: https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md180/html/md180_0005a.htm ...various Fox photos: -Right Superior Profile (corresponding to B & W #s 5 and 6); He does not see the small shrapnel holes he noted in the right cheek, but he assumes this is because of the photo's poor quality. -Back of Head (corresponds to B & W #s 15 and 16): Robinson said; "You see, this is the flap of skin, the blow-out in the right temple that I told you about, and which I drew in my drawing." WHEN ASKED BY ARRB WHERE THE HOLE IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD WAS IN RELATION TO THE PHOTOGRAPH, ROBINSON RESPONDED BY PLACING HIS FINGERS IN A CIRCLE JUST ABOVE THE WHITE SPOT IN THE HAIRLINE IN THE PHOTOGRAPH AND SAID "THE HOLE WAS RIGHT HERE, WHERE I SAID IT WAS IN MY DRAWING, BUT IT JUST DOESN'T SHOW UP IN THIS PHOTO." (emphasis not in original) -Top of Head/Superior View of Cranium (corresponds to B & W #'s 7-10): ROBINSON FROWNED, AND SAID WITH APPARENT DISAGREEMENT, "THIS MAKES IT LOOK LIKE THE WOUND WAS IN THE TOP OF THE HEAD." HE EXPLAINED THAT THE DAMAGE IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH WAS "WHAT THE DOCTORS DID," AND EXPLAINED THAT THEY CUT THIS SCALP OPEN AND REFLECTED IT BACK IN ORDER TO REMOVE BULLET FRAGMENTS (THE FRAGMENTS HE HAD OBSERVED IN A GLASS VIAL). ARRB STAFF MEMBERS ASKED ROBINSON WHETHER THERE WAS DAMAGE TO THE TOP OF THE HEAD WHEN HE ARRIVED AT THE MORGUE AND BEFORE THE BRAIN WAS REMOVED; HE REPLIED BY SAYING THAT THIS AREA WAS "ALL BROKEN," BUT THAT IT WAS NOT OPEN LIKE THE WOUND IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD (emphasis not in original)...." So, mortician Tom Robinson protested the top of the head autopsy photographs, complaining that the damage depicted in them represented "WHAT THE DOCTORS DID" when searching for bullet fragments, and emphasized "THAT THIS AREA WAS "ALL BROKEN," BUT THAT IT WAS NOT OPEN LIKE THE WOUND IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD." Well how about what Dr. Paul Peters said upon seeing the Zapruder film images above, perhaps that might shed some light on these discrepancies? PAUL PETERS, MD: "...When shown enlarged Zapruder film frames depicting a right-anterior wound, Peters wrote, "The wound which you marked...I never saw and I don't think there was such a wound. I think that was simply an artifact of copying Zapruder's movie... The only wound I saw on President Kennedy's head was in the occipitoparietal area on the right side." (Personal letter to Wallace Milam 4-14-80, copy, courtesy of Wallace Milam to author Aguilar; also in Lifton, BE: 557)..." http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm Something smells rotten in Denmark! The Zapruder film depicts a cantaloupe sized crater in JFK's forehead which by the time the body is autopsied has moved to the crown of JFK's head. But mortician Tom Robinson tells us that the doctors caused the damage to the top of the head, and that the only large open wound was in the back of the head, and Dr. Paul Peters, who inspected the body immediately after the assassination, tells us that there was no head wound other than the large avulsive wound at the back of the head, and that the incision he identified at the hairline in the right profile autopsy photograph also was not present at Parkland Hospital. In light of the above, does anybody want to defend the authenticity of these fraudulent film and photographic materials?

Given your post, and my review of the transcript of the November 22, 2013 Lancer Confence that you appear to be referencing therein, I think that "conjecture" is not a strong enough word. "Lies" is probably the correct term, unless you are able to explain the discrepancies which follow between the excerpts from the transcript of the 2013 Lancer Conference and the representations you have made in the post to which this is a response, as well as on your website, about the statements that James Jenkins made about JFK's head wounds during his presentation at that conference: You can find the transcript I will be referencing below at the following link: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26961-fbi-agent-james-sibert-talks-about-jfks-wounds-and-the-autopsy/?do=findComment&comment=437612 James Jenkins referenced two head wounds, as follows: "...there was a small entry…..exit, anyway a small wound that appeared to be approximately four….right in front of the top of the right ear and slightly above it...." "...At the conclusion of the autopsy my personal ideas of the things that I said, I was sure that the entrance wound was above the right ear and that the large wound in the back (of the head) was an exit wound. In the wound in the back (of the head) there were some questions by Dr. Boswell to the gallery...." Now this transcript was made by @Pete Mellor, as he indicates on the post via the following link, so it has nothing to do with Doug Horne and Dr. David Mantik: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26961-fbi-agent-james-sibert-talks-about-jfks-wounds-and-the-autopsy/?do=findComment&comment=437633 Not only does this indicate to me that, as I have always suspected, you have been lying about James Jenkins' testimony all along, but the evidence I have been consistently posting in response to your claims about Jenkins also indicates that you are lying. In 1977, James Jenkins told the HSCA that the large head wound was in the back of JFK's head, and made the following sketch consistent therewith: And in 1979, Jenkins told David Lifton that it was a large "gaping" wound in the occipital-parietal region of JFK's head: And in 2018, James Jenkins is drawing the same small right temple wound and occipital-parietal wound that he described at the 2013 Lancer Conderence that you are lying about: So, what I want to know, Mr. Speer, is how do you get off on impugning the credibility of Doug Horne, Dr. David Mantik and Dr. Michael Chesser regarding this matter when all along it has actually been YOU who is telling the lies?

I've had several extensive, though oddly disjointed, discussions with @Keyvan Shahrdar on Facebook about the "question" of the location of JFK's large avulsive headwound. On a number of occasions, Keyvan cited the names of Parkland doctors in support of a top of the head location for the large avulsive headwound (consistent with Zapruder film imagery), but then when I presented Dr. Gary Aguilar's chronologies of the varies testimonies of those doctors, he became unresponsive, and would not defend his previous claims about the doctors. More recently on Facebook, Keyvan cited Bethesda Tech James Jenkins in an effort to rebut the occipital-parietal location of the large avulsive headwound (perhaps after reading some of @Pat Speer's conjecture about Jenkins), to which I responded by posting the following 2018 markings of the wounds by Jenkins on a skull model: As well as the following, earliest drawing by Jenkins of the occipital-parietal wound, that Jenkins did for the HSCA in 1977: After I posted these Jenkins renderings for Keyvan's inspection, he became unresponsive again, and refused to address the contradiction I was pointing out between his claim that Jenkins was a top of the head witness, and the drawings Jenkins had made of the occipital-parietal wound on the back of JFK's head, resorting instead to his mantra that "facts supersede narrative." I am with you, Sandy, and would like to see Keyvan answer the questions you have posed about where Keyvan believes the large head wound was located, and about whether it is the Zapruder film head wound imagery or the right profile autopsy photographs of JFK that are fraudulent (given that they contradict each other). For that matter, I'd also like to see Pat Speer answer the same questions, as he always seems to be reticent about identifying an exact location for the large head wound. However, I would like to add the following Zapruder film headwound imagery to the equation (from the 1998 MPI "Images of an Assassination" direct copy of the extant "original" Zapruder film), so that Keyvan and Pat can fully appreciate the cantaloupe sized cavernous wound crater that is depicted as being in JFK's forehead in the film which not one single Dealey Plaza, Parkland Hospital or Bethesda autopsy witness ever reported or described, and which clearly contradicts the autopsy photographs: What specifically I would like to see Keyvan and Pat explain is why in the Zapruder film in frames Z-335 and Z-337 we are see Jackie Kennedy's pink shoulder pad where we should be seeing President Kennedy's forehead, when the autopsy photographs demonstrate that the President's forehead is perfectly intact: ZAPRUDER FRAME 335 ZAPRUDER FRAME 337 Now, Keyvan and Pat, how do you reconcile Z-335 and Z-337, as well as the other Zapruder film images above showing a cavernous cantaloupe sized crater in JFK's forehead with the following right profile autopsy photographs of the fallen President which demonstrate that there was no such crater in his forehead and that the forehead was perfectly intact?

