A Few Thoughts on the Zapruder Film

[Cliff Varnell]

Thank you for picking me up, Michael! Sloppy research on my part...

It was Bowron who testified to the WC: “...Miss Henchliffe and I cut off his clothing.”

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Cliff,

You are making some excellent points in dealing with some unscrupulous

opponents. About the back wound, here is a lecture that I presented at

Cambridge, which was published in a peer-reviewed international journal:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/Reason...assinations.pdf

Jim

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.

Edited January 5, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Cliff Varnell]

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

Todd

I stand corrected.

It was Bowron who testified.

Do you have a copy of Never Again!: The Government Conspiracy in the JFK Assassination

by Harold Weisberg?

Check out Chapter 22, pages 239-241.

I believe she made some statements on the clothing removal, iirc etc...

Edited January 5, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Todd W. Vaughan]

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

Todd

I stand corrected.

It was Bowron who testified.

Do you have a copy of Never Again!: The Government Conspiracy in the JFK Assassination

by Harold Weisberg?

Check out Chapter 22, pages 239-241.

I believe she made some statements on the clothing removal, iirc etc...

Thanks for the Never Again reference, I'll check that out.

[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.

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

My original critique of McKnights claims and my refutation of his replies.

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

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

NEVER AGAIN! (1995), page 239:

Dulles made the mistake of asking Carrico what Specter avoided, where the neck wound was. From Post Mortem:

pages 357-58:

Carrico showed by placing his hand on his own throat while speaking his rejoinder ending, 'this was a small wound

here'. To this demonstration of 'here', Dulles responded. 'I see. And you put your hand right above where your tie

is?" (Emhasis added). Carrico confirmed with a "Yes, sir.'

Continuing on page 240:

Specter questioned Margaret M. Henchcliffe (6H139)ff.) She was the first medical person to see the President:

. . . Well, actually I went in ahead of the cart with him and I was the first one in with him, and just in a minute,

or seconds, D.r Carrico came in.

She followed this (6H141), after describing long experience with gunshot wounds in her emergency-room duties,

by identifying this front neck wound as one of "entrance".

Which, of course, corroborates Malcolm Perry's reports during the Parkland press conference, where three times

he described the wound as one of entry: the bullet was coming at him, it was a wound of entry, and all that. If

anyone wants to read his remarks, a transcript appears as Appendix C to ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998). And

of course Tom Wicker's report of the throat wound as a wound of entrance was published in The New York Times

(23 November 1963), where you can find the relevant portion reprinted on page 15: "Mr. Kennedy was hit by a

bullet in the throat, just below the Adam's apple, they [Malcolm Perry and Kemp Clark] said. This wound had the

appearance of a bullet's entry." And of course there are the statements by Robert Livingston, M.D., and Richard

Dudman, which are published on pages 161 though 175, which bear upon this issue, too. And of course there is

the chapter by Doug Weldon, J.D., "The Kennedy Limousine", in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), pp. 129-158.

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

Todd

I stand corrected.

It was Bowron who testified.

Do you have a copy of Never Again!: The Government Conspiracy in the JFK Assassination

by Harold Weisberg?

Check out Chapter 22, pages 239-241.

I believe she made some statements on the clothing removal, iirc etc...

Edited January 5, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Cliff Varnell]

Thank you, Jim.

It's a minor point but Todd is very likely correct about Henchliffe's statements

re the clothing removal. I like to get my minutiae straight.

The fact JFK was struck in the throat from the front by a projectile that didn't

exit and left an air pocket instead of a bullet remains unchallenged.

Edited January 5, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

My original critique of McKnights claims and my refutation of his replies.

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

The links don't work cuz the vandals took the handle? :->

[Michael Hogan]

My original critique of McKnights claims and my refutation of his replies.

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

The links don't work cuz the vandals took the handle? :->

They forgot to take this one....

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

[Cliff Varnell]

A veritable Cherry-pick-'n-spin Fest.

Let's start here and be done with it. There is only so much implied witness

bashing I can take.

Todd wrote

But the trouble with McKnight’s article doesn’t end with just basic factual errors. McKnight also appears to be misinterpreting testimony.

McKnight writes:

“Allen Dulles, who accompanied Specter to Dallas, asked Carrico twice to show him the location of the hole in Kennedy’s anterior neck. The Parkland doctor responded on both occasions locating a point above the collar line.”

As a source for that claim he cites 3H361-362.

When one checks 3H361-362 the following exchange is found:

Dr. CARRICO - There was a small wound, 5- to 8-mm. in size, located in the lower third of the neck, below the thyroid cartilage, the Adams apple.

