Fetzer & Lifton channel Doug Horne: Truly or Falsely?

[Cliff Varnell]

Arguably the two most important research works of the Internet Age are

Zapruder film analyses:

Gil Jesus' analysis: "Was JFK Trying to Cough Up a Bullet?"

You have got to be kidding me

I have no idea who you are.

Have you done any original research in the case, Dean?

I almost fell out of my chair laughing when watching "Was JFK Trying to Cough Up a Bullet?"

JFK getting shot in the throat and frantically trying to clear his airway amuses you?

Okay.

I guess you'll find this Nellie Connally WC testimony hilarious...(emphasis added)

The first sound, the first shot, I heard, and turned and looked right into the President's

face. He was clutching his throat, and just slumped down. He Just had a - a look

of nothingness on his face. He-he didn't say anything. But that was the first shot.

How about this bit from Clint Hill, also before the WC:

Well, as we came out of the curve [intersection of Houston and Elm Streets], and began

to straighten up, I was viewing an area which looked to be a park...And I heard a noise

from my right rear, which to me seemed to be a firecracker. I immediately looked to my

right, and, in so doing, my eyes had to cross the Presidential limousine and I saw

President Kennedy grab at himself and lurch forward and to the left.

Or how about this one from Linda K. Willis, Rosemary Willis' older sister, who told

the Warren Commission:

"Yes. I heard one [shot]. Then there was a little bit of time, and then there were two

real fast bullets together. When the first one hit, well the President turned from waving

to the people, and he grabbed his throat, and he kind of slumped forward..."

That's 3 witnesses with a clear view of Kennedy corroborating Gil Jesus' analysis.

What, exactly, do you find funny about this, Dean?

Edited December 31, 2009 by Cliff Varnell

[Pat Speer]

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."

[Dean Hagerman]

Arguably the two most important research works of the Internet Age are

Zapruder film analyses:

Gil Jesus' analysis: "Was JFK Trying to Cough Up a Bullet?"

You have got to be kidding me

I have no idea who you are.

Have you done any original research in the case, Dean?

I almost fell out of my chair laughing when watching "Was JFK Trying to Cough Up a Bullet?"

JFK getting shot in the throat and frantically trying to clear his airway amuses you?

Okay.

I guess you'll find this Nellie Connally WC testimony hilarious...(emphasis added)

The first sound, the first shot, I heard, and turned and looked right into the President's

face. He was clutching his throat, and just slumped down. He Just had a - a look

of nothingness on his face. He-he didn't say anything. But that was the first shot.

How about this bit from Clint Hill, also before the WC:

Well, as we came out of the curve [intersection of Houston and Elm Streets], and began

to straighten up, I was viewing an area which looked to be a park...And I heard a noise

from my right rear, which to me seemed to be a firecracker. I immediately looked to my

right, and, in so doing, my eyes had to cross the Presidential limousine and I saw

President Kennedy grab at himself and lurch forward and to the left.

Or how about this one from Linda K. Willis, Rosemary Willis' older sister, who told

the Warren Commission:

"Yes. I heard one [shot]. Then there was a little bit of time, and then there were two

real fast bullets together. When the first one hit, well the President turned from waving

to the people, and he grabbed his throat, and he kind of slumped forward..."

That's 3 witnesses with a clear view of Kennedy corroborating Gil Jesus' analysis.

What, exactly, do you find funny about this, Dean?

I find most of Gils work funny

And I dont know who you are either

JFK was not try to cough up a bullet, he was struck in the back from a shot from the Dal Tex building, thats why he moves forward

Edited December 31, 2009 by Dean Hagerman

[Cliff Varnell]

I find most of Gils work funny

And I dont know who you are either

Me? Someone who doesn't make contentless dismissals...

[Cliff Varnell]

JFK was not try to cough up a bullet, he was struck in the back from a shot from the Dal Tex building, thats why he moves forward

I agree that JFK was shot in the back from the Dal Tex Building.