Thank you, Vince. I have closely studied an earlier much longer version of this video and frequently quote therefrom (with proper attribution, of course). You've accumulated a great deal of very important evidence during your career which has greatly benefited the research community. I post directly below some of my favorite and most frequently used examples of that evidence as a tribute to your work: _____________ Chapter Ten of 'HONEST ANSWERS ABOUT THE MURDER OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY' by Vince Palamara (Courtesy of Vince Palamara) "Master List of Witnesses Who Stated That the Limousine Slowed or Stopped – A Deadly Delay on Elm Street" "The following is a complete listing, the largest one ever compiled, of every single witness I could find – over 70 in all – who stated that the limousine either slowed down or stopped. This deadly delay on Elm Street was Secret Service agent Bill Greer’s fault, pure and simple; he was the limousine driver. As even lone-nut authors agree, Greer’s inept driving of the limo during the shooting allowed the assassination to be a tragic success...." LINK TO PDF OF CHAPTER TEN: https://1drv.ms/b/s!AnVVyr2Qcdy-gccV7bF_4Je5GuEYaA?e=E6b8Ay LINK TO POST OF CHAPTER TEN: https://www.facebook.com/groups/political assassinations researchhgroup/posts/5063457320376963/ _____________ VINCE PALAMARA INTERVIEWS OF SAMUEL KINNEY _____________ VINCE PALAMARA'S NOTES FROM DR. ROBERT MCCLELLAND _____________ VINCE PALAMARA'S DR. PAUL PETERS VIDEO ON THE "INCISION" _____________ EXCERPT OF VINCE PALAMARA INTERVIEW OF AUBREY RIKE _____________ VINCE PALAMARA VIDEO OF PAUL LANDIS _____________ 1995 COPA CONFERENCE AT WHICH ANDY PURDY AND MICHAEL BADEN WERE CONFRONTED WITH THE HSCA'S BOH FRAUD _____________ VINCE PALAMARA'S WORK REGARDING DR. WILLIAM ZEDLITZ

“Your Blind Trust in Official Narratives: A Rebuttal” Ah, the classic defense of the status quo—dismiss any dissenting voice as a conspiracy theorist. Let’s dissect your points with surgical precision, shall we? Harper Fragment: A Conveniently Incomplete Story Oh, it’s “just a fragment,” you say? Convenient. But let’s not forget that fragments can hold the key to truth. Dr. Mantik’s interpretation isn’t some whimsical fairy tale; it’s based on scientific analysis. And while you’re busy waving the “incontrovertible proof” flag, remember that the absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. We must remain open to different interpretations, you claim. Agreed! But let’s apply that principle consistently. Why not extend the same courtesy to those who question the official narrative? X-Rays: The Great Optical Odyssey Ah, Dr. Mantik—the thorn in the side of the establishment. His meticulous scrutiny of the x-rays revealed inconsistencies. But no, let’s not call them “indisputable facts.” Instead, let’s trust the majority of forensic experts who, coincidentally, toe the official line. Authenticity? Sure, the majority says they’re legit. But remember, majorities have been wrong throughout history. And if you think optical density and structure discrepancies are mere professional interpretations, you’re missing the forest for the pixelated trees. Zapruder Film: The Holy Grail of Denial Scrutinized? Absolutely. But let’s not pretend it’s untouchable. Discrepancies aren’t just “observed”; they’re glaring. Alterations? Maybe not “concrete proof,” but hey, subtlety isn’t the film’s strong suit. It’s like saying, “Sure, the Mona Lisa might have a mustache, but we can’t prove it.” Validated by investigations? Ah, the circular dance of official validation. Investigate, validate, rinse, repeat. Meanwhile, the Nix film and Moorman photo—also part of this cinematic saga—wink from the shadows. Narratives vs. Facts: A False Dichotomy My dear defender of "official" narratives, let’s talk about “sticking to the facts.” Yes, some aspects involve interpretation. But when experts disagree, it’s not a kumbaya moment—it’s a battleground of ideas. And guess what? Skepticism isn’t a sin; it’s the heartbeat of progress. Respectful discussion? Absolutely! But don’t muzzle dissent with the “we’re all in this together” mantra. We’re not. Some of us wear tin foil hats; others wear blindfolds. Let’s keep the gloves off and wrestle with the truth. So, my friend, while you sip your official narrative tea, remember that history’s rebels—the Galileos, the Mandelas, the Mantiks—were once labeled conspiracy theorists too. Cheers! 🥂🔍🔎

Interestingly enough, Pat, it is regarding this that you and I have some common ground, but for opposite reasons. While you, for obvious reasons, want to discount the reports and testimony of the Parkland Hospital witnesses, I think that testimony is the most credible medical evidence in the entire case, so much so that it makes a mockery out of the Zapruder film headshot sequence which depicts a cantaloupe sized crater in JFK's forehead that, as folklore has it, was so perfectly hermetically sealed by a hinged "flap" at Parkland, that nobody saw a hint of it, not even Nurse Diana Bowron who washed the blood clots out of the President's hair before she helped put the body in the casket in Trauma Room One: Although I have the highest respect for Dr. Mantik, I think that he is mistaken about his interpretation of the autopsy X-rays as indicating anterior head damage from gunshots. I suspect that it is actually damage from the modified craniotomy (skull cap) that was performed on the body prior to the start of the "official" autopsy that is responsible for the disruption of the anterior skull in the X-rays and autopsy photographs (EXACTLY as mortician Tom Robinson asserted to the ARRB), and that the actual gunshot damage was confined to the back of the head, just as all of the Parkland doctors and nurses maintained, as well as most of the Secret Service detail. As can be seen from the following review of Doug Horne's Volume IV of "Inside the Assassination Records Review Board," Dr. Mantik is well aware of the illicit surgery and clandestine craniotomy: Why he does not factor those pre-autopsy procedures into his analysis of the X-rays and head damage is a mystery to me: "...Illicit Surgery at the Bethesda Morgue In order to paint Humes and Boswell (H&B hereafter) as the morbid co-conspirators, Horne needs first to clarify the timeline – which he does brilliantly (see the Appendix at the end of this review). The ARRB learned, for the first time, that JFK's body initially arrived at the Bethesda morgue at 6:35 PM local time (in a black hearse). That information derives from an after-action report (written on November 26, 1963) by Marine Sergeant Roger Boyajian.3 Quite astonishingly, Boyajian had retained a copy of his report, which he presented to the ARRB. His report corroborates the recollections of Dennis David4 who saw the light gray navy ambulance (with the bronze casket from Dallas) arrive at the front of the hospital, where he saw Jackie exit; its arrival time was either 6:53 PM or 6:55 PM (the sources vary).5 But just about 20 minutes earlier, David had directed his on-duty sailors as they delivered the body in a cheap casket, i.e., the entry described by Boyajian. David estimated (from memory) the delivery time as 6:40 PM, or perhaps 6:45 PM. His estimate is strikingly close to Boyajian's recorded time of 6:35 PM. Horne concludes that this arrival time of 6:35 PM must now be accepted as a foundation stone in this case. As further corroboration for this time, he emphasizes that even Humes agreed with it: before the ARRB, Humes cited the initial arrival as possibly as early as 6:45 PM.6 In my opinion, therefore, it is very difficult to disagree with this early arrival time. If this is accepted, though, the repercussions are colossal – it means that the bronze casket (the one that traveled with Jackie) was empty. Horne next compiles a long table7 of witnesses to the cheap casket and the body bag, both of which were seen at this initial entry. He is also very persuasive here, although he rightfully credits Lifton with much of this groundbreaking work. Now if the body arrived at 6:35 PM in a cheap shipping casket, when did it exit the bronze casket (the one that left Parkland)? Horne suggests that this transfer occurred right after the bronze casket boarded Air Force One. (Lifton again blazed this trail.) As corroboration for this, Horne8 describes JFK's Air Force Aide, Godfrey McHugh, as perturbed about a delay caused by a 'luggage transfer' between the two official planes. After this transfer to a body bag, tampering became feasible. Horne suggests that an initial foray into the body took place in the forward baggage compartment prior to the flight to DC; the goal was to extract metal debris or a bullet from the throat wound. (It is not known whether anything was found.) Horne infers that a similar attempt was made on the brain, but that attempt likely foundered because the requisite tool (e.g., a bone saw) was missing. The second casket entry (via a light gray navy ambulance) occurred at about 7:17 PM. James W. Sibert and Francis X. O'Neill, Jr. (the two-member FBI team) and Roy H. Kellerman and William Greer (both Secret Service) together delivered the (empty) bronze casket to the morgue.9 This time is consistent with the arrival time of the bronze casket (shortly before 7 PM) at the front of the hospital. The third casket entry (with the body inside) has traditionally been accepted as the official one – at 8 PM (in a light gray navy ambulance). It was delivered by the Joint Service Casket Team.10 The transfer of the body must have occurred (in the morgue) after the second entry at 7:17 PM. But it must also have transpired after the initial X-rays (for reasons to be discussed below).11 Finally, this transfer must have occurred well in advance of 8 PM so that the bronze casket could leave the morgue (Tom Robinson recalled this temporary departure12), be 'found' by the official casket team, and then delivered again at 8 PM. This sequence of three casket entries looks like a classic French farce, i.e., an affair concocted by a half-mad scriptwriter. Unfortunately, all of the evidence points strongly in the direction of three casket entries. Perhaps this would have been unnecessary, as Horne points out, if only Jackie had not insisted on staying with the bronze casket en route to the morgue. (She had declined a helicopter ride to the White House, which would have separated her from the Dallas casket.) Most likely the plan had been to surreptitiously transfer the body between caskets at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. But Jackie's unexpected decision to remain with the bronze Dallas casket waylaid those plans, which meant that Kellerman (who Horne nominates as the morgue manager) had to improvise on the spot. It was a highly risky business, during which this escapade was nearly uncovered, according to Horne. Lifton had argued that body alteration had occurred somewhere before Bethesda. He believed that altering the geometry of the shooting through "trajectory reversal" – i.e., turning entrance wounds into exit wounds, and planting false entrance wounds on the body – was the primary reason for the illicit post mortem surgery, and that removing bullet fragments was only a co-equal, or even secondary, goal of the clandestine surgery.13 Horne takes a different tack: he believes that the reason for assaulting the body (before Bethesda) was merely to extract bullet debris, not primarily to alter wounds. My own views come into play at this point. Before Horne's work, I had become convinced that someone had messed with the throat wound, most likely to extract bullet fragments. The evidence for this was that the two sets of witnesses – those at Parkland vs. those at Bethesda – had disagreed so profoundly. Also, Malcolm Perry, the surgeon who performed the tracheotomy, claimed that he had left the throat wound 'inviolate,' meaning that it was easily visible after the tube was pulled. In addition, Charles Crenshaw insisted that the tracheotomy at Parkland was nothing like the one in the autopsy photographs. I also had my own (telephone) encounter