Mr. DULLES - Will you show us about where it was?

Dr. CARRICO - Just about where your tie would be.

Mr. DULLES - Where did it enter?

Dr. CARRICO - It entered?

Mr. DULLES - Yes.

Dr. CARRICO - At the time we did not know.

Mr. DULLES - I see.

Dr. CARRICO - The entrance. All we knew this was a small wound here.

Mr. DULLES - I see. And you put your hand right above where your tie is?

Dr. CARRICO - Yes, sir; just where the tie --

Mr. DULLES - A little bit to the left.

Dr. CARRICO - To the right.

Mr. DULLES - Yes; to the right.

So exactly where does Dr. Carrico say that the wound was “above the collar line?”

When Carrico emphatically concurred with Dulles' location of the wound, Todd's

attempts to parse words not withstanding.

So what if McKnight didn't get his minutiae straight? The fact is Carrico agreed

with Dulles when Dulles placed the wound right above the top of the tie.

We've got redundant testimony of the Parkland staff that the wound

was an entrance.

Of course, the SBT doesn't fall on the nick in the tie.

The SBT is debunked by the extensively corroborated T3 back wound.

Edited January 5, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Unchallenged? You mean in the micro-universe of your mind, which by

your own account is bereft of most knowledge about the case? What am

I missing? Robert Livingston, M.D., who was a world authority on the human

brain and also an expert on wound ballistics, concluded that the bullet that

hit JFK in the throat had probably fragments, one part going downward into

his lung, the other upward and severing the tentorium, a tough membrane

covering the cerebellum. He did not believe it would be possible for such

a blood spray to have occurred unless a pool of blood had accumulated

and, more importantly, that even two (closely spaced) shots to the head

would not have been enough to disgorge cerebellum unless the tentorium

had been ruptured in advance. I gather you are one of those who likes

to discount those who actually have background and abilities appropriate

to the study of technical, scientific aspects of the case. But you should

know that, while many fragments were removed from the body and not

archived as evidence, there were no "disappearing" bullets or paralyzing

darts or whatever. He was hit in the throat and his arms came up as the

result of (what is known as) the Thorburn reflex, which, he advised me,

would have been the result of the impact of the bullet on JFK's neck. So

there it i--a challenge to your mystery bullet--one more addition to your

stock of knowledge about the death of JFK! Good luck with all of this!

Thank you, Jim.

It's a minor point but Todd is very likely correct about Henchliffe's statements

re the clothing removal. I like to get my minutiae straight.

The fact JFK was struck in the throat from the front by a projectile that didn't

exit and left an air pocket instead of a bullet remains unchallenged.

[Cliff Varnell]

Unchallenged? You mean in the micro-universe of your mind, which by

your own account is bereft of most knowledge about the case? What am

I missing? Robert Livingston, M.D., who was a world authority on the human

brain and also an expert on wound ballistics, concluded that the bullet that

hit JFK in the throat had probably fragments, one part going downward into

his lung, the other upward and severing the tentorium, a tough membrane

covering the cerebellum.

And how does this account for the air overlaying the right C7 and T1

transverse process?

Please cite from the testimonies where bullet fragments were recovered

from the throat.

Please explain how a conventional round strikes nothing but soft tissue

and then fragments without exit.

Please reconcile this scenario with the witness testimony that JFK

was grabbing at his throat and maintained a "quizzical" look on

his face.

Is that the look people have on their face when the tentorium is

ruptured in advance?

He did not believe it would be possible for such

a blood spray to have occurred unless a pool of blood had accumulated

and, more importantly, that even two (closely spaced) shots to the head

would not have been enough to disgorge cerebellum unless the tentorium

had been ruptured in advance.

I believe there is sufficient evidence to speculate reasonably that

JFK was hit 3 times in the head.

Assumptions are not evidence. The fact is the brain was obviously

mishandled and that pre-autopsy surgery was highly likely, all

the head wound evidence was tainted, suspect, inadmissible in court.

You can make all the brilliant analyses of degraded evidence you

want, doesn't make it significant.

I gather you are one of those who likes to discount those who actually have

background and abilities appropriate to the study of technical, scientific aspects

of the case.

Let's just say I put more truck in the statements of the people who actually were

on the scene at Dealey Plaza, Parkland Hospital, and Bethesda.

I like to discount mis-formed conclusions, no matter the source.