What, pray tell, does that have to do with him being shot in the throat from the front

circa Z190?

[David G. Healy]

I'm sorry, Lamson, but I don't buy your argument.

I Googled "edge fog" and here's the definition that came up:

QUOTE:

(graphic arts) The light fog which appears along the edge of roll film, generally from exposure during loading or unloading. UNQUOTE

And you're trying to sell me on the notion that Clint Hill appears beyond the left edge of the sprocket hole because of "edge fog". Really, you've got to be kidding.

Where did you get your degree in critical thinking? From Fetzer?

If you could read you would know I am telling you your claim that the red truck frames have a mechanical hard edge stop at the left edge of the intersprocket area is bogus because you can't see what might have been there, because it was destroyed by EDGE FOG! Now is that clear enough or do you want me to draw you double pictures?

I think you're engaging in irrelevant techno-babble.

Think what you will but any honest, educated observer can note by your posts that you don't know squat about this subject matter.

As for your "normal sample variation," I don't buy that either.

If I'm stopped by an officer for speeding, and he's using radar, I'd don't think I could escape a ticket by arguing that his radar set was off because of "normal sample variation"--and that the problem perhaps was with Motorola's manufacturing processes, and not that my car was going too fast. And that's basically how I feel about your line of reasoning.

He may still give you a ticket but that in no way eliminates the possibility that your cars speedo exhibits normal sample variation. Common sample variation exists. That you want to ignore this is really quite telling.

Just take a look at the Costella Combined Edit. The frames repeatedly go BEYOND "full flesh left" (I just happened to choose that sequence because Clint Hill was out there on the edge.)

Do you think the entire length of the Zapruder film is polluted with "edge fog"? (And no one noticed this before, but you?)

There is no edge fog on the zfilm in that area and I never claimed there was.

I don't think so. Rather, I think "edge fog" and "normal sample variation" is circumstantial evidence of someone invoking high falutin terminology of dubious relevance and little validity to address the serious problem of Z film forgery.

I'm sure you don't think so, in fact I'm starting to wonder about your thinking process in total.

Interestingly your invoking the Clint Hill frame was a stroke of genius. Lets review it shall we?

First lets take the frame you selected from the Costella edit, 244, and roughly remove the pin cushion distortion correction applied by Costella and strike a line at the far right edge of formed image.

Can you see the image has a hrad edged stop, as if something mechanical prohibited the image from extending further. Wow!

Next lets see what the internals of the Zapruder camera looked like in the film gate area

Wow there is somthing that can limit the image width..the aperture plate! The drawing above shows the nominal size. Given you are the guy that says things can be measured a the margins (good science and all of that) why don't you do just that and then tell us if it is impossible for the Zapruder camera to form images as far left as we see in the z film. Now I know this goes against the grain of your current handwaving argument, but you do say you believe in good science, so why not prove it?

Oh one final point, which I might add is yet another one of those basic photographic principles people seem to have such a hard time with.....from the same report as above...

Get back to us when you have a real argument, and not some silly handwaving.

Happy New Year.

DSL

12/31/09

Los Angeles, CA 5:05 AM

To Craig Lamson:

You are introducing terminology I never heard of—"edge fog."

efore entering this arena and proposing to discuss this matter, please define your terms, or at least stick to known vocabulary.

What the heck is "edge fog"—other than your own linguistic invention to account for a serious optical discrepancy, one that demands explanation, and which your post does not in fact explain.

Then perhaps you should educate yourself before getting involved into a subject area such as the basic photographic process. I made a post just before this one that will school you on the standard photogrpahic term edge fog.

Let me address your post in detail:

You write: "David, how can you tell that the image area of the Rollie red truck frame does not extend to the extent that it does in Z?"

DSL Response: I can tell (and anyone can tell) by just looking at it. Very clearly and very obviously, it does not extend beyond the very well defined left edge.

No you can't. You can't see anything beyond the the right most edge of the edge fog. You have ZERO clue what image area might have been destroyed by the errant light exposure.