with the autopsy radiologist, John Ebersole.14 I still sense the horror in his voice as he recalled the tracheotomy and declared that he would never do one like that. Horne's witnesses (there are more) only validate my prior conclusion about throat tampering. Before Horne's work, I was uncertain about head tampering before Bethesda (although Lifton had made a strong case for it). Nonetheless, I had to agree that if the throat had been explored, then of course the head might also have been invaded. Although Horne is still open-minded about illegal tampering of the skull before Bethesda, he believes that such an event can be inferred from (1) Finck's statement (to the defense team at the Clay Shaw trial in 1969) that the autopsy report (presumably an earlier one, as the extant one does not say this) described the spinal cord as severed when the body arrived at Bethesda and (2) Tom Robinson's comment to the ARRB that the top of the skull was 'badly broken' when the body was received at Bethesda, but that the large defect (in the superior skull) in the autopsy photographs was 'what the [autopsy] doctors did' – i.e., that the missing skull was due to the pathologists, not due an assassin's bullet(s).15 These reports therefore provide more evidence that the head was explored somewhere before Bethesda; the goal was to retrieve bullet debris, but it failed – because the brain could not be extracted from the skull. In summary then, the body arrived at Bethesda as follows: (1) with a radically enlarged tracheotomy16 and no bullet debris in the neck (perhaps there never was any, as I have suggested elsewhere17) and (2) with the same (right occipital) exit wound that was seen at Parkland and with a brain that had not been removed from the skull and that therefore closely, or possibly even exactly, resembled the Parkland brain. Most likely the brain still contained most, or even all, of the bullet fragments from Dealey Plaza. (These metal fragments are, of course, absent from the official record today.) Those are Horne's conclusions about H&B, but let's look at the evidence. [Emphasis not in original]. So why does Horne conclude that H&B illicitly removed (and altered) the brain shortly after 6:35 PM, before any X-rays were taken, and before the official autopsy began? He here introduces two intriguing witnesses – the two R's, namely Reed and Robinson. Edward Reed was assistant to Jerrol Custer (the radiology tech), while Tom Robinson was a mortician. Rather consistently with one another, but quite independently, both describe critical steps taken by H&B that no one else reports. (Horne documents why no one else reported these events – almost everyone else had been evicted from the morgue before this clandestine interlude.) After the body was placed on the morgue table (and before X-rays were taken), Reed briefly sat in the gallery.18 Reed states19 that Humes first used a scalpel across the top of the forehead to pull the scalp back. Then he used a saw to cut the forehead bone, after which he (and Custer, too) were asked to leave the morgue. (Reed was not aware that this intervention by Humes was unofficial.) This activity by Humes is highly significant because multiple witnesses saw the intact entry hole high in the right forehead at the hairline. On the other hand, the autopsy photographs show only a thin incision at this site, an incision that no Parkland witness ever saw. The implication is obvious: this specific autopsy photograph was taken after Humes altered the forehead – thereby likely obliterating the entry hole. Reed's report suggests that Humes deliberately obliterated the right forehead entry; in fact, the autopsy photograph does not show this entry site. Paradoxically, however, Robinson (the mortician) recalls20 seeing, during restoration, a wound about º inch across at this very location. He even recalls having to place wax at this site. So the question is obvious: If Humes had obliterated the wound (as seems the case based on the extant autopsy photograph), how then could Robinson still see the wound during restoration? This question cannot be answered with certainty, but two options arise: (1) perhaps the wound was indeed obliterated (or mostly obliterated) and Robinson merely suffered some memory merge – i.e., even though he added wax to the incision (the one still visible in the extant photograph), he was actually recalling the way it looked before Humes got to it, or (2) the photograph itself has been altered – to disguise the wound that was visible in an original photograph. The latter option was seemingly endorsed by Joe O'Donnell, the USIA photographer,21 who said that Knudsen actually showed him such a photograph. Regarding Robinson, Horne concludes that he arrived with the hearse that brought the body (i.e., the first entry). After that, Robinson simply observed events from the morgue gallery; contrary to Reed's experience, he was not asked to leave. Just before 7 PM, Robinson22 saw H&B remove large portions of the rear and top of the skull with a saw, in order to access the brain. (Robinson was not aware that this activity was off the record.) He also observed ten or more bullet fragments extracted from the brain. Although these do not appear in the official record, Dennis David recalls23 preparing a receipt for at least four fragments.24 Contrary to Reed and Robinson, Humes25 declared that a saw was not important: We had to do virtually no work with a saw to remove these portions of the skull, they came apart in our hands very easily, and we attempted to further examine the brain. Although James Jenkins (an autopsy technician) does not explicitly describe the use of a saw, he does recall that damage to the brain (as seen inside the skull) was less than the corresponding size of the cranial defect; this indirectly implies prior removal of some of the skull.26 Horne adds an independent argument for multiple casket entries.27 Pierre Finck told the Journal of the American Medical Association28 that he was at home when Humes telephoned him at 7:30 PM. (In his 2/1/65 report to General Blumberg he cites 8 PM.29) Finck, as a forensic pathologist, had been asked to assist with the autopsy. As further confirmation for Finck's overall timeline, he arrived (see his Blumberg report) at the morgue at 8:30 PM. But here is the clincher: during this phone call, Humes told Finck that X-rays had already been taken – and had already been viewed. On the other hand, the official entry time (with the Joint Service Casket Team) was at 8 PM! If that indeed was the one and only entry time, how then could X-rays have been taken – let alone developed and viewed (a process of 30 minutes minimum) – even before the official entry time? The only possible answer is that the body did not first arrive at 8 PM. Furthermore, Custer and Reed, the radiology techs, provide timelines consistent with much earlier X-rays; in particular, they recall seeing Jackie enter the hospital lobby,30 well after the 6:35 PM casket entry – an entry they had personally witnessed. In summary, eyewitnesses convincingly support a much earlier timeline than the official entry of 8 PM. Therefore, multiple casket entries are logically required. And that more relaxed timeline gave H&B time both to perform their illicit surgery and also for skull X-rays to be taken and read, most likely all before 7:30-8:00 PM. The reader might well ask why Reed and Robinson (and Custer, too) were permitted to observe (at least briefly) this illegal surgery by H&B. Horne proposes that the morgue manager that night (Kellerman) was not present for the first casket entry – that's because he was riding with Jackie and the bronze casket. Therefore, before he arrived (most likely that was shortly after 7 PM), there was no hands-on stage manager in the morgue. It is even possible that Kellerman himself ejected Reed and Custer as soon as he arrived. Robinson, on the other hand, dressed in civilian clothing, may have seemed to Kellerman a lesser threat, so Robinson stayed. Several conclusions follow from the above analysis. First, the official skull X-rays31 do not show the condition of the skull or the brain as seen at Parkland. Instead, they were taken after tampering by H&B, perhaps even after significant tampering, especially if Robinson and Reed are correct. Furthermore, the massive damage seen in the photographs and X-rays was not caused just by a bullet or even by multiple bullets, but instead by pathological hands. In particular, for a single, full metal-jacketed bullet (the Warren Commission's inevitable scenario) to generate such an enormous defect has always defied credibility.32 Likewise, Boswell's sketch (for the ARRB) on a skull33 of this enormous defect only shows the condition of the skull after tampering by H&B – and does not reflect the skull as seen at Parkland. (The Parkland witnesses fully concur with this.) On the other hand, many witnesses at Bethesda saw the condition of the skull before such tampering began. These witnesses, both physicians and paraprofessionals, uniformly describe a right occipital blowout,34 consistent with a shot from the front. Leaving aside the pathologists, as many as eight Bethesda physicians may be on this list.35 In photographs,36 both Parkland and Bethesda witnesses demonstrate with remarkable unanimity, on their own heads, the location of this obvious exit wound on the right rear skull. The X-rays do, however, show many small fragments distributed across the top of the skull.37 So why didn't Humes extract more of these? I have previously proposed (based on their actual appearance – as viewed in detail on multiple occasions at the Archives) that they look more like mercury than like lead. If so, then Humes would not have been able to palpate them (mercury is liquid) and would therefore have been unable to remove them during his illicit surgery phase. We could go on to ask: What other evidence exists for such illicit surgery? Lifton initially introduced this issue by citing the FBI report (by Sibert and O'Neill), which quoted Humes as describing surgery to the head.38 Sibert, in the 2000s, still insisted that they had quoted Humes correctly about such surgery.39 (I also heard Sibert say this in Fort Myers, Florida, during one of Law's taping sessions.) Furthermore, the FBI had no reason to fabricate such a statement. On Lifton's tape (which I have heard), he queries Humes about this; to me, Humes does sound remarkably suspicious and evasive. But the FBI men are not the only witnesses to his statement. Another is James Jenkins, who quotes Humes40 as asking: 'Did they do surgery at Parkland?' Furthermore, Humes was later told, when some skull fragments arrived at the morgue,41 that these had been 'removed' during surgery at Parkland. We all know that did not happen, so where did they come from? Horne implies that Humes himself had removed them during the illicit phase. Another supporting argument is the remarkable ease of removing the brain from the skull (during the official autopsy phase), but this is not so surprising if it had previously been removed during the unofficial phase. James Jenkins42 observed that the brainstem had been cut, as if by a scalpel (not severed by a bullet), which also suggests its earlier removal that evening (while Jenkins was absent). In any case, such an early removal was likely essential to successfully search for (and extract) bullet debris. Even Finck43 bears witness to a transected spinal cord: to the defense team at the Shaw trial in 1969, Finck stated that the autopsy report (presumably an earlier one, as the extant one does not say this) described the spinal cord as severed when the body arrived at Bethesda. Finck was still absent when the brain was removed, so someone must have told him this, most likely Humes. Horne comments further on the throat wound. He concludes that H&B were well aware of this wound that night and he provides considerable evidence for this conclusion.44 However, given the absence of the throat wound from the FBI report, H&B probably learned of it only after the FBI left, i.e., after 11 PM.45 That information then led to the pathologists' interim discussion of an exit through the throat, as later reported by Richard Lipsey.46 Horne even speculates that an early version of the autopsy report included exactly this scenario, which later had to be discarded because of timing data from the Zapruder film. Regarding the throat wound I would add the following. Warren Commission loyalists like to cite medical articles that ER personnel cannot reliably distinguish entry from exit wounds. Even if true, though, that comment obfuscates the situation. To the contrary, in this particular case several facts trump those medical reports: (1) such a tiny exit wound could not be duplicated in experiments47 and (2) Milton Helpern (who had done 60,000 autopsies) said that he had never seen an exit wound that was so small (under similar conditions).48 Then there is the question of the magic bullet. As Horne summarizes, its provenance has been extensively investigated by Josiah Thompson49 (with recent assistance from Gary Aguilar). In the face of the persistent refusal of the pertinent witnesses to identify this bullet, most likely it would never have been admitted at trial – and that alone would thoroughly devastate any Warren Commission case.50 A final telling blow derives from the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC): before political leverage was exerted, their scenario actually included a frontal throat shot!51..." 