Pat Speer Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 Pat, Does this mean you have never read the chapters by Gary Aguilar, M.D., and by David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000)? That might explain why your knowledge of the case displays astounding gaps. I am sorry to say, but this reinforces my impression of your incompetence: you haven't even read the most important studies about the issues that concern you the most! Simply stunning! hi pat..i think you are somewhat cherry picking if you want to compare what the witnesses stated the where. you think or the back of the head blow out just for one check the willis family what each stated the back of the head blew out..also others imo you cannot use some and leave the others out but that is m/o..hope you have a good new year...b Happy New Years to you as well. I used Newman and Zapruder because they are the only close-by witnesses I could find who demonstrated their impression of the wound location on 11-22. Another close-by witness, James Chaney, told a TV interviewer JFK was hit in the face. It is undoubtedly intriguing that none of these men, who saw Kennedy while he was still upright, thought the large head wound was on the back of JFK's head. As far as the Willis family, none of them were quoted till many months later, and they were some distance away. From their perspective, it would have been incredibly hard--probably impossible--to differentiate between an explosion of blood from the top of JFK's head while he was moving away from an explosion of blood from the back of his head. Even so, the FBI report on Marilyn Willis, the most consistent of the family, reported that she saw a "red halo" erupt from the top of Kennedy's head, not the back of his head. Phil Willis, moreover, not only testified that he did not see the impact of the final shot (which he apparently believed was the head shot) he testified that "The minute the third shot was fired, I screamed, hoping a policeman would hear me, to ring that building because it had to come from there." What absolute nonsense! Once again you suggest I haven't read something simply because I don't agree with its every conclusion, when it is you who have not read my FREE online book, or even watched my FREE online videos... The point made in the cited post, which you are apparently afraid to consider, is that those who saw Kennedy BEFORE he arrived at Parkland thought his large head wound was above and in front of his ear. The Parkland witnesses tended to claim it was behind his ear. Now, what changed? The body? No, well then how about the position of the body and the angle from which it was viewed? SURE ENOUGH, numerous studies have demonstrated and discussed the difficulty people have when interpreting faces rotated from the position in which they are normally viewed. Kennedy was not only flat on his back, his feet were elevated to a position far over his head. None of this is discussed in ANY of your books... Horne, apparently, avoided it as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 The point made in the cited post, which you are apparently afraid to consider, is that those who saw Kennedy BEFORE he arrived at Parkland thought his large head wound was above and in front of his ear. The Parkland witnesses tended to claim it was behind his ear. Now, what changed? The fact that the Dealey Plaza folks witnessed a transitory event which lasted seconds while the Parkland doctors observed a stationary body up close for an extended period of time, and described it with medical precision. What part of "occipital-parietal" don't you understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 irrelevant and quite frankly Craigster, David Lifton has more operating time on a professional optical film printer than you ever had... Your gonna need Rollie Zavada to endorse your KODAK double 8mm film "edge fog" scenario/dream (a few B&H414 engineers might help too) so, it's about time to roll out Dave Wimp and his traveling road show, eh? LMAO! Oh please David, bring SOMETHING to the table..anything...your bs jsut is not going to cut it any longer. How do you know what tkind of time I've spent on an optical printer or Oxberry animation stand? Oh yea, you don't. As for Lifton and his "experience" he threw that all away when you could not grasp a simple concept and standard term like "edge fog". Now what ya got David? Anything besides trash? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josiah Thompson Posted December 31, 2009 Author Share Posted December 31, 2009 David, In this post, you wrote: "In answer to your question: this is all once-removed (and even twice removed) hearsay to me. If some researcher shot such footage, I'd like to examine the product--whether on a DVD Rom, or if there is a Web-based address where it can be viewed, frame by frame. Thanks." Doug Horne writes: “About 3 or 4 years ago, I received in the mail a DVD of test film reportedly shot by a researcher named Rick Janowitz who is a research associate of David Healey’s. The film was shot in Dealey Plaza in a Bell and Howell camera supposedly identical to Zapruder’s. The images on the DVD (of what is apparently an 8 mm film) do show what appears to be ‘full flush left’ penetration into the intersprocket area – something Rollie Zavada could not consistently replicate in his own outdoor film tests. But I don’t have any way of authenticating what I am looking at on the DVD.” Doug Horne implies but does not state that this test film shows “consistent” full flush left penetration. Does this report match the "hearsay" reports you got, David? Does anyone know whether it is Janowitz who produced the film I had heard of that shows “consistent” full flush left penetration? Or is the film I’d heard of a second test film? Can anyone produce a couple of frames from this Janowitz film? David, do you think Doug Horne would let us see the copy he has of this test film? Josiah Thompson Tink,In answer to your question: this is all once-removed (and even twice removed) hearsay to me. If some researcher shot such footage, I'd like to examine the product--whether on a DVD Rom, or if there is a Web-based address where it can be viewed, frame by frame. Thanks. As to the intersprocket penetration, and whether the current state of the evidence (as we know it) can be used to render a final verdict one way or the other, I have stated my beliefs, based on what my eyes see. I do not believe these differences --which are clearly measurable and easily visible--can be explained away as "small differences" that can be explained away in the manner you suggest: "small differences in lens manufacture or mechanical functioning can account for the small differences between Zapruder camera image penetration and image penetration in like cameras." "small differences"? This is easily visible, and easily measurable. Stepping back from these details: this reminds me of Doug Horne's discovery of the situation that prevailed with regard to the Defense Department being requested by HSCA to please produce the camera used at the Bethesda autopsy. The camera was found, and when tested by the HSCA's photo panel, it was determined that that camera could not have taken the pictures in evidence. Rather than confront the fact that he had come upon powerful evidence of the inauthenticity of autopsy photographs (or at least some of them), Blakey's response to this was that DOD must have found "the wrong camera" (my quotes). I see a similar behavioral pattern here. A difference is spotted, and pointed out: the response is "normal variations" in camera manufacture, invented language ("edge fog") etc. Where precision is called for, fuzzy language is being supplied. In my opinion, we have a very serious problem here regarding the image extending further than it ought to. What I see here --in this evolving debate--is language being invoked to "explain it." I do not believe that these explanations are valid. But to carry this matter further, a test could (and perhaps should) be conducted. Can a Zapruder type camera, operating at full zoom, and in normal sunlight conditions, place image beyond the left edge? Based on the Zavada-supplied red truck frames that you posted, I believe the answer to be "no." It appears (to me) to be a mechanical impossibility. Yet such "beyond the left edge" imagery repeatedly shows up in the Zapruder frames. And one other point: I notice that in the Rollie test shots (and certainly at "full zoom," as I recall) there is a very visible light flare at the lower right hand edge of the sprocket hole. But on the Zapruder frames in evidence (and again I refer to the Costella combined edit), no such phenomenon appears. Again, I suspect this may be still another indicia of INauthenticity--i.e., that the Z film in evidence was not made in Zapruder's camera. DSL PS: Re your other question: I do not know the history of Bowers' accounts, or when he first mentioned seeing one (or two) men behind the knoll. If someone creates such a chronology, and if it demonstrates "evolution" in Bowers' story, I'd appreciate receiving a copy. Thanks. DSL David,I'm going to let Craig and Duncan deal with the point that you make. My knowledge of film and filmmaking is quite limited so anything I might say is probably not worth much, probatively speaking. From the perspective of ten or fifteen years we can all agree it might have been better if Rollie Zavada had been able to get hold of Zapruder's camera and shoot a few rolls through it. If so, we wouldn't have all these questions we now have. But that didn't happen. So we're stuck with what we've got... several cameras of like make and model that Rollie experimented with and the report that someone else shot some film through a similar camera in Dealey Plaza and got continuous full