Guest James H. Fetzer Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 (edited) "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't need to worry about answers". - Thomas Pynchon, GRAVITY'S RAINBOW (1973). On another thread on this forum, I have noticed a response from one Bill Kelly to a post by Bernice Moore that struck me as quite bizarre. Bernice was quoting from a report by Doug Horne, who would become the senior military analysis for the Assassination Records Review Board, of an interview he did with Homer McMahon, who was in charge of the color-photo lab at the NPIC in Washington, D.C. McMahon testified that he had been bought a copy of a film --he doesn't call it "the Zapruder", since he did not know its origin, and, indeed, its contents do not correspond to the present film, which is why his report is significant--that he had observed six to eight impacts from at least three directions. This is eyewitness testimony reporting what he witnessed when he watched this film, which he said he had watched at least ten times. This is extremely important, since the present film does not show anything like "six to eight impacts from at least three directions", yet the studies of the medical evidence, especially by David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., which were published in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000) along with Doug Horne's report about Homer McMahon and the conduct of (what turned out to be) two supplemental autopsies, one with the real, one with a substitute, brain, are some of our most important evidence that impugns the authenticity of the Zapruder film. Since his work on the supplemental autopsies complements the conclusions of Robert Livingston, M.D., a world authority on the human brain, that the brain shown in diagrams and photographs at the National Archives cannot possibly be the brain of JFK, in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), I am worried that Kelly is not up to speed on the medical evidence. He also appears to be out of his depth on the Zapuder, since the four shots to JFK--one to his throat (from in front), one to his back (from behind), and two to the head (one from behind and one from in front)--and as many as three to John Connally (from the side) add up to a number between six and eight from at least three directions. If Kelly is going to disregard what we know from sources like these, where Robert Livingston was a world authority on the human brain and an expert on wound ballistics, and David Mantik is both a Ph.D. in physics and an M.D., who is board certified in radiation oncology and makes profession decisions affecting life and death on the basis of his interpretations of X-rays, then we are not going to be able to make any progress at all in understanding what happened to JFK in Dealey Plaza on 22 November 1963! The reason for fabricating the film, of course, was to conceal the true causes of the death of John F. Kennedy. This Kelly business reminded me of my latest exchange with John P. Costella, Ph.D. in physics with a specialization in electromagnetism, the properties of light and the physics of moving objects, which resolves the question of why the conflict with the Moorman has been so sensitive to the gang in its attempts to quash progress in understanding the case. The Zapruder shows a massive blow out to the right front, which is inconsistent with the medical evidence, as I summarize it below, because JFK's brains were blown out to the BACK AND LEFT, not to the RIGHT FRONT. Roderick Ryan, an expert on special effects who received the Academy Award for lifetime contributions in 2000, told Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997), that the brains and gore had been painted in. So what we see in the film is a false depiction of the true causes of the death of JFK. I don't know exactly what games Kelly is playing here, but grasping the reasons for fabricating the film is not rocket science. And his dismissal of the exceptional research of Doug Horn boggles the mind! If you want to solve the case, you must ignore William Kelly. Here, however, is where John Costella's post to me makes such a difference in understanding why the Moorman issue has been so protracted and so contentious. Barb's fallback seems to be that the Newmans saw JFK's brains and blood on the side of his head, which is probably true. The frangible bullet that entered his right temple appears to have also caused a flap of skull to crack open and to have damaged his ear. But seeing brains and blood is not the same thing as seeing his brains bulge out to the right front, which the medical studies in MURDER by David Mantik and also by Gary Aguilar address. Indeed, when Tink posted his first hatchet-job review of MURDER on amazon.com, he complimented the author of only one chapter, namely: Gary Aguilar. But that was a thoughtless act on is part, because Aguilar's chapter is devoted to establishing the consistency of the observations of the wound to his head at Parkland and at Bethesda, where he produces powerful proof that they were consistent descriptions of the massive opening at the back of the head that McClelland and Crenshaw had drawn, which Mantik had confirmed, and which can even be seen in late frames of the film, such as 374. Which is no doubt why he later returned to his review and removed the sentence about Aguilar. What John noticed, however, is that Barb's attempt to suggest that brains and gore actually did bulge out to the right front of his location in the limo, as the Newmans purportedly observed--when it was actually coming out the back of his head--would require that JFK's head be turned dramatically to the left (that is, his face be turned sharply toward his left