A Few Thoughts on the Zapruder Film

[Josiah Thompson]

In short, you believe the acoustics evidence is invalid for two reasons: (1) A Committee of the NAS has said it is invalid. (2) This evidence does not accord with your view that a shot from the front hit JFK in the throat.

Fine. I guess we'll just have to disagree then. I think Thomas has shown that the Committee's conclusions are erroneous and I don't think the evidence sustains the view that JFK was hit from the front in the throat.

Josiah Thompson

Right now we have to assume that the original dictabelt is the one that has been studied although certain features of it suggest it may be a copy. Even if we assume it is an original the acousitics evidence stands up scientifically. So I'm not basing my opinion on a "maybe."

When you say STANDS UP SCIENTIFICALLY you are completely discounting the National ACADEMY OF SCIENCE.

Based on the NAS findings, it is fair to say that the theory that the assassination was recorded on the Dallas Police dictabelt is NOT GENERALLY RECOGNIZED in the relevant scientific community.

If the best scientists assembled by the NAS unanimously say the original acoustics evidence is wrong, then who am I to disagree, especially since I can see no other good reasons to believe the theory that 3 or 4 shots were fired from the North side of Elm?

Right now all Don Thomas or anyone else can say is that one shot came from the stockade fence and four from the north end of Elm Street.

We have good reasons to believe that the throat wound was an entry wound, and we have good reasons to believe that the shot at Z313 came from the from the front also, so Thomas's theory doesn't jibe with other evidence.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I don't think the evidence sustains the view that JFK was hit from the front in the throat.

Josiah, it is a great pleasure to discuss these matters with an officer, a scholar and a gentleman. Could you humor me one more time and tell me what evidence convinces you that the throat wound is not a wound of entrance?

[Josiah Thompson]

Sure thing.

I guess the preeminent reason is that I can't figure out how a bullet could enter the throat on the midline and not the blow the bejusus out of the spine and and spinal cord. I also have trouble working out a trajectory that would get a bullet into JFK's throat from any plausible location. Finally, I believe the shirt and the tie suffered damage that did not include any metal or lead being found on either. Then too, there is Frazier's testimony that the fibers in the shirt were protruding outward.

Let me just leave it at that. I too enjoy talking about things in the way we have.

Josiah Thompson

I don't think the evidence sustains the view that JFK was hit from the front in the throat.

Josiah, it is a great pleasure to discuss these matters with an officer, a scholar and a gentleman. Could you humor me one more time and tell me what evidence convinces you that the throat wound is not a wound of entrance?

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I guess the preeminent reason is that I can't figure out how a bullet could enter the throat on the midline and not the blow the bejusus out of the spine and and spinal cord. I also have trouble working out a trajectory that would get a bullet into JFK's throat from any plausible location. Finally, I believe the shirt and the tie suffered damage that did not include any metal or lead being found on either. Then too, there is Frazier's testimony that the fibers in the shirt were protruding outward.

Thank you Josiah. I must confess that it is a long while since I studied the matters you raise, so I will not try to continue the discussion right now.

I do note, however, that you do NOT CITE the opinions of any qualified medical person who actually examined the wound in question.

Edited January 4, 2010 by J. Raymond Carroll

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I guess the preeminent reason is that I can't figure out how a bullet could enter the throat on the midline and not blow the bejusus out of the spine and and spinal cord.

OK Josiah, one final point on the throat: Am I correct in thinking that you also do not believe that a bullet EXITED the throat at the midline, for the same reason, namely that on its way there it would have had to have blown the bejesus out of the spine and spinal cord?

SO is it your view today that there is no throat wound, either entrance or exit?

And is it your view view that there WAS a back wound, but it did not exit?

Oh, and Happy New Year to you.

[Josiah Thompson]

I guess my best answer would, "I don't know." And the same answer would apply to a number of questions in this case. And Happy New Year to you. It's fun exchanging opinions and laying out facts.

Josiah Thompson

I guess the preeminent reason is that I can't figure out how a bullet could enter the throat on the midline and not blow the bejusus out of the spine and and spinal cord.