flush left intersprocket image penetration. Remember I asked if you knew anything about that. Do you? Rollie has a section in Study 4 called "Recognized Image Anomalies in the Zapruder Original Film." A subsection of this section he titles, "Image Penetration Between the Perforations." He points out that "the characteristics and depth of the image penetration... is directly related to the effective image area from the exit window of the Varamat lens, the focal length of lens and in some cases the aperture setting." I would guess everyone would agree that Rollie is correct about this. The next question is whether small differences in lens manufacture or mechanical functioning can account for the small differences between Zapruder camera image penetration and image penetration in like cameras. Josiah Thompson Tink,For many years, I took an assortment of science courses in which the importance of "what happens at the boundary" was emphasized. Although I am not claiming the analogy to be exact, the "intersprocket area" of the Zapruder film is of critical importance because it may contain optical evidence that the Zapruder film in evidence is not a camera original. There is really no room--or at least, very little room (in my opinion)--for there to be any significant difference between what the frames of the Zapruder film show, and what a test film made through Zapruder's Bell and Howell camera show (or a similar "store bought" camera, same make and model, etc.) if we are to believe that the Zapruder film in evidence is really "camera original." I just took a look through Costella's "combined edit" and call your attention to frames 235-244. In frame after frame, there is not only "full penetration" of the intersprocket area, but the image even extends FURTHER than the left margin. (Just focus on the image of SS Agent Clint Hill, who is often either partially, or wholly, to the left of the left margin). That, in my opinion, is a mechanical impossibility if the Z film that contains these frames was actually shot in Zapruder's Bell and Howell camera. Now, let's take a look at "Rollie's red truck"--the frames which you and Rollie Zavada seem to believe show "full penetration." Just compare them to the Zapruder frames shown in the Costella Combined Edit. Clearly, they are different. No part of the image in the "Rollie's red truck" frame extends past the left margin. I have made a JPEG of each of these frames, and have placed one above the other for easy viewing. I will try to "upload" that exhibit into this post. Hopefully it will work. What happens "at the boundary" really IS important in sciene, and that lesson can be applied in this case. These films SHOULD look the same. There are marked differences. If I am correct about this, then these frames which show "beyond full penetration" (and I don't care if it is 3% or 5%) is enough to prove that the Zapruder film in evidence was not made in Zapruder's Bell and Howell camera. Your comments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted January 1, 2010 Share Posted January 1, 2010 "Was JFK Trying to Cough Up a Bullet?" is crucial to connecting the dots, as I will arguevigorously going forward.. Im sorry Cliff but I cant understand why anybody would back Gils theory The first time I watched his JFK Cough video I thought that Gil was going to pop up and the end of the video and say "Ha ha just kidding guys I got you!" Im still trying to decide what part is more insane, JFK trying to catch the coughed up bullet in his right hand, or JFK trying to loosin his tie with his left hand How many researchers/students do you think back Gils theory up? (besides you and him) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted January 1, 2010 Share Posted January 1, 2010 "Was JFK Trying to Cough Up a Bullet?" is crucial to connecting the dots, as I will arguevigorously going forward.. Im sorry Cliff but I cant understand why anybody would back Gils theory More contentless dismissal. The first time I watched his JFK Cough video I thought that Gil was going to pop up and the end of the video and say "Ha ha just kidding guys I got you!" Are there any actual facts you wish to discuss? Or is ridicule the only note you hit? Im still trying to decide what part is more insane, JFK trying to catch the coughed up bullet in his right hand, or JFK trying to loosin his tie with his left hand And yet there JFK is, clear as day, holding his right hand in front of his face while his left hand "clutches" or "grabs" at his throat as per the witness testimony. Are you denying that JFK was struck in the throat from the front by a projectile that didn't exit? How many researchers/students do you think back Gils theory up? (besides you and him) Perhaps you need the reassurance of other people agreeing with you. This is not a particular need I've ever had. Happy New Year... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted January 1, 2010 Share Posted January 1, 2010 "Was JFK Trying to Cough Up a Bullet?" is crucial to connecting the dots, as I will arguevigorously going forward.. Im sorry Cliff but I cant understand why anybody would back Gils theory More contentless dismissal. The first time I watched his JFK Cough video I thought that Gil was going to pop up and the end of the video and say "Ha ha just kidding guys I got you!" Are there any actual facts you wish to discuss? Or is ridicule the only note you hit? Im still trying to decide what part is more insane, JFK trying to catch the coughed up bullet in his right hand, or JFK trying to loosin his tie with his left hand And yet there JFK is, clear as day, holding his right hand in front of his face while his left hand "clutches" or "grabs" at his throat as per the witness testimony. Are you denying that JFK was struck in the throat from the front by a projectile that didn't exit? How many researchers/students do you think back Gils theory up? (besides you and him) Perhaps you need the reassurance of other people agreeing with you. This is not a particular need I've ever had. Happy New Year... Cliff you know as well as I do that I would never be able to change your mind, and I know for sure you would not be able to change mine So here it is You belive in Gils theory I think its the most insane theory I have ever heard No need to get into a heated debate over it I do have one question though, why do you back this theory with such vigor as you say? How does it fit in with your assassination scenario? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted January 1, 2010 Share Posted January 1, 2010 (edited) Cliff you know as well as I do that I would never be able to change your mind, and I know for sure you would not be able to change mineSo here it is You belive in Gils theory I think its the most insane theory I have ever heard No need to get into a heated debate over it I do have one question though, why do you back this theory with such vigor as you say? How does it fit in with your assassination scenario? It's not my scenario, Dean. It's the scenario of the autopsists immediately after the autopsy. I call it The First Investigation. Finck and Humes had probed the wounds and found no lanes of exit and no bullets. After the autopsy they huddled with Sibert and O'Neill of the FBI and asked if there was such a thing as bullets that dissolve in the body. Sibert said he'd call the FBI Lab. And that, my friend, is when the cover-up of the murder of John F. Kennedy fully kicked in. Sibert was told that the Magic Bullet had been flown in from Dallas, and The First Investigation came to an early end. Is there any corroborating evidence that JFK was struck both in the throat and back with blood soluble rounds? Could it be that the much-maligned prosectors were hot on the trail of the perps near midnight 11/22/63? The neck x-ray shows a bruised lung tip, a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process, and an air pocket overlaying C7 and T1. Humes probed the back wound and found it shallow. Two wounds, no exits, no bullets. An air pocket. If the FBI had been on the up-and-up two Persons of Interest would have been sweating it out under FBI interrogation the morning of 11/23/63: Sidney Gottlieb, head of the CIA's Technical Services Division, and one Mitchell Livingston WerBell 3rd, arms dealer, dope smuggler, assassination-weapon specialist, extreme right-wing associations... Hmm...Arms dealers, dope smugglers, hard right wingers... The prosectors were hot on the trail of the perps the night of 11/22/63. And yes, Jesus' video highlights a reaction consistent with a strike by a projectile that didn't exit, and which JFK was trying to dislodge. Have a great New Year, Dean, and ya'll... Edited January 1, 2010 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 2, 2010 Share Posted January 2, 2010 irrelevant and quite frankly Craigster, David Lifton has more operating time on a professional optical film printer than you ever had... Your gonna need Rollie Zavada to endorse your KODAK double 8mm film "edge fog" scenario/dream (a few B&H414 engineers might help too) so, it's about time to roll out Dave Wimp and his traveling road show, eh? LMAO! Irrelevent? Surely you jest Healy. Lets see, the size of the aperture plates determines the formed image area, and thats irrelevent? Amazing. Lifton does not have a clue where that image area ends and thats irrelevent? More amazing! The section of the film that should be unexposed in Rollies red truck series and should be pure black, as it is reversal film shows the red/yellow exposure that indicates light struck film...edge fog, and thats irrelevent? Blown away! That Lifton, a zfilm "expert" does not even know the standard film term "edge fog" is irrelevent? At a loss for words! That Lifton confuses the edge fog for a mechanical limitation for image formation