The neck x-ray shows the clear path of the projectile: it bruised the lung-tip, hairline

fracture of the right T1 transverse process, subcutaneous air overlaying the right C7

and T1 transverse processes.

No exit, no bullet or fragment -- and an air pocket. This is consistent

with the conclusion JFK was hit with blood soluble rounds.

But you should know that, while many fragments were removed from the

body and not archived as evidence,

Show the statements of witnesses who claimed to have recovered

fragments from the throat wound.

there were no "disappearing" bullets or paralyzing darts or whatever.

You state this as a certainty. And yet the evidence you base this on

is a "probability" that the non-exiting, non-hard-tissue-striking bullet

fragmented, and an assumption about how many times JFK was hit.

You are also ignoring the nature of the back wound -- shallow, no

exit, no bullet.

He was hit in the throat and his arms came up as the result of (what is

known as) the Thorburn reflex, which, he advised me, would have been

the result of the impact of the bullet on JFK's neck.

On his neck? As in, on the back of his neck? Jim, I know you

know that JFK wasn't shot in the back of the neck. If Livingston is

referring to the hairline-fracture of the right T1 transverse process,

isn't that a stretch to say a tiny fracture of the transverse process is

going to induce Thorburn?

So there it s--a challenge to your mystery bullet--one more addition to your

stock of knowledge about the death of JFK! Good luck with all of this!

Thoroughly enjoyable, Jim.

Edited January 6, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Pat Speer]

Unchallenged? You mean in the micro-universe of your mind, which by

your own account is bereft of most knowledge about the case? What am

I missing? Robert Livingston, M.D., who was a world authority on the human

brain and also an expert on wound ballistics, concluded that the bullet that

hit JFK in the throat had probably fragments, one part going downward into

his lung, the other upward and severing the tentorium, a tough membrane

covering the cerebellum. He did not believe it would be possible for such

a blood spray to have occurred unless a pool of blood had accumulated

and, more importantly, that even two (closely spaced) shots to the head

would not have been enough to disgorge cerebellum unless the tentorium

had been ruptured in advance. I gather you are one of those who likes

to discount those who actually have background and abilities appropriate

to the study of technical, scientific aspects of the case. But you should

know that, while many fragments were removed from the body and not

archived as evidence, there were no "disappearing" bullets or paralyzing

darts or whatever. He was hit in the throat and his arms came up as the

result of (what is known as) the Thorburn reflex, which, he advised me,

would have been the result of the impact of the bullet on JFK's neck. So

there it i--a challenge to your mystery bullet--one more addition to your

stock of knowledge about the death of JFK! Good luck with all of this!

Thank you, Jim.

It's a minor point but Todd is very likely correct about Henchliffe's statements

re the clothing removal. I like to get my minutiae straight.

The fact JFK was struck in the throat from the front by a projectile that didn't

exit and left an air pocket instead of a bullet remains unchallenged.

Yikes. The "Thorburn" reflex was a myth propagated by Dr. John Lattimer and Gerald Posner in an attempt to explain how Kennedy could have raised his hands to his throat within a split second after being hit by the single-bullet shot. It was debunked by Wallace Milam and Millicent Cranor years ago.

Now, Kennedy may have reacted to his throat injury by raising his hands...but it was not the "Thorburn" reflex.

From patspeer.com, chapter 12;

Dr. Lattimer and his devotees, in an attempt to preserve the single-bullet theory, have tried to pretend that the HSCA Photographic Panel was full of beans and that there are no signs of Kennedy's being hit before frame 224 of the Zapruder film. While looking to Connally's movements to tell them the moment of a first shot miss circa frame 160, they willfully ignore Kennedy's far more significant movements between frames 190 and 210. Somehow they perceive the frantic movements apparent as he heads behind the sign as his calmly waving to the crowd. Heck, even the Warren Commission knew this wasn't true.

To refresh, a 4-22-64 memo written by Warren Commission counsel Melvin Eisenberg revealed:

* A screening was held of the Zapruder film and of slides prepared by LIFE from the film. Each slide corresponded with a separate frame of film, beginning with frame 171. The consensus of the meeting was as follows:

* The President had been definitely hit by frames 224-225,when he emerges from behind a sign with his hands clutching his throat.

* The reaction shown in frames 224-225 may have started at an earlier point - possibly as early as frame 199 (when there appears to be some jerkiness in his movement) or, with a higher degree of possibility, at frames 204-206 (where his right elbow appears to be raised to an artificially high position).