shoulder). Then the claim could be made that the Newmans saw brains and gore blown out that was coming from the back of his head, WHICH IN THE ZAPRUDER LOOKS LIKE IT IS BEING BLOWN OUT TO THE RIGHT FRONT! That is quite a stretch for those of us who understand the evidence, but in a situation like this, it is not surprising to see those who want to defend Zapruder authenticity, including Tink, Miller, Lamson, Barb, and even Shackelford, among others, to grasp after straws. In this context, therefore, John's observation that the Moorman contradicts that explanation and exposes it as a sham, because JFK's head is NOT shown dramatically turned to the left, which means that the blow out of brains and gore to the right front cannot be attributed to his having turned his head to the left, which means the authenticity of the film has indeed been impeached by the medical evidence! And this refutation of the film appears definitive! Which, I now believe, is why Josiah has been so insistent on drawing attention to distant background features of the film. If Jack and I are right about the film having been taken from the street--and after all of the testimony from Mary and from Jean, it is beyond any doubt!--then of course the photo DIRECTLY impeaches the Zapruder. But that issue hinges on subtle and complex issues, where he has tried to create enough smoke to make it appear to be uncertain, while the far more powerful INDIRECT proof based on the medical evidence lies dormant. I therefore believe he has concocted this charade for more than one purpose, both to defeat the direct proof but lead us away from the indirect. We appear to have succeeded in exposing twin hoaxes, Zapruder's and Tink's! And, of course, the answer to the question is that Zapruder did not take "the Zapruder film" because NO BODY "takes" a fake film. It was concocted from various ingredients using the sophisticated techniques of optical printing and special effects as a fabrication that no one , including Zapruder, actually took. ________________ All, I found some of Barb's observations so extraordinary that I sent the below post to several of those with whom I collaborate to make sure that there wasn't something here I was missing. The passages that puzzled me include: [Hide Quoted Text] You just leap to seeing that wound as proof of film alteration ... which is nonsense if you know the medical evidence. There was a gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head ... jsut where Parkland said they saw it. Clint Hill saw it in DP when he was hanging over the back of the limo all the way to Parkland ... and the autopsy measurements, notes, and diagrams/drawings corroborate damage in precisely that area of JFK's skull ... as well as the gull extent of the damage to his skull. The Zfilm is not at odds with any of the damage known to have occurred to JFK's skull. The film captured fleeting fractions of seconds and the back of JFK's head, in shadow, was not exactly mugging for the camera. This, of course, makes me wonder whether Barb has ever looked at frame 374, for example, where the blow-out is visible, reviewed John's studies of the film, which I have highlighted many times now, or ever read HOAX. I would place a considerable bet that she has never read HOAX, but since it is so easy to look at frame 374 or watch John's studies of the film, (1) The third gif: http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/ (2) Frames 312, 313, and 314: http://assassinationscience.com/johncostel...ntro/crater.gif (3) The Wound Mistake: http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...ntro/wound.html I don't know what to make of her position, in light of the quantity and quality of the evidence arrayed against here. In any case, John sent me an extremely interesting suggestion about a possible relationship between Mary's photograph and Zapruder's film, which I wanted to share with you. Jim ----- Forwarded message from email@example.com ----- Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:28:54 +1100 From: John Costella <firstname.lastname@example.org> Jim, I still sit on Tink's side when it comes to the extant Moorman and what camera position it implies, so make sure that the issues are disentangled. Re the head wound being inconsistent with the Z film, I think it's beyond doubt. The explanation I like best is David Lifton's in Best Evidence about the time they got hold of the clear frames in the early '70s. The GIF sequences of deblurred frames on my website make it clear for the newcomer, but it really goes back to DSL. The only argument that Tink and Miller and the others put forward against this is that somehow JFK's head is massively rotated to the left in 313 and 314, and that we are seeing the part of his head above his right ear. Ironically, the Moorman polaroid itself dismisses this idea (if these were all genuine), as it lines up at about Z-315 or Z-316, and shows that JFK's head is tilted but not spun around as would be required -- and as you can see from Clip G on my website, his head starts to lift from 314 through to 318 but does not rotate left or right. Indeed, maybe that's the point of all this Moorman guff. Forget about the pedestal for the moment, and look at JFK. Place the Moorman next to Zapruder frame 315 or 316, and you have two (allegedly genuine) different views of the same instant of time. That shows you that the "red blob" that explodes out the front of his head in the Z-toon is indeed supposed to be coming out of his right temple. If his head had been rotated massively to the left, we'd be able to see his face in the Moorman -- but we don't. John Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:06:28 -0500 From: email@example.com David and David, Jack and John, I