OK Josiah, one final point on the throat: Am I correct in thinking that you also do not believe that a bullet EXITED the throat at the midline, for the same reason, namely that on its way there it would have had to have blown the bejesus out of the spine and spinal cord?

SO is it your view today that there is no throat wound, either entrance or exit?

And is it your view view that there WAS a back wound, but it did not exit?

Oh, and Happy New Year to you.

[Don Jeffries]

Just curious, Josiah- you "don't think the evidence sustains the view that JFK was hit from the front in the throat" but "don't know" if the "evidence sustains the view" that the wound in JFK's throat was one of exit. Isn't that just a bit inconsistent?

I don't know for certain that JFK was struck in the throat by a shot from the front, but there are strong indications he was. On the other hand, the only "evidence" that a bullet exited from his throat is the entrance wound in his back, which we know for a certainty was far too low to have come from the 6th floor window or any other elevated point from behind. In other words, the single bullet theory, in your view, warrants a "don't know," but the indications JFK's throat wound was one of entrance isn't sustained by the evidence?

[Cliff Varnell]

Sure thing.

I guess the preeminent reason is that I can't figure out how a bullet could enter the throat on the midline and not the blow the bejusus out of the spine and and spinal cord.

Aren't you assuming that JFK was hit with a conventional round?

The prosectors came to a "general feeling" upon completion of the autopsy that JFK

had been hit with blood soluble rounds.

The neck x-ray shows an air pocket overlaying C7 and T1. Conventional bullets

don't hit soft tissue and then leave no exit, no bullet, and an air pocket.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/hscv7d.htm

HSCA analysis of the neck x-ray:

Evaluation of the pre-autopsy film shows that there is some subcutaneous or interstitial air overlying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes. There is disruption of the integrity of the transverse process of T1, which, in comparison with its mate on the opposite side and also with the previously taken film, mentioned above, indicates that there has been a fracture in that area. There is some soft tissue density overlying the apex of the right lung which may be hematoma in that region or other soft tissue swelling.

Evaluation of the post-autopsy film shows that there is subcutaneous or interstitial air overlying C7 and T1. The same disruption of T1 right transverse process is still present.

The Zapruder film shows JFK with his right hand in front of his face and his

left hand "grabbing" (Nellie Connally, Clint Hill) or "clutching" (Linda Willis)

his throat, consistent with actions to dislodge the projectile.

JFK then seized up paralyzed in little more than two seconds.

Why are you assuming that the prosectors got it wrong right after the autopsy

when there is compelling x-ray, film and eye witness testimony consistent with

their conclusion that JFK was hit with blood soluble rounds?

I also have trouble working out a trajectory that would get a bullet into JFK's throat

from any plausible location.

Black Dog Man circa Z190 had a clear shot. The HSCA photographic panel found a

"very distinct straight-line feature" in the region of BDM's hands.

Rosemary Willis described BDM as a "conspicuous" person who appeared to "disappear

the next instant."

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

Finally, I believe the shirt and the tie suffered damage that did not include any metal or lead being found on either. Then too, there is Frazier's testimony that the fibers in the shirt were protruding outward.

Nurse Henchcliffe at Parkland testified that she cut the shirt and nicked the tie while

prepping JFK for the trach.

Dr. Charles Carrico indicated to Harold Weisberg that the Parkland nurses cut off

the shirt and tie. (See post below)

Did everyone at Parkland who described the throat wound as an entrance all

suffer an identical hallucination?

ADDED ON EDIT: Carrico statements (thank you, Todd, I stand corrected)

Edited January 5, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

On the other hand, the only "evidence" that a bullet exited from his throat is the entrance wound in his back, which we know for a certainty was far too low to have come from the 6th floor window or any other elevated point from behind.

There is no one -- I repeat, NO ONE -- left to argue for the high back wound lie.

Half of the entire John F. Kennedy Assassination Critical Research Community

might buy into the "high back wound" fantasy but NONE OF THEM will come onto

this forum to present a fact based argument to back their view.

No eye-witnesses, only improperly prepared autopsy evidence, &"bunch theory."

They've got nothing.

[Craig Lamson]

On the other hand, the only "evidence" that a bullet exited from his throat is the entrance wound in his back, which we know for a certainty was far too low to have come from the 6th floor window or any other elevated point from behind.