3 Ibid. at Figure 68 and at xxxiii. A more detailed account is in Horne's Appendix 38; see http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/docset/getList.do?docSetId=1932. 4 David Lifton, Best Evidence (1988), at 569-588. 5 For example, see Clint Hill's statement at http://www.jfk-online.com/clhill.html: 'The motorcade arrived Bethesda Naval Hospital at 6:55 p.m.' Hill also describes landing with Air Force One at Andrews Air Force Base at 5:58 PM. 6 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1002. 7 Ibid. at 989-992. 8 Horne cites William Manchester, Death of a President (1967). 9 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1006. 10 Horne, supra, Volume I at Figure 70. 11 The entire X-ray collection is listed in Ibid. at Figure 58. 12 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1007. 13 In retrospect, Lifton had been grievously misled by the HSCA's false statements, namely that the autopsy photographs were authentic and that all the witnesses agreed with them. This falsehood was only discovered after the movie, JFK, triggered the release of multiple, sequestered witness statements that disagreed with the photographs. 14 James Fetzer, editor, Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000), at 433 and 436. 15 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1164. 16 Horne, supra, Volume I at Figure 60. 17 Fetzer (2000), supra, at 258-259. 18 Horne, supra, Volume I at Figure 40, shows a sketch of the morgue floor plan, including the gallery. 19 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1035, 1163-1171 and Volume II at 426 and 437. 20 Fetzer (2000), supra, at 250. 21 Ibid. at 242. 22 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1005. 23 Lifton (1988), supra, at 492 and 579. 24 Harry Livingstone actually prints a photograph of four fragments in High Treason (1998), at 562. Their provenance, however, seems uncertain. 25 Warren Commission Hearings, Volume II at 354. 26 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1042-1043. 27 Ibid. at 1000. 28 Breo, D.L., 'JFK's death, Part II – Dr. Finck speaks out, ëtwo bullets, from the rear,' ' JAMA 268:1749 (1992). 29 http://www.jfk-assassination.net/weberman/finck1.htm. Or see Horne's Appendix 29 or 7 HSCA 101, 122, 135, 191. The list of appendices is in Horne, supra, Volume I at xix-lii. The appendices themselves are at the Mary Ferrell website. See my footnote 3 for a link. 30 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1005. 31 Horne, supra, Volume I at Figures 37-38. 32 See Boswell's sketch from the autopsy: Horne, supra, Volume I at Figure 11. 33 Ibid. at Figures 12-15. 34 For two eyewitness sketches see Ibid. at Figures 21 & 30. Also see the sketch approved by Parkland physician, Robert McClelland: Ibid. at Figure 81. 35 Michael Kurtz includes George Burkley, Robert Canada, John Ebersole, Calvin Galloway, Robert Karnei, Edward Kenney, David Osborne, and John Stover; see The Assassination Debates (2006), at 39 and 126. 36 Robert Groden, The Killing of a President (1993), at 86-88. 37 Horne, supra, Volume I at Figures 37-38. 38 Lifton, supra, at 295-307. 39 William Law, In the Eye of History (2005), at 143-288. 40 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1036 and 1038. 41 See their X-rays in Horne, supra, Volume I at Figure 39. 42 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1037. 43 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1036-1037. 44 Ebersole also confirmed a call to Dallas during our telephone conversations (see my footnote 14). He estimated the time as about 10:30 PM (Ibid. at 999). What struck me, though, is the reason why he recalled this event so clearly: he said that after they learned about the throat wound, they stopped searching for bullet debris on the X-rays (Fetzer (2000), supra, at 437). Quite interestingly, Stringer also seemed to recall such a telephone call (Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1011; Volume I at 166; or HSCA interview with John Stringer, Document 013617, at 4). Moreover, Stringer's estimate of the time agreed with Ebersole's estimate. Dr. Robert Karnei (resident pathologist) also recalled a telephone call to Parkland on that Friday night; see Harry Livingstone, High Treason II (1992), at 186. 45 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 999. Oddly enough, Malcolm Perry, before the Warren Commission, initially recalled his conversation with Humes as Friday night; see Warren Commission Hearings, Volume III at 380 or http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/perry_m1.htm: Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Perry, did you have occasion to discuss your observations with Comdr. James J. Humes of the Bethesda Naval Hospital? Dr. PERRY - Yes, sir; I did. Mr. SPECTER - When did that conversation occur? Dr. PERRY - My knowledge as to the exact accuracy of it is obviously in doubt. I was under the initial impression that I talked to him on Friday, but I understand it was on Saturday. I didn't recall exactly when. 46 Horne, supra, Volume I at Figure 83. 47 Olivier, A.G., Dziemian, A.J., 'Wound Ballistics of the 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition. US Army Edgewood Arsenal Technical Report CRDLR 3264.' March 1965. Also see Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1083 and Kurtz, supra, at 35. 48 Kurtz, supra, at 35. Also see Marshall Houts, Where Death Delights; the Story of Dr. Milton Helpern and Forensic Medicine (1967). 49 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1089-1095. Also see Josiah Thompson, Six Seconds in Dallas (1967), at 176. Thompson here actually wonders if the bullet had been switched by government agents sometime after its initial appearance. Also see http://www.historymatters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm. 50 David Wrone has made a similar argument for the chain of possession of the Zapruder film; see Fetzer (1998), supra, at 265. Wrone claims that a good lawyer could have kept the film out of the courtroom (although it did surface for the Clay Shaw trial). Given the recent interviews with Dino Brugioni (see below), that argument today is stronger than ever. 51 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1208-1212; the NPIC proposed such a frontal shot at frame Z-190. Of course, there is also the article by Paul Mandel (Ibid. at 1202 and LIFE, December 6, 1963) about the Zapruder film: "Öthe 8 mm film shows the President turning his body far around to the right as he waves to someone in the crowd. His throat is exposed---towards the sniper's nest---just before he clutches it." 'Douglas Horne, Inside the ARRB (Part IV)' Written by David Mantik | Kennedys & King | Friday, 05 November 2010 22:47 | https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/horne-douglas-inside-the-arrb-part-iv "I stand in awe of the scope, detail, and profound insights that Horne has achieved, especially in the medical evidence – to say nothing of his Olympian effort. ... The bottom line is that I feel a deep debt of gratitude to Horne for further disentangling this nearly half-century old Gordian knot. By contrast, I should emphasize that I never experienced that sensation with Bugliosi, writes David Mantik."

Now that you are endorsing and expressing your unwavering confidence in Dr. David Mantik's work, it is high time that you become familiar with some of that work (as long as you can get past all that "gibberish" written therein, that is...). "For photographic information to be accepted as evidence in court, the images must be vouched for; and their whereabouts ascertained at all times. The legal principle is that eyewitness testimony has priority over photographs. The principle was turned upside down by the battalions of lawyers who worked for the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) and for the WC. For them, against all legal precedent, the assumption was always the reverse: if the witnesses disagreed with the official view, it was assumed that they were in error or even lying. On the other hand, the photographs (and the X-rays, too) were assumed to be immutable monuments to truth. In a real trial, no competent judge would have permitted this illegal approach. In view of the astonishing absence of elementary record keeping for possession of the film, it is likely that no data obtained from the film could have been used in a trial. The paradoxes of the first two reenactments raise tangible concerns about the validity of the Zapruder film as evidence (timing issues, specifically). An attorney for either side could have emphasized that point in addition to the lack of custody if he (or she) wanted to keep the film out of court." David W. Mantik, How the Film of the Century was Edited, included in Assassination Science (1998) THE ZAPRUDER FILM CONTROVERSY [PDF] By David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D. The Mantik View [Editor’s note: In this essay, David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., who has undertaken the most extensive and detailed studies of its internal content and other properties, including comparisons of the film to other copies, of the film to other photographs and films, and of the film to eyewitness reports, in the history of the study of the assassination of JFK, provides a framework for understanding and exploring the questions raised by the lack of authenticity of the film, which has been extensively edited using highly sophisticated techniques. Those who wish to pursue this issue in greater detail should see the studies on this topic in Assassination Science (1998), including Mantik's transformational work.] "It is misleading to claim that scientific advances and scholarly experiments can cause all photo fakes to be unmasked. Questions about authenticity remain. Many photos that once were considered genuine have ‘recently been determined to be faked. The authenticity of some is still being debated…" - Dino Brugioni. https://www.academia.edu/69989816/The_Zapruder_Film_Controversy?uc-sb-sw=69890835

All you know about this book is what you've read on an Amazon review page and you are out trumpeting claims from the rooftops that Dr. Mantik has retreated from his long-held scientific findings about the Harper Fragment, fraud in the X-ray evidence and the large avulsive occipital-parietal wound on the right side of the back of JFK's head? Dr. Mantik's findings are all completely consistent with all of the evidence I have presented for you which you have admitted you are too lazy to even read. As with all of your other rantings, you have no idea what you are talking about regarding Dr. Mantik's books...

You'd be laughed out of court regurgitating that mantra...