By way of background: Josiah Thompson has done me –and every other person who is studying this matter closely (and certainly anyone who believes in Z film alteration) a very big favor. He has supplied the "rollie red truck" frames at a level of clarity I have never before seen.

Certainly, I have never before seen what I am now calling the "Rollie Red Truck" sequence at this level of clarity—and so I must direct this question to Thompson: does this exhibit which you included in your original post on this matter (and which has precipitated this debate) come from Zavada himself? Did he go back to his original materials—the actual film he took in Dealey Plaza, and provide you with these pictures? Or is it the case that frames of this clarity are in the actual Zavada report?

Whichever is the case, these frames, it seems to me (and unless one is going to invent one's own unique terminology, as Lamson has done here) prove important evidence that the left margin of the frame of a Zapruder-type camera does NOT permit image to appear beyond the left-most edge of the frame—in start contrast to what we see in the Zapruder film frames that supposedly come from a "camera original" film.

Do you even have the basic understanding of how the circle of illumination of a lens works? If you can't get your hands on the Z camera ( why give it to people without a clue and a silly argument) get 10 other samples and test them, see what happens instead if sitting around writing about things it appears you have scant knowlege of.

As for you, Craig Lamson: Inventing your own terminology, calling the argument "silly," and invoking "normal sample variation" does not answer, much less address the fundamental question. To repeat: how can Clint Hill be seen—to the left of the "intersprocket area", when test films on a Zapruder type camera used by Zavada show a clearly defined left edge, one created by the camera mechanism itself, and beyond which no photo image can (or should) appear?

The argument is silly and weak. Normal sample variation is rampant in the professional lenses today, when you would think it should have gone away with better manufacturing processes. The sad fact is that wiht the current crop of very high resloutoin digital cameras and 100% pixel peeping in Photoshop many photographers have had to resort to buying many copies of the same lens, testing them and only keeping the best one, simply because they vary so much from copy to copy. Even then it is not uncommon for that lens to be shipped back to the manufacturer for even further adjustment.

This happens with 3-4 thousand dollar lenses, and you want us to believe cameras made in the early 60's don't have normal sample variation? Please! All it would take is for one camera to limit the maximum zoom to 26.5mm and for the next camera to limit maximum zoom to 27.5mm to change the size of he circle of illumination. This is a mechanical devive built by humans in the early 60's. It is noit even a high end product. You think theyumachined this thing on a CNC machine?

You say this : "To repeat: how can Clint Hill be seen—to the left of the "intersprocket area", when test films on a Zapruder type camera used by Zavada show a clearly defined left edge, one created by the camera mechanism itself, and beyond which no photo image can (or should) appear?

You clearly have not addressed either of these two points in detail, you have simply waved your hands and deemed them true.

On the first, you can't know the the "camera mechanism" has limited the penetration to a "clearly defined edge" because you can't even see the edge, because of the edge fog.

The second is just a wild claim based on nothing, simply because you don't have a clue what you are looking at or how the system works.

DSL

1:55 PM; PST

Los Angeles, CA.

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!

Edited December 31, 2009 by David G. Healy

[Cliff Varnell]

I've had amicable discussions with Jack White, Paul Rigby, and John Costella and

not one of these gentlemen have given me any reason to believe that Z186 thru Z255

(which encompasses three crucial photographs: Betzner 3, Willis 5, and Altgens 6)

is anything other than an accurate recording of those 4 seconds in Dealey Plaza.

After Z255 you can have the Zapruder film all stock full of alterationist goodies,

Dean, it is irrelevant to me.

The work of the Hollywood film people, however, has moved me from Authenticist to

Agnostic.

As soon as I develop the extertise to verify their work, I may become a full-fledged

Alterationist!

Until then (erm), I don't have a dog in that fight.