There is no one -- I repeat, NO ONE -- left to argue for the high back wound lie.

Half of the entire John F. Kennedy Assassination Critical Research Community

might buy into the "high back wound" fantasy but NONE OF THEM will come onto

this forum to present a fact based argument to back their view.

No eye-witnesses, only improperly prepared autopsy evidence, &"bunch theory."

They've got nothing.

Cliff, you lost that "no bunch" or fold or whatever argument long ago.

You have nothing.

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Sure thing.

I guess the preeminent reason is that I can't figure out how a bullet could enter the throat on the midline and not the blow the bejusus out of the spine and and spinal cord.

Aren't you assuming that JFK was hit with a conventional round?

The prosectors came to a "general feeling" upon completion of the autopsy that JFK

had been hit with blood soluble rounds.

The neck x-ray shows an air pocket overlaying C7 and T1. Conventional bullets

don't hit soft tissue and then leave no exit, no bullet, and an air pocket.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/hscv7d.htm

HSCA analysis of the neck x-ray:

Evaluation of the pre-autopsy film shows that there is some subcutaneous or interstitial air overlying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes. There is disruption of the integrity of the transverse process of T1, which, in comparison with its mate on the opposite side and also with the previously taken film, mentioned above, indicates that there has been a fracture in that area. There is some soft tissue density overlying the apex of the right lung which may be hematoma in that region or other soft tissue swelling.

Evaluation of the post-autopsy film shows that there is subcutaneous or interstitial air overlying C7 and T1. The same disruption of T1 right transverse process is still present.

The Zapruder film shows JFK with his right hand in front of his face and his

left hand "grabbing" (Nellie Connally, Clint Hill) or "clutching" (Linda Willis)

his throat, consistent with actions to dislodge the projectile.

JFK then seized up paralyzed in little more than two seconds.

Why are you assuming that the prosectors got it wrong right after the autopsy

when there is compelling x-ray, film and eye witness testimony consistent with

their conclusion that JFK was hit with blood soluble rounds?

I also have trouble working out a trajectory that would get a bullet into JFK's throat

from any plausible location.

Black Dog Man circa Z190 had a clear shot. The HSCA photographic panel found a

"very distinct straight-line feature" in the region of BDM's hands.

Rosemary Willis described BDM as a "conspicuous" person who appeared to "disappear

the next instant."

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

Finally, I believe the shirt and the tie suffered damage that did not include any metal or lead being found on either. Then too, there is Frazier's testimony that the fibers in the shirt were protruding outward.

Nurse Henchcliffe at Parkland testified that she cut the shirt and nicked the tie while

prepping JFK for the trach.

Did everyone at Parkland who described the throat wound as an entrance all

suffer an identical hallucination?

Cliff,

You stated...

QUOTE ON

Nurse Henchcliffe at Parkland testified that she cut the shirt and nicked the tie while

prepping JFK for the trach.

QUOTE OFF

What is the source for Nurse Henchcliffe testifing that she "cut the shirt and nicked the tie"?

Todd

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff,

You stated...

QUOTE ON

Nurse Henchcliffe at Parkland testified that she cut the shirt and nicked the tie while

prepping JFK for the trach.

QUOTE OFF

What is the source for Nurse Henchcliffe testifing that she "cut the shirt and nicked the tie"?

Todd

Todd, I'm still trying to track down her statements.

Until then:

The WC testimony of Dr. Charles Carrico, the first doctor to treat JFK in the ER.

(emphasis added)

Mr. SPECTER - What action, if any, was taken with respect to the removal of President Kennedy's clothing?

Dr. CARRICO - As I said after I had opened his shirt and coat, I proceeded with the examination and the

nurses removed his clothing as is the usual procedure.

Dr. Charles Carrico interviewed by Harold Weisberg (Post Mortem, pp. 375-376)

Carrico was the first doctor to see the President. He saw the anterior neck wound immediately. It

was above the shirt collar. Carrico was definite on this. . . . when I asked if he saw any bullet holes

in the shirt or tie, he was definite in saying 'No.' I asked if he recalled Dulles's question and his

own pointing to above his own shirt collar as the location of the bullet hole. He does remember this,

and he does remember confirming that the hole was above the collar, a fact hidden with such care from

the (Warren) Report. . . . He saw neither the nick in the tie nor the cuts in the shirt before the

nurses started cutting.