Sorry @Keyvan Shahrdar, but the size of the font you use doesn't imbue your claims with additional value and importance. What you are advocating for is prioritizing fraudulently altered photographic and film evidence over the official reports and witness accounts of 50+ individuals, most of whom were law enforcement and medical professionals. All film and photographic evidence must meet authentication standards in courts of competent jurisdiction where ultimate truth is adjudicated in our rule of law based civilization, and film evidence which is contradicted by the testimony and reports of 50+ witnesses cannot be authenticated and entered into evidence (except to prove fraud). Take, for example, the Zapruder film, which fraudulently depicts a cantaloupe sized cavernous hole in President Kennedy's forehead which was not reported by any of the Dealey Plaza, Parkland Hospital or Bethesda autopsy witnesses: ____________ Exhibit Number One of my Federal Rule of Evidence 402 Motion in Limine is going to be the first day admittance note medical reports that were filed by Drs. Kemp Clark, Charles Carrico, Malcolm Perry, Charles Baxter, Robert McClelland and Marion Jenkins immediately after their efforts to resuscitate President Kennedy on November 22, 1963. None of these reports support the existence of the frontal head wound depicted by the fraudulent Zapruder film imagery: COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 392: APPENDIX VIII - MEDICAL REPORTS FROM DOCTORS AT PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, DALLAS, TEXAS: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/jfkinfo/app8.htm Summary (By Dr. Kemp Clark) The President arrived at the Emergency Room at 12:43 P. M., the 22nd of November, 1963. He was in the back seat of his limousine. Governor Connally of Texas was also in this car. The first physician to see the President was Dr. James Carrico, a Resident in General Surgery. Dr. Carrico noted the President to have slow, agenal respiratory efforts. He could hear a heartbeat but found no pulse or blood pressure to be present. Two external wounds, one in the lower third of the anterior neck, the other in the occipital region of the skull, were noted. Through the head wound, blood and brain were extruding. Dr. Carrico inserted a cuffed endotracheal tube. While doing so, he noted a ragged wound of the trachea immediately below the larynx. At this time, Dr. Malcolm Perry, Attending Surgeon, Dr. Charles Baxter, Attending Surgeon, and Dr. Ronald Jones, another Resident in General Surgery, arrived. Immediately thereafter, Dr. M. T. Jenkins, Director of the Department of Anesthesia, and Doctors Giesecke and Hunt, two other Staff Anesthesiologists, arrived. The endotracheal tube had been connected to a Bennett respirator to assist the President's breathing. An Anesthesia machine was substituted for this by Dr. Jenkins. Only 100% oxygen was administered. A cutdown was performed in the right ankle, and a polyethylene catheter inserted in the vein. An infusion of lactated Ringer's solution was begun. Blood was drawn for type and crossmatch, but unmatched type "O" RH negative blood was immediately obtained and begun. Hydrocortisone 300 mgms was added to the intravenous fluids. Dr. Robert McClelland, Attending Surgeon, arrived to help in the President's care. Doctors Perry, Baxter, and McClelland began a tracheostomy, as considerable quantities of blood were present from the President's oral pharynx. At this time, Dr. Paul Peters, Attending Urological Surgeon, and Dr. Kemp Clark, Director of Neurological Surgery arrived. Because of the lacerated trachea, anterior chest tubes were place in both pleural spaces. These were connected to sealed underwater drainage. Neurological examination revealed the President's pupils to be widely dialted and fixed to light. His eyes were divergent, being deviated outward; a skew deviation from the horizontal was present. Not deep tendon reflexes or spontaneous movements were found. There was a large wound in the right occipito-parietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring. 1500 cc. of blood were estimated on the drapes and floor of the Emergency Operating Room. There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound. Further examination was not possible as cardiac arrest occurred at this point. Closed chest cardiac massage was begun by Dr. Clark. A pulse palpable in both the carotid and femoral arteries was obtained. Dr. Perry relieved on the cardiac massage while a cardiotachioscope was connected. Dr. Fouad Bashour, Attending Physician, arrived as this was being connected. There was electrical silence of the President's heart. President Kennedy was pronounced dead at 1300 hours by Dr. Clark Kemp Clark, M. D. Director Service of Neurological Surgery KC:aa cc to Dean's Office, Southwestern Medical School cc to Medical Records, Parkland Memorial Hospital ______________________________________________________________________________________ PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ADMISSION NOTE J. F. KENNEDY DATE AND HOUR 11/22/63 1620 DOCTOR: Carrico When patient entered Emergency room on ambulance carriage had slow agonal respiratory efforts and scant cardiac beats by auscultation. Two external wounds were noted. One small penetrating wound of ant. neck in lower 1/3. The other wound had avulsed the calvarium and shredded brain tissue present with profuse oozing. No pulse or blood pressure were present. Pupils were dilated and fixed. A cuffed endotracheal tube was inserted and through the laryngoscope a ragged wound of the trachea was seen immediately below the larynx. The tube was passed past the laceration and the cuff inflated. Respiration using the resp assistor on auto-matic were instituted. Concurrently an IV infusion of lactated Ringer solution was begun via catheter placed in right leg and blood was drawn for type and crossmatch. Type O Rh negative blood was obtained as well as hydrocortisone. In view of tracheal injury and decreased BS an tracheostomy was performed by Dr. Perry and Bilat. chest tubes inserted. A 2nd bld infusion was begun in left arm. In addition Dr. Jenkins began resp with anethesia machine, cardiac monitor, and stimulator attached. Solu cortef IV given (300mg), attempt to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue via packs instituted. Despite these measures as well as external cardiac massage, BP never returned and EKG evidence of cardiac activity was never obtained. Charles J. Carrico M.D. PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ADMISSION NOTE J. F. KENNEDY DATE AND HOUR 22 Nov 1963 DOCTOR: PERRY Staff Note At the time of initial examination, the pt. was noted as non-responsive. The eyes were deviated and the pupils were dilated. A considerable quantity of blood was noted on the patient, the carriage and the floor. A small wound was noted in the midline of the neck, in the lower third anteriorly. It was exuding blood slowly. A large wound of the right posterior cranium was noted, exposing severely lacerated brain. Brain tissue was noted in the blood at the head of the carriage. Pulse or heartbeat were not detectable but slow spasmodic respiration was noted. An endotracheal tube was in place and respiration was being assisted. An intravenous infusion was being placed in the leg. At this point I noted that respiration was ineffective and while additional venisections were done to administer fluids and blood, a tracheostomy was effected. A right lateral injury to the trachea was noted. The tracheostomy tube was put in place and the cuff inflated and respiration assisted. Closed chest cardiac massage was instituted after placement of sealed drainage chest tubes, but without benefit. Electrocardiographic evaluation revealed that no detectable electrical activity existed in the heart. Resuscitation attempts were abandoned after the team of physicians determined that the patient had expired. Malcolm O. Perry, M.D. 1630 hr 22 Nov 1963 PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ADMISSION NOTE DATE AND HOUR NOV 22, 1963 DOCTOR: BAXTER Note of Attendance to President Kennedy. I was contacted at approx 12:40 that the President was on the way to the emergency room having been shot. On arrival there, I found an endotracheal tube in place with assisted respirations, a left chest tube being inserted and cut downs going in one leg and in the left arm. The President had a wound in the mid-line of the neck. On first observation of the remaining wounds the rt temporal and occipital bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table, with .extensive lacerations and contusions. The pupils were fixed and deviated lateral and dilated. No pulse was detectable and respirations were (as noted) being supplied. A tracheotomy was performed by Dr. Perry and I and a chest tube inserted into the right chest (2nd intercostal space anteriorally). Meanwhile, 2 pts of O neg blood were administered by pump without response. When all of these measures were complete, no heart beat could be detected. Close chest message was performed until a cardioscope could be attached which revealed no cardiac activity was obtained. Due to the excessive and irreparable brain damage which was lethal, no further attempt to resuscitate the heart was made. Charles R. Baxter M.D. Associate Prof of Surgery Southwestern Medical School PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ADMISSION NOTE JOHN F. KENNEDY DATE AND HOUR 22 Nov 1963 DOCTOR: [KEMP CLARK] 12:20pm to 13:00 hrs Called by EOR while standing in (illegible) Laboratory at SWMS. Told that the President had been shot. I arrived at the EOR at 1220 - 1225 and .The President was bleeding profusely from the back of the head. There was a large (3 x 3cm) amount of cerebral tissue present on the cart. There was a smaller amount of cerebellar tissue present also. A tracheostomy was being performed by Drs. Perry, Baxter and McClelland. Exam of the President showed that an endotracheal tube was in place and respiratory assistance was being given by Dr. Akins and Jenkins. The pupils were dilated, fixed to light and his eyes were deviated outward and the right one downward as as well . The trach was completed and I adjusted the endotracheal tube a little bit. Blood was present in the oral pharynx. Suction was used to remove this. Levine Catheter was passed into the stomach at this time. He was (illegible) that I (illegible) no carotid pulse. I immediately began closed chest massage. A pulse was obtained at the carotid and femoral pulse levels. Dr. Perry then took over the cardiac massage so I could evaluate the head wound. There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region. Much of the skull appeared gone at brief examination . The previously described lacerated brain was present. By this time an EKG was hooked up. There was no electrical activity of the heart and no respiratory effort - He was pronounced dead at 1300 hrs by me. W. Kemp Clark 22 Nov 1963 1615 hrs - PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ADMISSION NOTE DATE AND HOUR Nov. 22, 1963 4:45 P.M. DOCTOR: Robert N. McClelland Statement Regarding Assassination of President Kennedy At approximately 12:45 PM on the above date I was called from the second floor of Parkland Hospital and went immediately