especially need your opinions on this issue. Am I right or wrong that the medical evidence, especially of the massive blow-out to the back of the head, is inconsistent with the Zapruder, which shows a massive blow-out to the right- front side of the head? You can even see it in frame 374 of the film itself. Here is my basic argument, which I have been advancing for quite a while now: Tink adopted the pose that there is a simple choice between accepting Mary's testimony and the alleged consistency of all of the films and photographs, when their consistency is not enough to establish their authenticity. That would dictate, for example, discounting the massive and detailed proof that the Zapruder is a recreation! He talked as though Costella were on his side, when he is actually Tink?s greatest nightmare. It was as though Tink hadn?t read "New Proof of JFK Film Fakery" presenting John's latest proof, much less THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX. None of what I have said here even reaches to the mutually reinforcing deceptions of (a) the blow out to the right-front in the Zapruder film, ( the missing right-front in the anterior-posterior X-ray, and © the publication of 313 in LIFE magazine with a caption saying that the right-front of his head had been blown out (which was rewritten twice after twice breaking the plates). And it implicates Zapruder in the deception, when (d) he described a blow-out to the right-front during an interview on television that night (HOAX, page 435)! None of it was true. Jackie herself reported that, from the front, he looked just fine but that she had a hard time holding his skull and brains together at the back of his head. None of the witnesses or doctors reported it. Not even the mortician! It's not just that Tink?s little boat has sprung a leak. It has sunk like a sieve into the ocean of truth! Jim ----- Forwarded message from firstname.lastname@example.org ----- Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 23:25:04 +0000 (UTC) From: Barb Junkkarinen <email@example.com> You are preaching to the choir. I presented and exhibition ... complete with gurney from a local hospital, JFK and Parkland personnel stand-ins and a tasteful rubber wound made to the avg dimension described at Parkland ... to show everyone there is NO doubt that with JFK laying on his back on a gurney in TR1, the Parkland doctors could without a doubt, see exactly what they said they saw ... and where they saw it. You just leap to seeing that wound as proof of film alteration ... which is nonsense if you know the medical evidence. There was a gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head ... jsut where Parkland said they saw it. Clint Hill saw it in DP when he was hanging over the back of the limo all the way to Parkland ... and the autopsy measurements, notes, and diagrams/drawings corroborate damage in precisely that area of JFK's skull ... as well as the gull extent of the damage to his skull. The Zfilm is not at odds with any of the damage known to have occurred to JFK's skull. The film captured fleeting fractions of seconds and the back of JFK's head, in shadow, was not exactly mugging for the camera. Think before you leap ... and you can't really think about anything in this arena, let alone promote leaps of fancy, until you know and understand the evidence. Hi Bernice,The photo paragraph states that "Jean Hill stood in the grassy area to the extreme right when the fatal shot was fired." It does not say she was in the street. I posted that to demonstrate that it is coming out of the same book that some are saying says that she was in the street when the fatal shot was fired. Kathy I've been lucky enough to go to DP a few times. Hi Kathy: I realize that you have been to Dealey, you are fortunate. ""Quote Kathy :I posted that to demonstrate that it is coming out of the same book that some are saying says that she was in the street when the fatal shot was fired."" Please link thanks. ""Now that I have taken a look at Bill Sloan with Jean Hill, THE LAST DISSENTING WITNESS (1992), I have discovered on p. 63 the following exchange between Jean Hill and a person--identified by FBI AIC Gordon Shanklin--as a CIA agent: "You said you were 'right at the curb' on Elm Street as the presidential limousine approached", he began, "but weren't you actually in the street itself for several seconds?" "Yes", she replied, regaining some of her composure. "I jumped into the street and called out to the president to look in our direction. We wanted to take his picture". "Is that the only reason you were in the street?" She frowned. "Yes, of course", she said. "And why did you suddenly jump back from the president's car at almost exactly the same instant the shooting started?" "I just realized I probably shouldn't be so close, and I decided I'd better get back. Notice how consistent this is with Mary's description of stepping into the street, taking her picture, stepping back on the grass and getting down so she would not be shot and tugging at Jean's leg, so she would get down, too."" What I see as one of the main points in all this, that appears to be constantly averted is that none of these actions of Mary & Jeans are seen within the Zapruder film, and should be..... As what one has stated does verify the other's information..... ..Mary has stated and very clearly, she was in the street....3 times I believe down through the years.... .. Thanks B.. ********* The reel was an interview by Jay Hogan of Mary Moorman and Jean Hill at 3:30 pm...on KRLD RADIO excerpts, Tape 5B and 6A at NARA. I am excerpting from the lengthy transcript several relevant parts of the interviews. Decide for yourself the importance of this first day evidence: HOGAN: Q: Hello, Mrs. Moorman? A: Yes. Q You took the picture just after the shooting, or just before? A: Evidently, just immediately, as the. . . Cause he was, he was looking, you know, whenever I got the camera focused and then I snapped it in my picture, he slumped over. (DELETED FOR BREVITY) Q: About how close were you? (DELETED FOR BREVITY) A: 10 or fifteen foot, I, no more . . . Because I fall behind my camera. (DELETED FOR BREVITY) Q: Were you up on that grassy bank there? A: We stepped out in the street. We were right at the car. (DELETED FOR BREVITY) Q: How many shots did you hear? You say "shots rang out". A: Oh, oh, I don't know. I think three or four is what I, I uh, that I heard. Q: Uh huh. A: (continuing) that I'm sure of. Now, I don't know, there might have been more. It just took seconds for me to realize what was happening. Q: Yeah, uh, what as your first thought? A: That those ARE shots. I mean, he had been HIT. And that they're liable to hit me, cause I'm right at the car, so I decided the place for me is to get on the ground (laughs) Q: So huh, how did the president respond to this shot. I mean, did he just slump suddenly? A: He grabbed his chest, and of course, Mrs. Kennedy jumped up immediately, and fell over him; and she said: "My God, he's been shot." Q: Did you notice any other reactions... (DELETED FOR BREVITY) A: Uh, they hesitated just for a moment [referring, I believe, to the car itself, rather than to the behavior of any particular individual--dsl] cause I think they were like I was, you know--'Was that a shot," or was itj ust a backfire, or just what? And then, course, he clutched himself and they immediately sped up, real fast, you know, like--to get OUT of there. And, uh, the police, there were several motorcycles around him; and, uh, they stopped, and uh--one or two must of went with him, And one ran up the hill, and a friend that was with me ran up the hill across the street from where the shots came from. (DELETED FOR BREVITY) Q: It (shots) seemed fairly close by? A: Yes, uh huh. Q And form what direction did they seem to be? A: Oh, Lord? North. Just back there (at--laughs) Q: Just just right at you? A: Yes, sir. (DELETED FOR BREVITY) A: The sound popped, well it just sounded like, well, you know, there might have been a firecracker right there in that car. Q: And in your picture, uh, you uh took this picture just BEFORE the shot? (DELETED FOR BREVITY) A: Evidently, at the minute (means "instant") that he, that it hit him because, uh, we was we was looking, at me, or I mean, he was looking, you know, at the people when my picture came out. They just slumped over, so I must have got it. (DELETED FOR BREVITY) A: Yes, uh huh. You could see he's clutched, he's bent over, and she's... and she hadn't even gotten up in my picture, and she DID get up, STOOD UP, in the car. (DELETED FOR BREVITY) Q: Uh huh. And you and your friend Miss Hill, uh, were together there at the scene. Was anybody else with you? A No, uh uh. Q: OK, well we sure thank you. FROM HERE ON OUT, the interview continues with Jean Hill Q: (continuing) And also, here, we do have Miss Hill. Miss Hill, you were an eyewitness, also? A: Yes, I was . I suppose we were the people closest to the President's car at the time. Q: Uh, that as about 10 or fifteen feet, you'd say? A: Not anymore than that at all. Q: Uh huh. You were both looking right at the presidential car, then? A: Yes, we were looking right at the President. We were looking at his face. As Mary took the picture, I was looking at him. And he grabbed his hands across his ch-when two shots rang out. He grabbed his hands across his chest. I have never seen anyone killed, or in pain before like that but there was this odd look came across his face, and he pitched forward onto Jackie's lap. DSL NOTE: I believe this must mean: "to the side onto Jackie's lap" --because Jackie was to the left of JFK, not in front of JFK. In my interview of the Newman's, circa 1971, in person, and on tape, they talk of JFK falling to the side, or being thrust towards Jackie. A: And uh, she immediately, we were close enough to even hear her, and everything, and she fell across him and says "My God, he's been shot." Q: ..... Did you notice particularly any of the other people around? At the time (she cuts in) A: There was NO one around us on our side of the street. We had planned it that way; we wanted to be down there by ourselves; that’s the reason we had gotten almost to the underpass, so we’d be completely in the clear. Q: Any other reactions form the other people in the motorcae, that you recall? A: The motorcade was stunned after the first two shots, and it came to a momentary halt, and about that time 4 more uh, 3 to 4 more shots again rang out, and I guess it just didn't register with me. Mary was uh had gotten down on the ground and was pulling at my leg, saying "Get , get down, they're shooting, get down, they're shooting; and I didn't even realize it. And I just kept sitting there looking. And uh uh just about that time, well, of course, some of the motorcycles pulled away. And some of them pulled over to the side and started running up the bank; there's a hill on the other side (she is interrupted) Q: Yes, Maam. A: And the shots came from there. After they were momentarily stopped--after the first two shots--THEN they sped away REAL quickly. (DELETED FOR BREVITY) Q: Well, thank you Miss Hill, and also Miss Moorman, for speaking with us about this. A. Thankyou. ANNOUNCER: That's two eyewitnesses to the murdered president, who saw on his face the anguish of his very last hour alive. Before we go back to CBS, here again are some announcements of special local importance. Edited March 22, 2009 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now