is irrelevent? No it's just plain ignorance. So Healy, what is irrelevent again? Could it be Lifton and Horne and their very silly 'full flush left" non argument? Yep! BTW, why don't YOU explain what we see on the left edge of hte red truck frames. Go on the record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 2, 2010 Share Posted January 2, 2010 (edited) The point made in the cited post, which you are apparently afraid to consider, is that those who saw Kennedy BEFORE he arrived at Parkland thought his large head wound was above and in front of his ear. The Parkland witnesses tended to claim it was behind his ear. Now, what changed? The fact that the Dealey Plaza folks witnessed a transitory event which lasted seconds while the Parkland doctors observed a stationary body up close for an extended period of time, and described it with medical precision. What part of "occipital-parietal" don't you understand? Cliff, if you read the literature on the effects of rotation on human cognition you'll see that the length of time one is near a rotated object is unrelated to one's ability to accurately recall the appearance of the object. If you'd read the statements of the Parkland witnesses closely, moreover, you'd see that none of them, outside Clark and perhaps McClelland, studied the wound for more than a few seconds. What part of "Trendelenburg position" don't you understand? Edited January 2, 2010 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted January 2, 2010 Share Posted January 2, 2010 The point made in the cited post, which you are apparently afraid to consider, is that those who saw Kennedy BEFORE he arrived at Parkland thought his large head wound was above and in front of his ear. The Parkland witnesses tended to claim it was behind his ear. Now, what changed? The fact that the Dealey Plaza folks witnessed a transitory event which lasted seconds while the Parkland doctors observed a stationary body up close for an extended period of time, and described it with medical precision. What part of "occipital-parietal" don't you understand? Cliff, if you read the literature on the effects of rotation on human cognition you'll see that the length of time one is near a rotated object is unrelated to one's ability to accurately recall the appearance of the object. We're not dealing with "one" recollection, we are dealing with about a dozen, at least, all medical professionals of good standing and most precise in the description of a massive "occipital-parietal" exit wound. Your assumptions about their cognitive opportunities in the ER find no support in the testimony. If they hadn't observed an "occipital-parietal" wound they would not have made unqualified comments to that effect. If you'd read the statements of the Parkland witnesses closely, moreover, you'd see that none of them, outside Clark and perhaps McClelland, studied the wound for more than a few seconds. What part of "Trendelenburg position" don't you understand? "Trendelenburg"? Is that German for "specious"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 2, 2010 Share Posted January 2, 2010 The point made in the cited post, which you are apparently afraid to consider, is that those who saw Kennedy BEFORE he arrived at Parkland thought his large head wound was above and in front of his ear. The Parkland witnesses tended to claim it was behind his ear. Now, what changed? The fact that the Dealey Plaza folks witnessed a transitory event which lasted seconds while the Parkland doctors observed a stationary body up close for an extended period of time, and described it with medical precision. What part of "occipital-parietal" don't you understand? Cliff, if you read the literature on the effects of rotation on human cognition you'll see that the length of time one is near a rotated object is unrelated to one's ability to accurately recall the appearance of the object. We're not dealing with "one" recollection, we are dealing with about a dozen, at least, all medical professionals of good standing and most precise in the description of a massive "occipital-parietal" exit wound. Your assumptions about their cognitive opportunities in the ER find no support in the testimony. If they hadn't observed an "occipital-parietal" wound they would not have made unqualified comments to that effect. If you'd read the statements of the Parkland witnesses closely, moreover, you'd see that none of them, outside Clark and perhaps McClelland, studied the wound for more than a few seconds. What part of "Trendelenburg position" don't you understand? "Trendelenburg"? Is that German for "specious"? What the heck? First of all, only one doctor described the wound as "occipito-parietal" in his initial report. Two others mentioned "temporal" and "occipital" which rules out the parietal location assumed by most CTs. Second of all, are you really trying to claim doctors don't make