to the Emergency Operating Room. When I arrived President Kennedy was being attended by Drs Malcolm Perry, Charles Baxter, James Carrico, and Ronald Jones. The President was at the time comatose from a massive gunshot wound of the head with a fragment wound of the trachea. An endotracheal tube and assisted respiration was started immediately by Dr. Carrico on Duty in the EOR when the President arrived. Drs. Perry, Baxter, and I then performed a tracheotomy for respiratory distress and tracheal injury and Dr. Jones and Paul Peters inserted bilateral anterior chest tubes for pneumothoracis secondary to the tracheomediastinal injury. Simultaneously Dr. Jones had started 3 cut-downs giving blood and fluids immediately, In spite of this, at 12:55 he was pronounced dead by Dr. Kemp Clark the neurosurgeon and professor of neurosurgery who arrived immediately after I did. The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple. He was pronounced dead after external cardiac message failed and ECG activity was gone. Robert N. McClelland M.D. Asst. Prof. of Surgery Southwestern Med. School of Univ of Tex. Dallas, Texas PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ADMISSION NOTE DATE AND HOUR Nov. 22, 1963 4:45 P.M. DOCTOR: BASHOUR Statement Regarding Assassination of the President of the U.S.A., President Kennedy. At 12:50 PM, we were called from the 1st floor of Parkland Hospital and told that President Kennedy was shot. Dr. D ?? and myself went to the emergency room of Parkland. Upon examination, the President had no pulsation, no heartbeat, no blood pressure. The oscilloscope showed a complete standstill. The president was declared dead at 12:55 P.M. F. Bashour M.D. Associate Professor of Cardiology Southwestern Medical School Dallas, Texas. THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL SCHOOL DALLAS November 22, 1963 1630 To: Mr. C.J. Price, Administrator Parkland Memorial Hospital From: M.T. Jenkins, M.D., Professor and Chairman Department of Anesthesiology Subject: Statement concerning resusciative efforts for President John F. Kennedy Upon receiving a stat alarm that this distinguished patient was being brought to the emergency room at Parkland Memorial Hospital, I dispatched Doctors A . H. Giesecke and Jackie H. Hunt with an anesthesia machine and resuscitative equipment to the major surgical emergency room area, and I ran down the stairs . On my arrival in the emergency operating room at approximately 1230 I found that Doctors Carrico and/or Delaney had begun resuscitative efforts by introducing an orotracheal tube, connecting it for controlled ventilation to a Bennett intermittent positive pressure breathing apparatus . Doctors Charles Baxter, Malcolm Perry, and Robert McClelland arrived at the same time and began a tracheostomy and started the insertion of a right chest tube, since there was also obvious tracheal and chest damage . Doctors Paul Peters and Kemp Clark arrived simultaneously and immediately thereafter assisted respectively with the insertion of the right chest tube and with manual closed chest cardiac compression to assure circulation. For better control of artificial ventilation, I exchanged the intermittent positive pressure breathing apparatus for an anesthesia machine and continued artificial ventilation . Doctors Gene Akin and A . H. Giesecke assisted with the respiratory problems incident to changing from the orotracheal tube to a tracheostomy tube, and Doctors Hunt and Giesecke connected a cardioscope to determine cardiac activity. During the progress of these activities, the emergency room cart was elevated at the feet in order to provide a Trendelenburg position, a venous cutdown was performed on the right saphenous vein, and additional fluids were begun in a vein in the left forearm while blood was ordered from the blood bank . All of these activities were completed by approximately 1245, at which time external cardiac massage was still being carried out effectively by Doctor Clark as judged by a palpable peripheral pulse. Despite these measures there was no electrocardiographic evidence of cardiac activity . These described resuscitative activities were indicated as of first importance, and after they were carried out attention was turned to all other evidences of injury . There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound. There were also fragmented sections of brain on the drapes of the emergency room cart . With the institution of adequate cardiac compression, there was a great flow of blood from the cranial cavity, indicating that there was much vascular damage as well as brain tissue damage . It is my personal feeling that all methods of resuscitation were instituted expeditiously and efficiently . However, this cranial and intracranial damage was of such magnitude as to cause the irreversible damage . President Kennedy was pronounced dead at 1300 . Sincerely, /s/ M. T. Jenkins M. T. Jenkins, M.D . ____________ Much to the contrary, what the first day admittance note medical reports of Drs. Kemp Clark, Charles Carrico, Malcolm Perry, Charles Baxter, Robert McClelland and Marion Jenkins support is a large avulsive occipital-parietal wound on the right side of the back of President Kennedy's head with extruding cerebellar brain tissue, and then one of my physician expert witnesses is going to provide testimony and present exhibits demonstrating where the cerebellum is located and where a head wound would have to be in order for there to be extruding cerebellar brain tissue: ____________ Next, one of my pathologist expert witnesses will testify and present the autopsy photographs as evidence to demonstrate that that there was no cantaloupe sized cavernous hole in President Kennedy's forehead at the time of the autopsy at the Bethesda Naval Medical Center: ____________ Thereafter, Dr. Gary Aguilar, testifying as an expert medical witness will present the results of his inquiry which demonstrated that 22 Parkland Hospital witnesses and 21 Bethesda autopsy witnesses reported that President Kennedy's large avulsive head wound was on the right side of the back of his head: This is a link to Dr. Gary Aguilar's compilation of the earliest testimony of the Parkland AND Bethesda witnesses -- http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm -- and the following chart is in part based upon the the witness accounts outlined in the article by Dr. Gary Aguilar: -------------------------------------------------- DR. GARY AGUILAR'S APPENDIX - TABLES AND FIGURES: https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_tabfig.htm ____________ Following Dr. Aguilar, Dr. David Mantik, serving as an expert medical witness, will present the findings of his studies of the JFK assassination evidence demonstrating that President Kennedy's large avulsive head wound was located in the occipital-parietal region of his skull, and that the Harper Fragment is occipital bone: ____________ And concluding my presentation will be professional cinematography witnesses Sydney Wilkinson, Thom Whitehead, Ned Price, Paul Rutan, Jr. and Leo Zahn who will testify regarding crude special effects work they have identified in the Zapruder film in the form of the black patch that has been placed over the large avulsive wound in the back of JFK's head, and the fraudulent head wound imagery in front (the "blob"): Because Sydney Wilkinson and Thom Whitehead are professionals working within the film industry, they have been able to enlist true Hollywood experts in cinematography and post production who have performed content analysis of the Zapruder film. Among them are genuine cinematography professionals such as Ned Price (https://studentfilmreviews.org/?p=17707 ), Paul Rutan, Jr. (https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0751876/ ) and Leo Zahn (https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0951991/ ). Look them up, they are the real deal. Smith: .…Now, as to my credibility, thirty-seven years in the movie business, I’m not sure how much lower you can go than that; and [I] just got done with nearly twenty-five years at Paramount, where I basically ran their mastering for most of those years and spent the last few years investigating new digital production technology. Rutan: [I’ve] been doing this since 1968, I was delivering film in New York City; and then full time from ’74 I got hired to work for my Dad, and I worked for him for 12 years — started out as janitor, and then shipping, and then film cleaning, and then film repair, and then optical lineup, and then optical printing. So, ever since then I’ve worked for a couple of companies, set up a department at COMPAC video, and I had my own company for 14 years doing restoration. Whitehead: Do you see any signs of alteration? Rutan: Yes. Whitehead: Where do you see them? Rutan: Well [speaking while pointing at frame 313 on a large HD monitor], in the — this explosion right here doesn’t look, it’s, see [pointing] — it’s got defects on it — but it just doesn’t look real, it doesn’t look like blood, it just doesn’t look real…. Rutan: I think you’re looking at a patch, at a photographic patch that they put on the back of his [JFK’s] head. It’s crude, but if you run the film you’ll see that it moves — differently than his head does, as well. So, it’s an optical, some sort of an optical [effect] that they put on there, to not show the back of his head. Whitehead: In your opinion, what do you think would have been the most likely way this would have been accomplished? Rutan: With an optical printer, with an aerial optical printer…. Rutan: Well, the only thing I can see really is how predominant the black patch is in this particular frame [pointing]. I mean, it’s clear to me that that is not the back of his head, that that is some kind of a [sic] optical effect, that has been laid on the back of his head by an optical house. And this [pointing at the large pink “blob” on the right side of JFK’s head] is also an optical effect. But the back of his head is what always — what I’m always drawn to, because you — it’s almost like he’s wearing a toupee, because there’s the top of his head [pointing at JFK’s auburn hair on the very top of his head] and that’s basically the color it should be, and then it’s black, it’s just solid black. Smith: You know, the density doesn’t match — the shoulders don’t match that [meaning that the shadow on the back of JFK’s shoulders does not match the black patch on the back of his head] and [the black patch] doesn’t match the top of his head [pointing to JFK’s auburn colored hair on top]…. Smith: It just seems really obvious that the frames where they’ve matted out the back of the head, and added in the pink splash, the pink water-balloon — whatever it is that’s supposed to be the blood — it’s just not even believable … maybe fifty years ago that might have passed muster, but for anybody — I mean — my impression is if I showed it to a 12-year old kid, they would say it was a cartoon…." https://www.fff.org/2023/08/16/the-evidence-that-convicts-the-cia-of-the-jfk-assassination-part-4/ ____________ After listening to opposing counsel sounding like a blathering idiot trying to make the case that "fact supersedes narrative," the Court would grant my motion excluding the Zapruder film from evidence, except to prove fraud.