Z186 thru Z255 form the bedrock evidence in the case -- along with Betzner 3,

Willis 5, Altgens 6, the neck x-ray, the testimonies of Nellie Connally, Jackie Kennedy,

Clint Hill, and especially Rosemary Willis (in Dealey Plaza), and the First Investigation,

composed of the prosectors Finck, Humes, Boswell and the two FBI men Sibert and O'Neill

(at Bethesda).

Why throw the baby (Z186-255) out with the bathwater (post-Z255 alteration)?

Edited December 31, 2009 by Cliff Varnell

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

No, Pat, actually, I'm trying to be kind. I am looking for an explanation for your apparent incompetence in dealing with these issues, which--I now appreciate!--is the obvious one that, in matters of this kind, you are incompetent. I am sorry. I simply didn't know. Best wishes for the New Year!

Frankly, I cannot understand your analogy with Lundberg (not "Lumberg"), who was covering up in relation to the medical evidence, while the research group that I organized in 1992--including David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., Bob Livingston, M.D., Charles Crenshaw, M.D., Jack White, and John P. Costella, Ph.D.--has been taking it and Zapruder film fakery apart, with considerable success (though I infer that you, like Josiah Thompson, don't actually read the research of those with whom you happen to disagree). So that is a bizarre remark. Moreover, the kinds of technical and scientific competence they represent is indispensable in this case, because many of the issues involved in separating authentic from inauthentic evidence involve technical, scientific questions. Now David has a Ph.D. in physics, an M.D., and is board certified in radiation oncology, which is the treatment of cancer using X-ray therapy, and is an expert on the interpretation of X-rays. He has visited the National Archives nine times and has examined the autopsy materials that are archived there. His studies have been published in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003). I only mention this because he is obviously eminently qualified for research of this kind. When I described you as a "rank amateur", therefore, I could be mistaken, if you have suitable qualifications for research of this kind. So please tell me. I am very curious how you got into the study of the X-rays and the basis for your differences with David W. Mantik. Thanks.

So here we are back at square one, with you once again running from the evidence before you. I demonstrate why I believe Mantik is wrong and you counter with "what are your credentials", and then claim my refusal to buy your claims comes from my not reading your books, or studying the medical evidence, when the exact opposite is true. It is you who have never read my work, or seen my videos. If you had, you would see that I have studied the medical evidence in far more detail than anyone you are used to arguing against, and have made a number of discoveries that you otherwise might find significant, e.g. that Dr. Baden testified with his exhibit upside down, that the HSCA trajectory panel shrunk Kennedy's skull to make the head shot point back to the sniper's nest, etc.

As far as Mantik, while he is not near the "ultimate authority" on X-Rays you purport him to be, I respect him and value his contributions. I just think that he, along with most everyone else, is wrong on several key issues. It bears repeating that I discovered that the white patch on the lateral X-ray was the wing of bone and that the "6.5 mm fragment" on the A-P X-ray was behind the right eye while trying to demonstrate Mantik's findings on PowerPoint slides. I apologize for undermining his findings, if that makes you feel any better.

In this thread I have claimed that

1) the white patch on the lateral X-Ray corresponds to the location of the wing of bone in the right lateral autopsy photo (which you apparently believe to be fake).

2) the largest fragment on the A-P X-ray aligns perfectly with a fragment in the location from which the autopsy doctors claimed they removed the largest fragment.

3) there is a bullet hole in the back of the head photo (which you believe to be fake) that corresponds to the location of a bullet wound on the back of the head in the open cranium autopsy photo.

And yet you have failed to counter these claims beyond claiming the autopsy photos used to demonstrate these claims are fake, and that I am not as qualified as Dr. Mantik to judge X-rays. This suggests that you do indeed see the points I have been making, but find them meaningless in light of what you think you already know.

I thank you for your consideration.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Actually, the shot to the back (about 5 1/2 inches below the collar and to the right of the spinal column) appears to have been fired from the top of the County Records Building by Harry Weatherford, a Dallas County Deputy Sheriff, who was using a sabot to fire a Mannlicher-Carcano bullet from a higher caliber weapon. You might like to listen to the discussion about this between me and Jim Marrs on "The Real Deal", whose programs are archived at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com.