[Cliff Varnell]

On the other hand, the only "evidence" that a bullet exited from his throat is the entrance wound in his back, which we know for a certainty was far too low to have come from the 6th floor window or any other elevated point from behind.

There is no one -- I repeat, NO ONE -- left to argue for the high back wound lie.

Half of the entire John F. Kennedy Assassination Critical Research Community

might buy into the "high back wound" fantasy but NONE OF THEM will come onto

this forum to present a fact based argument to back their view.

No eye-witnesses, only improperly prepared autopsy evidence, &"bunch theory."

They've got nothing.

Cliff, you lost that "no bunch" or fold or whatever argument long ago.

You have nothing.

I have you claiming that the "3+" bunch" was "mostly on the left shoulder,"

or words to that effect. Of course, the bullet holes in the clothes are

to the right of midline.

I have you conducting an experiment in which you placed a diagonal fold

in fabric by PULLING the fabric "directly up." Pulling on fabric is the exact

opposite of bunching fabric, stretching vs. easing.

I have you describing a fold in JFK's jacket in Betzner that can only be bunched by

the jacket moving down and to the left.

I have you putting into evidence the Towner photo and admitting "there isn't much

there," or words to that effect. In defiance of the laws of gravity and Newton's

First Law of Motion you claim that JFK's shirt and jacket leaped 3 inches

up his back in about ten seconds on their own power!

And we have the films and photos taken in Dealey Plaza showing the jacket

dropping.

http://occamsrazorjfk.net/

Take away your inevitable streams of insults and self-contradictions...you've

got nothing, Craig.

[Michael Hogan]

Cliff,

You stated...

QUOTE ON

Nurse Henchcliffe at Parkland testified that she cut the shirt and nicked the tie while

prepping JFK for the trach.

QUOTE OFF

What is the source for Nurse Henchcliffe testifing that she "cut the shirt and nicked the tie"?

Todd

Todd, I'm still trying to track down her statements.

Much on this subject in an essay by Gerry McKnight, points raised by Todd Vaughan, and McKnight's replies.

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/...e-Bullet_Theory

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Cliff,

You stated...

QUOTE ON

Nurse Henchcliffe at Parkland testified that she cut the shirt and nicked the tie while

prepping JFK for the trach.

QUOTE OFF

What is the source for Nurse Henchcliffe testifing that she "cut the shirt and nicked the tie"?

Todd

Todd, I'm still trying to track down her statements.

Until then:

The WC testimony of Dr. Charles Carrico, the first doctor to treat JFK in the ER.

(emphasis added)

Mr. SPECTER - What action, if any, was taken with respect to the removal of President Kennedy's clothing?

Dr. CARRICO - As I said after I had opened his shirt and coat, I proceeded with the examination and the

nurses removed his clothing as is the usual procedure.

Dr. Charles Carrico interviewed by Harold Weisberg (Post Mortem, pp. 375-376)

Carrico was the first doctor to see the President. He saw the anterior neck wound immediately. It

was above the shirt collar. Carrico was definite on this. . . . when I asked if he saw any bullet holes

in the shirt or tie, he was definite in saying 'No.' I asked if he recalled Dulles's question and his

own pointing to above his own shirt collar as the location of the bullet hole. He does remember this,

and he does remember confirming that the hole was above the collar, a fact hidden with such care from

the (Warren) Report. . . . He saw neither the nick in the tie nor the cuts in the shirt before the

nurses started cutting.

Cliff,

I deal with Carrico and Weisberg’s claims about Carrico in a series of 4 articles here…

http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/06/twist...et-critics.html

http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/12/twist...et-critics.html

http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/12/twist...critics_26.html

http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/07/twist...et-critics.html

...as for Nurse Henchcliffe, I’ve never seen anything regarding her testifying that she cut the shirt and nicked the tie.

Todd