ABRAHAM ZAPRUDER'S WARREN COMMISSION TESTIMONY ABOUT FILMING THE PRESIDENTIAL MOTORCADE TURN FROM HOUSTON ONTO ELM: Abraham Zapruder was adamant in his testimony to the Waren Commission that he intended to and did in fact film the turn from Houston onto Elm street, and Dan Rather also reported seeing that turn in the camera-original Zapruder film. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "...Mr. LIEBELER. As you stood there on this abutment with your camera, the motorcade came down Houston Street and turned left on Elm Street, did it not? Mr. ZAPRUDER. That's right. Mr. LIEBELER. And it proceeded then down Elm Street toward the triple underpass; is that correct? Mr. ZAPRUDER. That's correct. I STARTED SHOOTING -- WHEN THE MOTORCADE STARTED COMING IN, I BELIEVE I STARTED AND WANTED TO GET IT COMING IN FROM HOUSTON STREET...." (emphasis not in original) https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0290a.htm ABRAHAM ZAPRUDER'S CLAY SHAW TRIAL TESTIMONY ABOUT FILMING THE PRESIDENTIAL MOTORCADE TURN FROM HOUSTON ONTO ELM: "...Q: What did you see as you took your films in Dealey Plaza that day? Explain to the Jury. Zapruder: I saw the approaching motorcade of the President coming from Houston Street, turning left on Elm Street and coming down towards the underpass..." https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/zapruder_shaw2.htm ABSENCE OF FIRST FRAME FLASH IN Z-133: Another indication that the turn onto Elm from Houston street has been edited out of the Zapruder film is the absence of "First Frame Flash" being evident in the film when it starts again after the turn, and the earliest viewers of the Z-film (such as Dan Rather and Abraham Zapruder) described seeing the presidential limousine turning onto Elm street. It's evidence that the turn sequence was deleted from the film, not stopped and restarted by Zapruder. With regard to Abraham Zapruder's camera, as noted by Rollie Zavada, First Frame Flash was "a given" and should have appeared in Z-133 (when Zapruder was purported to have resumed filming) just as it did appear in Z-001 when Zapruder initially started filming... --------------------------------------------------------------- ROLLIE ZAVADA REPORT REFERENCE TO FIRST FRAME FLASH: --------------------------------------------------------------- "First Frame Over-Exposure: The first frame of advance motorcade scene shows an over exposure condition, known as "first-frame-overexposure." In my discussions with M.E. Brown, former Manager of the 16mm and 8mm Department at Eastman Kodak, the condition was undesirable and a development/design problem to be avoided, but a not uncommon occurrence. Mr. Zapruder's camera appears to have been prone to the problem. The Secret Service copies of his family pictures show two other occurrences of first frame over exposure. With my test cameras, I had one, #3, that consistently had a noticeable first frame over exposure by about one-third of a stop. We were not given the opportunity to run a practical test with Zapruder's camera to determine if the first frame artifact was a consistent problem or unique to the assassination film roll." Letter of March 14, 1998, from Malcolm Townsley regarding first frame over-exposure. https://archive.org/stream/ZavadaReport/Zavada+Report_djvu.txt FIRST FRAME FLASH AT Z-001 ABSENCE OF FIRST FRAME FLASH AT Z-133 FIRST FRAME FLASH -- THE PROOF OF Z-FILM ALTERATION THAT SUPPORTERS JUST HATE! "...The extant Z-film first shows motorcycles coming up the street, then it abruptly changes to the President's limo. The last frame showing the motorcycles is frame 132 - the first frame showing the limo is frame 133. The contention of believers is that Zapruder stopped filming, then started again when the limo was in view. Due to the mechanical nature of the spring wound camera, the film, due to inertia, cannot get up to speed instantly, and so is moving slower for the first few split seconds... meaning that the first few frames will be overexposed in comparison to the rest of the film. (as they are traveling slower, and end up receiving more light from the open shutter) Patrick has admitted that he understands this issue. I've cited for Dale's benefit experts who state that this is the issue, and is known as 'first frame flash' for lack of a better term. It's PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE not to have overexposed frames on a mechanical camera, because inertia will not allow the first frame to be moving at the speed that the rest of the film will very soon be moving at. PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. Camera designers work hard to minimize this effect, but it cannot be entirely removed without repealing the laws of inertia. So Patrick KNOWS that in an unaltered film, when the camera is first started, the first few frames will be over-exposed. He's admitted this. [And, I might add, Roland Zavada has also stated this... "First frame density difference is seen at ALL tails to head transitions."] This was the very same issue that proved the 'Alien Autopsy' film to be a fake - as there weren't any 'first frame flash' effects where there should have been - thus proving that the film was a spliced together creation. Patrick has also admitted that he knows that Z-133 does NOT show any overexposure... AS IT ABSOLUTELY MUST HAVE. (Zavada is also on record as stating this... that Z-133 shows no overexposure in comparison to Z-132) So Patrick has, absent any other theory, proven that the extant Z-film has been DELIBERATELY cut and spliced together. His first attempted solution was so silly that it's worth pointing out again, just for laughs... Patrick speculated that "Hey well perhaps Time Life damaged a preceding frame to Z133 and never mentioned it......." Of course, Patrick clearly hadn't had his morning cup of tea, since any splicing that was done on the original film could not magically transfer to the copies of the film. ROTFLMAO!!! Now, despite understanding that the laws of inertia were not magically overcome in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63, and despite his admission that the relevant first few frames do NOT show the 'first frame flash' effect, Patrick has decided to pretend that he doesn't understand these two points, and that for Zapruder, on that day, with that camera, was able to do what the designers of the camera were unable to do... completely remove the effects of inertia. He does so by pretending that if the COPIES made of the film ALSO fail to show the overexposure of Z-133 - then yes, Zapruder overcame the laws of physics that day, and magically overcome inertia. He has to rely on the official story that the copies were made in Dallas, and that they are the ORIGINAL copies. In other words, he's relying on the official story that the film is legitimate in order to "prove" that the film is legitimate. (Henry Sienzant must be desperately holding his tongue on this logical fallacy!!) Patrick knows full well the evidence that the film was at a top secret film processing facility known as "Hawk Eye Works" the weekend of the assassination, so his theory that the film is unaltered because the copies are unaltered is just silly. You cannot logically argue that the film is legitimate because the film is legitimate. Circular arguments like this are just silly. But that's the best Patrick can do. He can't admit that first frame flash doesn't exist - he knows full well that I can cite experts stating otherwise... including the original designer of the Bell & Howell Zoomatic camera. He can't admit that Z-133 shows an overexposure when HIS expert, Zavada, said otherwise - and anyone can look today and see that it doesn't. So Patrick has to simply straddle the fence - unwilling to directly contradict the laws of physics, unwilling to pretend to see overexposure where none exists - yet unable to provide an alternate CREDIBLE theory... He's stuck. And he's not honest enough to admit it. ******************************************************* Patrick couldn't explain it, and Patrick runs rings around the morons that pass for Warren Commission believers in this forum. Most of the intelligent ones long since left for the safety of the censored forum...." https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/uUGc4-cKIJg

@Keyvan Shahrdar I haven't read the new book, but every indication I have had, including from a review of the book I just received from Phil Dragoo yesterday (See below), the data presented by Dr. David Mantik is the same as the data presented in his last two books. As usual, I don't have the slightest idea what you meant by the following: I'm certain that Dr. Mantik's stereoscopic testing findings that the back of the head autopsy photographs have a matte insert placed over the occipital-parietal wound on the right side of the back of JFK's head remains a sound and valid citation (as well as all of his other previous findings). If you think that you have some new information indicating that Dr. Mantik has retreated from any of his previous conclusions, then by all means, do present it: Dr. David Mantik wrote: ⁠ "...While at the National Archives, I performed stereo viewing of the autopsy photographs [8]. This is possible because each view is represented by two separate photographs, taken close together in time and space. Such a pair is what makes stereo viewing possible. I performed this procedure for the original generation of photographs (4” x 5” transparencies), for the color prints, and also for the black and white copies. I did this for many of the distinct views in the collection. But the bottom line is this: the only abnormal site was the back of the head—it always yielded a 2D image, as if each eye had viewed precisely the same image. Of course, that would have been expected if someone (illicitly in a dark room) had inserted the same image into that anatomic site for each member of the photographic pair. I discussed this issue with Robert Groden, who served as the photographic consultant for the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) during 1976-1979. He concurred with my observations, i.e., only the back of the head looked abnormal during his stereo viewing for the HSCA. ⁠ Although the large posterior hole is often cited as evidence for a frontal shot, a second issue, perhaps equally as important, should not be overlooked: the severe discrepancy between the photographs and the witnesses—all by itself— strongly suggests manipulation of this photograph. In other words, whoever altered this photograph likely recognized that the large posterior defect loudly proclaimed a frontal shot, so much so in fact, that it became critical to cover that hole. ⁠ Pathologist J. Boswell (many decades later) speculated that the scalp had merely been stretched so as to cover the hole. In fact, to have done so, and to have succeeded so seamlessly, would have defeated the sole purpose of the photographs, which presumably was to capture reality. If ever a photograph existed of this large defect, then that one has disappeared. ⁠ Some witnesses do recall seeing such a photograph immediately after the autopsy, and we know (from the autopsy photographer himself) that other autopsy photographs have disappeared. Furthermore, we know from Boswell’s sketch on a skull model, that the bone under this apparently intact scalp was in fact missing [9]. So which is more decisive: missing scalp—or missing bone? Some have argued that the Parkland physicians have authenticated this photograph, and that we should therefore accept its authenticity. However, what they said was more like this: If the scalp had been stretched in this fashion, then they could not take issue with that photograph. Absent such a peculiar maneuver, however, they were dubious. Their doubt was further accentuated in a very recent documentary: “The Parkland Doctors” [10] [THIS WAS RETITLED TO "WHAT THE DOCTORS SAW," AND WAS RECENTLY RELEASED BY PARAMOUNT +]. ⁠ Seven Parkland physicians met to discuss their recollections. They were profoundly troubled by autopsy images of the posterior scalp. To describe these images, they readily used words like “manipulated” and “altered.”