JFK was not try to cough up a bullet, he was struck in the back from a shot from the Dal Tex building, thats why he moves forward

I agree that JFK was shot in the back from the Dal Tex Building.

What, pray tell, does that have to do with him being shot in the throat from the front

circa Z190?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Well, some actual footage was used to create the fabrication, including of bystanders waiting for JFK to arrive, which was used in the foreground of the early frames through the Stemmons Freeway sign, so what you are saying is not quite right. I would defer to Jack about the photos, but the film has a phony foreground, even in these early segments.

I don't understand the passionate attachment that so many seem to feel to Zapruder's home movie.

Arguably the two most important research works of the Internet Age are

Zapruder film analyses:

Gil Jesus' analysis: "Was JFK Trying to Cough Up a Bullet?"

And the other is Don Roberdeau's Rosemary Willis studies, which, when combined

with her statements to the HSCA, strongly point to Black Dog Man as a shooter.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2394

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol12_0006a.htm

I've had amicable discussions with Jack White, Paul Rigby, and John Costella and

not one of these gentlemen have given me any reason to believe that Z186 thru Z255

(which encompasses three crucial photographs: Betzner 3, Willis 5, and Altgens 6)

is anything other than an accurate recording of those 4 seconds in Dealey Plaza.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

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."

[Dean Hagerman]

JFK was not try to cough up a bullet, he was struck in the back from a shot from the Dal Tex building, thats why he moves forward

I agree that JFK was shot in the back from the Dal Tex Building.

What, pray tell, does that have to do with him being shot in the throat from the front

circa Z190?

It has nothing to do with JFK being shot in the throat from the front (I agree with that as well)

Gil trys to pawn off JFKs forward movement from a hit in the back as JFK trying to cough up a bullet

I do not believe in Gils theory at all, and im sure most of the members of this forum do not agree either

[Dean Hagerman]

Actually, the shot to the back (about 5 1/2 inches below the collar and to the right of the spinal column) appears to have been fired from the top of the County Records Building by Harry Weatherford, a Dallas County Deputy Sheriff, who was using a sabot to fire a Mannlicher-Carcano bullet from a higher caliber weapon. You might like to listen to the discussion about this between me and Jim Marrs on "The Real Deal", whose programs are archived at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com.

JFK was not try to cough up a bullet, he was struck in the back from a shot from the Dal Tex building, thats why he moves forward

I agree that JFK was shot in the back from the Dal Tex Building.

What, pray tell, does that have to do with him being shot in the throat from the front

circa Z190?

Good call Jim

I just remembered reading in Crossfire (years ago was the last time I read it) about an Air Conditining man who found a shell with a sabot around it on the roof of the Records Building

I will listen to you and Marrs on The Real Deal tonight and report back with my thoughts

Dean

[Pat Speer]

No, Pat, actually, I'm trying to be kind. I am looking for an explanation for your apparent incompetence in dealing with these issues, which--I now appreciate!--is the obvious one that, in matters of this kind, you are incompetent. I am sorry. I simply didn't know. Best wishes for the New Year!

Frankly, I cannot understand your analogy with Lundberg (not "Lumberg"), who was covering up in relation to the medical evidence, while the research group that I organized in 1992--including David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., Bob Livingston, M.D., Charles Crenshaw, M.D., Jack White, and John P. Costella, Ph.D.--has been taking it and Zapruder film fakery apart, with considerable success (though I infer that you, like Josiah Thompson, don't actually read the research of those with whom you happen to disagree). So that is a bizarre remark. Moreover, the kinds of technical and scientific competence they represent is indispensable in this case, because many of the issues involved in separating authentic from inauthentic evidence involve technical, scientific questions. Now David has a Ph.D. in physics, an M.D., and is board certified in radiation oncology, which is the treatment of cancer using X-ray therapy, and is an expert on the interpretation of X-rays. He has visited the National Archives nine times and has examined the autopsy materials that are archived there. His studies have been published in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003). I only mention this because he is obviously eminently qualified for research of this kind. When I described you as a "rank amateur", therefore, I could be mistaken, if you have suitable qualifications for research of this kind. So please tell me. I am very curious how you got into the study of the X-rays and the basis for your differences with David W. Mantik. Thanks.