mistakes? Dr. McClelland initially reported that there was a gunshot wound on Kennedy's left temple. That's as many as claimed the wound was "occipito-parietal". Who should we believe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted January 2, 2010 Share Posted January 2, 2010 (edited) hi pat..i think you are somewhat cherry picking if you want to compare what the witnesses stated the where. you think or the back of the head blow out just for one check the willis family what each stated the back of the head blew out..also others imo you cannot use some and leave the others out but that is m/o..hope you have a good new year...b Happy New Years to you as well. I used Newman and Zapruder because they are the only close-by witnesses I could find who demonstrated their impression of the wound location on 11-22. Another close-by witness, James Chaney, told a TV interviewer JFK was hit in the face. It is undoubtedly intriguing that none of these men, who saw Kennedy while he was still upright, thought the large head wound was on the back of JFK's head. As far as the Willis family, none of them were quoted till many months later, and they were some distance away. From their perspective, it would have been incredibly hard--probably impossible--to differentiate between an explosion of blood from the top of JFK's head while he was moving away from an explosion of blood from the back of his head. Even so, the FBI report on Marilyn Willis, the most consistent of the family, reported that she saw a "red halo" erupt from the top of Kennedy's head, not the back of his head. Phil Willis, moreover, not only testified that he did not see the impact of the final shot (which he apparently believed was the head shot) he testified that "The minute the third shot was fired, I screamed, hoping a policeman would hear me, to ring that building because it had to come from there." Pat check these out..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmfqDOnZu_Q FRANK O'NEILL RIGHT REAR Interviews - Phil Willis & Family video'sfrom gil jesus http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2-_UhD3Qgk witnesses The back of his head blew off http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVhZdryIs_A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh0-2Sthn9A the large back of the head wound.. the Doctor's JFK's head wound http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhWJowvbtxs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P29j9PFZBM wound was in the back of his head to the right... b.. Edited January 2, 2010 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted January 2, 2010 Share Posted January 2, 2010 wound was in the back of his head to the right... b.. Thank you, Bernice. I've exhausted my annual allowance for head wound discussions for both 2009 and 2010 (one each) in the last few days. I find the discussion absurd, and any prolonged conversation about the head wounds is inherently obfuscationary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted January 3, 2010 Share Posted January 3, 2010 In order for you to advance the position you have defined here, you must (1) be unfamiliar with David W. Mantik's studies of the X-rays, which were published in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), (2) have never read his brilliant synthesis of the medical evidence published in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and (3) be unfamiliar with frame 374 of the Zapruder film, which I accented in the color photo section of THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003). That is stunning. From (1) we know the outline of "Area P", which was used to conceal the massive blow-out at the back of the head. From (2) we know that JFK was hit twice in the head, once from in behind and once from in front, which was a frangible (exploding) bullet that blew about half his brains out the back of his head with enormous force. From (3), we can actually see the blow out to the back of his head in a frame that appears to have escaped the notice of those who were engaged in faking the film. They, of course, were preoccupied with frames 313, 314, 315, and 316, which is entirely understandable. The question that arises for Josiah Thompson is how he could possibly have undertaken his study and not even sketched three of those crucial frames and only an opaque version of the fourth. The question that arises for you is how you could be so massively ignorant about the head wound(s) that you appear to know nothing about some of the most important research on them. wound was in the back of his head to the right... b.. Thank you, Bernice. I've exhausted my annual allowance for head wound discussions for both 2009 and 2010 (one each) in the last few days. I find the discussion absurd, and any prolonged conversation about the head wounds is inherently obfuscationary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now