..." ⁠ 'JFK ASSASSINATION PARADOXES: A PRIMER FOR BEGINNERS' | Journal of Health Science & Education | David W. Mantik, MD, PhD https://escires.com/articles/Health-1-126.pdf⁠ | Mantik DW (2018) JFK Assassination Paradoxes: A Primer for Beginners. J Health Sci Educ 2: 126. Mantik Final Analysis Phil Apr 18, 2024, 4:59 PM (16 hours ago) Phil's note: I have just reviewed The Final Analysis by David Mantik and Jerome Corsi on Amazon. Too often Amazon has rejected my review with all the opaque Kafkaesque implacability of Facebook's android terminator. As Marcus Aurelius advised, we concern ourselves with that which is within our power: Worth the wait My exposure to the assassination of JFK began as a student sent home from an English class lecture on Henry David Thoreau to watch another triple-named man's assassination before sixty Dallas police officers. The presidential commission relied upon a military autopsy with unprecedented anomalies, successive reports with initial efforts burned, x-ray films demonstrably false, photographs contradicting dozens of professional medical witnesses. The record was corrupted, but it would be six decades of doubt and speculation before this thorough scientific correction. The finality of this ultimate analysis is worth the wait. Dr. David Mantik, a radiologist with physics doctorate, has demonstrated through the optical density tool of his profession that the president was hit by three head shots: occipital, right forehead, right temple. Extraordinary claims backed by extraordinary research, nine visits to the Archives, hundreds of individual optical density measurements of the extant frontal (AP) and side (lateral) x-rays showing a fabricated 6.5 mm artifact not noted by the autopsists (Humes, Boswell, Fincke) or the original radiologist (Ebersole). Evidence of a forehead entry is seen in the skull and the particle stream, a stream which is separate from the occipital and temporal wounds. The Harper Fragment proves to be the Rosetta Stone of the analysis as it bears metallic traces of entry as well as proves a frontal shot by its forcible expulsion to the rear. The introduction by Douglas Horne the ARRB military medical records specialist places the x-rays in perspective with the presentation of multiple casket arrivals, pre-autopsy surgery, two brains and two brain exams. In an era when the call to follow the science is foremost we need look no further than this volume. ___________

Those are remarkably interesting interviews, Gil, especially the one of Abraham Zapruder's business partner, Erwin Schwartz, who accompanied Zapruder as the camera-original film was processed and initially viewed. I've long been interested in Schwartz's testimony in relation to his account (as well as the accounts of numerous other witnesses) of seeing blood, brain and skull blown backwards out of the President's head -- imagery that is not in the extant "original" Zapruder film. I have had the following, apparently from Noel Twyman's "Bloody Treason," for a good number of years: "...When I interviewed Erwin Schwartz, I asked him several questions about what he saw on the film when he first viewed it in its original state at Eastman Kodak. [In a footnote, Twyman made clear that Schwartz was referring to first viewing the film in its 16 mm wide, unslit state at the Kodak plant in Dallas.] ...I also asked him to describe what he saw at the instant of the fatal head shot. His answer was very descriptive. He said he saw Kennedy's head suddenly whip around to the left (counter-clockwise). I also asked him if he saw the explosion of blood and brains out of the head. He replied that he did. I asked him if he noticed which direction the eruption went. He pointed back over his left shoulder. He said, "It went this way." I said, "You mean it went to the left and rear?" He said, "Yes." Bartholomew then asked him, "Are you sure that you didn't see the blood and brains going up and to the front?" Schwartz said, "No; it was to the left and rear." We went over this several times with him to be certain he was clear on this point. He was very clear. Of course. Schwartz's statement that the blood and brains went back to the rear and left was completely consistent with all of the eyewitnesses who said they saw the rear of Kennedy's head blow out and brain and blood go to the rear. It was also consistent with Dallas motorcycle policeman Bobby Hargis's testimony that he was riding to the rear and the left of limousine and was splattered with blood and brains...So here we have testimony from a man who first saw the original Zapruder film (he said he looked- at it at least fifteen times over the weekend)...who...saw the eruption of blood and brains in a direction opposite [to] what we now see on the Zapruder film...." In preparation for this post I did some research and found that Richar Bartholomew published the source interview for the above material on the internet on May 25, 2023, and the following excerpts from that interview are relevant to this subject: "...Erwin remembers that JFK leaned toward Jackie after the first shot. And the camera didn't stay on him. “It kind of moved,” Erwin said. Jackie “kind of pushed him upright,” Erwin said, and she looked at him as if to be saying, “What's wrong?” Then his head snapped back, and half of it came off. “You didn't see the open skull, but you saw stuff flying everywhere.” Erwin said the debris went toward the back. JFK was turned toward Jackie. Erwin did not see any stopping of the motion of the car or the film. “I don't think it ever came to a stop,” he said. This motion was seen by Erwin at the first viewing and during his subsequent viewings. “People have asked me, ‘did he go straight back like that?’” Erwin said. “No, he went that way. I mean, you know, because you could see his face after the shot,” Erwin answered.... ...Erwin cannot comment on witness claims that the limousine came to a stop because he wasn’t there. The car had not stopped in Erwin’s estimation. When Clint Hill caught up with it, the car was moving. Erwin did not see any indication in the film that the panning action of the camera stopped either. Erwin thinks Clint Hill’s actions were the most heroic thing he has seen. “He literally pushed her back into that seat. Dove on top of her. I mean, if anybody deserved a medal it’s that guy.” At the first indication that JFK had been hit, Erwin could not tell where he got hit. There was no blood or anything. Erwin always saw the film at full speed. He never saw it slow. The debris flew off JFK’s head quick enough that Erwin described it as “a jerk.” When asked if he saw any debris go forward, Erwin said, “No. Not that I recall. It went backwards, left.” It looked like just one shot, “then you see her trying to get the hell out of there.”..." 'Erwin Schwartz Interview, Nov. 21, 1994' Regarding Mr. Schwartz's and his business partner Abraham Zapruder’s early chain of possession of Mr. Zapruder's film BARTHOLOVIEWS | By Richard Bartholomew | May 25, 2023 | https://medium.com/@bartholoviews/erwin-schwartz-interview-nov-21-1994-c86708034449 The takeaways from this, in my opinion, are that just like Dan Rather of CBS and Cartha DeLoach of the FBI, Schwartz did not see the violent backwards head snap in the camera original film (the violent backwards headsnap also was not reported by a single Dealey Plaza witness as happening in real time [Doug Horne discussing this subject speculates that the violent rearward headsnap is the result of frame removal to excise the rearward flying biological debris coming out of JFK's head]). And Schwartz also repeatedly emphasizes seeing the rearward flying biological debris, imagery which is completely absent from the extant "original" Zapruder film (instead, we see only the black patch that covers the occipital-parietal wound in the back of JFK's head): The following witness accounts are indicative of the rearward flying biological debris we should be seeing in the Zapruder headshhot sequence directly above, but which has clearly been completely excised from the extant film: __________ "...BLOOD, BRAIN MATTER, AND BONE FRAGMENTS EXPLODED FROM THE BACK OF THE PRESIDENT'S HEAD. THE PRESIDENT'S BLOOD, PARTS OF HIS SKULL, BITS OF HIS BRAIN WERE SPLATTERED ALL OVER ME -- ON MY FACE, MY CLOTHES, IN MY HAIR..." Secret Service Agent Clint Hill (in his 2012 book "Mrs. Kennedy and Me: An Intimate Memoir"). __________ "...I HAD BRAIN MATTER ALL OVER MY WINDSHIELD AND LEFT ARM, THAT'S HOW CLOSE WE WERE TO IT ... IT WAS THE RIGHT REAR PART OF HIS HEAD ... BECAUSE THAT'S THE PART I SAW BLOW OUT. I SAW HAIR COME OUT, THE PIECES BLOW OUT, THEN THE SKIN WENT BACK IN -- AN EXPLOSION IN AND OUT..." Secret Service Agent Samuel Kinney (3/5/1994 interview by Vince Palamara). __________ "...WHEN PRESIDENT KENNEDY STRAIGHTENED BACK UP IN THE CAR THE BULLET HIT HIM IN THE HEAD, THE ONE THAT KILLED HIM AND IT SEEMED LIKE HIS HEAD EXPLODED, AND I WAS SPLATTERED WITH BLOOD AND BRAIN, AND KIND OF A BLOODY WATER...." Dallas Motorcycle Patrolman Bobby Hargis (4/8/1964 Warren Commission testimony). __________ "...I CAN REMEMBER SEEING THE SIDE OF THE PRESIDENT'S EAR AND HEAD COME OFF. I REMEMBER A FLASH OF WHITE AND THE RED AND JUST BITS AND PIECES OF FLESH EXPLODING FROM THE PRESIDENT'S HEAD..." Dealey Plaza witness Bill Newman interviewed about the JFK assassination -- 0:13-0:27 -- https://youtu.be/EEhlbAwI7Zg?t=13 __________ "...THE HEAD SHOT SEEMED TO COME FROM THE RIGHT FRONT. IT SEEMED TO STRIKE HIM HERE [gesturing to her upper right forehead, up high at the hairline], AND HIS HEAD WENT BACK, AND ALL OF THE BRAIN MATTER WENT OUT THE BACK OF THE HEAD. IT WAS LIKE A RED HALO, A RED CIRCLE, WITH BRIGHT MATTER IN THE MIDDLE OF IT - IT JUST WENT LIKE THAT...." Dealey Plaza witness Marilyn Willis from 24:26-24:58 of TMWKK, Episode 1, at following link cued in advance for you https://youtu.be/BW98fHkbuD8?t=1466 ). __________ "...Charles Brehm: 0:21 WHEN THE SECOND BULLET HIT, THERE WAS, THE HAIR SEEMED TO GO FLYING. IT WAS VERY DEFINITE THEN THAT HE WAS STRUCK IN THE HEAD WITH THE SECOND BULLET, AND, UH, YES, I VERY DEFINITELY SAW THE EFFECT OF THE SECOND BULLET. Mark Lane: 0:38 Did you see any particles of the President's skull fly when the bullet struck him in the head? Charles Brehm: 0:46 I SAW A PIECE FLY OVER OH IN THE AREA OF THE CURB WHERE I WAS STANDING. Mark Lane: 0:53 In which direction did that fly? Charles Brehm: 0:56 IT SEEMED TO HAVE COME LEFT AND BACK...." Dealey Plaza witness Charles Brehm interviewed about JFK assassination by Mark Lane for the 1967 documentary "Rush to Judgment": https://youtu.be/RsnHXywKIKs __________ "...I SAW THE HEAD PRACTICALLY OPEN UP AND BLOOD AND MANY MORE THINGS, WHATEVER IT WAS, BRAINS, JUST CAME OUT OF HIS HEAD...." Testimony of Dealey Plaza witness Abraham Zapruder -- who filmed the assassination -- at the Clay Shaw trial -- https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/zapruder_shaw2.htm __________ "...I also asked him if he saw the explosion of blood and brains out of the head. He replied that he did. I asked him if he noticed which direction the eruption went. He pointed back over his left shoulder. He said, "IT WENT THIS WAY." I said, "You mean it went to the left and rear?" He said, "YES." Bartholomew then asked him, "Are you sure that you didn't see the blood and brains going up and to the front?" Schwartz said, "NO; IT WAS TO THE LEFT AND REAR...." Excerpt from interview of Erwin Schwartz -- Abraham Zapruder's business partner -- who accompanied Zapruder to develop the camera-original Zapruder film, and saw the camera-original projected more than a dozen times. Bloody Treason by Noel Twyman. __________ "...Brugioni's most vivid recollection of the Zapruder film was "...OF JFK'S BRAINS FLYING THROUGH THE AIR." He did not use the term 'head explosion,' but rather referred to apparent exit debris seen on the film the night he viewed it. "...AND WHAT I'LL NEVER FORGET WAS -- I KNEW THAT HE HAD BEEN ASSASSINATED -- BUT WHEN WE ROLLED THE FILM AND I SAW A GOOD PORTION OF HIS HEAD FLYING THROUGH THE AIR, THAT SHOCKED ME, AND THAT SHOCKED EVERYBODY WHO WAS THERE..." Excerpt from interview of Dino Brugioni -- Photoanalyst at the CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center -- who viewed the camera-original Zapruder film the evening of 11/23/1963. Douglas Horne, Inside the Assassination Records Review Board" , 2009, Volume IV, Chapter 14, page 1329. __________