So here we are back at square one, with you once again running from the evidence before you. I demonstrate why I believe Mantik is wrong and you counter with "what are your credentials", and then claim my refusal to buy your claims comes from my not reading your books, or studying the medical evidence, when the exact opposite is true. It is you who have never read my work, or seen my videos. If you had, you would see that I have studied the medical evidence in far more detail than anyone you are used to arguing against, and have made a number of discoveries that you otherwise might find significant, e.g. that Dr. Baden testified with his exhibit upside down, that the HSCA trajectory panel shrunk Kennedy's skull to make the head shot point back to the sniper's nest, etc.

As far as Mantik, while he is not near the "ultimate authority" on X-Rays you purport him to be, I respect him and value his contributions. I just think that he, along with most everyone else, is wrong on several key issues. It bears repeating that I discovered that the white patch on the lateral X-ray was the wing of bone and that the "6.5 mm fragment" on the A-P X-ray was behind the right eye while trying to demonstrate Mantik's findings on PowerPoint slides. I apologize for undermining his findings, if that makes you feel any better.

In this thread I have claimed that

1) the white patch on the lateral X-Ray corresponds to the location of the wing of bone in the right lateral autopsy photo (which you apparently believe to be fake).

2) the largest fragment on the A-P X-ray aligns perfectly with a fragment in the location from which the autopsy doctors claimed they removed the largest fragment.

3) there is a bullet hole in the back of the head photo (which you believe to be fake) that corresponds to the location of a bullet wound on the back of the head in the open cranium autopsy photo.

And yet you have failed to counter these claims beyond claiming the autopsy photos used to demonstrate these claims are fake, and that I am not as qualified as Dr. Mantik to judge X-rays. This suggests that you do indeed see the points I have been making, but find them meaningless in light of what you think you already know.

I thank you for your consideration.

If you had anything to counter any of the evidence I've presented beyond "my buddy tells me you're wrong and I trust my buddy because he tells me what I want to hear" you'd have presented it long ago.

[Cliff Varnell]

Well, some actual footage was used to create the fabrication, including of bystanders waiting for JFK to arrive, which was used in the foreground of the early frames through the Stemmons Freeway sign, so what you are saying is not quite right. I would defer to Jack about the photos, but the film has a phony foreground, even in these early segments.

My concerns are the actions of JFK and the witnesses from Z186 to Z255. The witness

testimonies of Linda Willis, Nellie, and Clint Hill are consistent with what we see Z186-Z255

and in Altgens 6 -- JFK was grabbing for his throat after the first shot.

The actions of Rosemary Willis in the Zapruder film are consistent with her testimony

regarding Black Dog Man, he with the "distinctly straight-line" object in his hands (HSCA),

who "disappeared the next instant."

According to the Church Commission testimony of Charles Senseney, developer

of blood-soluble paralytic/toxin delivery systems for the CIA, a round "almost the size

of a .22" was used to silence guard dogs in two seconds, to prevent them from barking.

The Zapruder film shows JFK becoming paralyzed in about 2 seconds.

The back wound was shallow, consistent with a blood soluble round, I'd speculate a toxin.

The neck x-ray shows a bruised lung tip, a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process,

and an air pocket overlaying C7/T1.

What kind of round leaves an air pocket, no exit wound, no bullet?

"Was JFK Trying to Cough Up a Bullet?" is crucial to connecting the dots, as I will argue

vigorously going forward..

Edited December 31, 2009 by Cliff Varnell