So, how do Lattimer and his #1 devotee, Gerald Posner, the author of Case Closed, deal with this memo? They are, after all, defenders of the Warren Commission. They can't just ignore that the commission lawyers charged with studying the Zapruder film saw evidence suggesting that Kennedy was hit before the frame number eventually chosen as the moment of the first shot's impact.

Wanna bet? In Case Closed, Posner presents "The latest enhancements show that before the President disappeared behind the sign at frame 200, he was waving to the crowd with his right hand. Even when the car and his body are obscured by the road sign, the top of his right hand can be seen waving."

The "jerkiness" and "artificially high position" of Kennedy's right elbow had thereby been flushed down the memory hole.

Even sillier (or devious--let's get real) is that Lattimer and his devotee Posner try to explain away what would have to be seen as an incredibly rapid reaction by Kennedy to the bullet striking him at 224 by asserting that the bullet nicked his spine and caused him to assume the “Thorburn’s Position.” an immediate locking of the arms.

The reasons for this silliness were clearly demonstrated in the 1992 mock trial of Oswald put on by the American Bar Association, and televised by Court TV. During this trial, prosecution witness Dr. Robert Piziali, after studying President Kennedy's movements in the Zapruder film after frame 224, asserted that the same bullet struck Kennedy and Connally at frame 224, and that a "reflexive reaction" to this impact would take "approximately 200 ms, which is exactly the time from when the bullet passes through Governor Connally's lapel and we see the first motion of the President's elbow." Ouch. This was painfully incorrect. It was so incorrect that even the most ardent single-assassin theorists could see that it was incorrect. Beyond that the bullet did not pass through Connally's lapel, but at a lower point on his jacket, 200 ms is more than three-and-a-half frames of the Zapruder film. No one outside Dr. Piziali, of whom I am aware, has ever, after studying the Zapruder film, asserted that Kennedy's "reflexive reaction" doesn't start till frame 227 of the film. Equally suspicious, upon cross-examination, Dr. Piziali confirmed that yes, it was his expert opinion that Kennedy was bringing his hand down after a wave in frame 225. This ignored that Kennedy's hands began rising back up in frame 226, not 227, and that frame 226 was not three and a half frames after the impact on Connally first apparent at frame 224.

Afterward, defense witness Dr. Roger McCarthy confirmed that a reflexive reaction on Kennedy's part would take about 200 ms, but disagreed with Piziali's conclusions. He asserted that Kennedy's hand movements in frames 225 and 226 were much too rapid to be reflective of his bringing his hand down after a wave, and that Kennedy was therefore most likely reacting to a shot at this time. He testified that, accordingly, Kennedy was most likely hit no later than frame 221, by a different bullet than the one hitting Connally at frame 224.

This didn't jive with the single-assassin theory, of course, and had to be rejected. Thus, in 1993, the next year, writer Gerald Posner offered the single-assassin faithful the hope they'd been looking for, telling them on page 328 that a spinal injury to Kennedy's sixth cervical vertebra, as purported by Lattimer, would cause an "instantaneous reaction." On the next page he spelled out just how "instantaneous." He wrote: "Kennedy's Thorburn response, from spinal damage, at frames 226-227, came between one tenth to two tenths of a second after the bullet hit him, which translates to 1.8 to 3.66 Zapruder frames." By pretending that Kennedy's reaction could have started as late as frame 227, and that it could have taken as little as one-tenth of a second, Posner was, not surprisingly, covering his pet assassination theory. If people said Kennedy was hit by 227, he could say the reaction took two-tenths of a second. If they said he was hit by 226 he could say it took one tenth of a second. Posner failed to tell his readers that both the Warren Commission and HSCA concluded that Kennedy was clearly reacting to something before frame 226, and that both sides of the 1992 mock trial he cited throughout his book agreed that the reaction time would be at least two tenths of a second, and that the one tenth of a second reaction time he presented for his readers' consideration was something he just made up.

The irony here is that I agree with Posner about the one-tenth of a second reaction time. Well, only sort of. It seems quite possible that Kennedy, at frame 226, is reacting to the same burst of gunfire hitting Connally at frame 224. You see, the flipping of Connally's lapel was most probably not caused by the bullet itself, but by the explosion of blood and rib from Connally's chest after the bullet made its exit. The bullet causing this reaction would most probably have hit Connally just after frame 223. Kennedy's hands lift in frame 226, which means they had reversed course either between frames 224 and 225 or 225 and 226, most logically the latter. This would indicate a reaction time of around 2 frames or just over the one-tenth second reaction time offered by Posner, provided both men were hit by the same bullet. If Kennedy and Connally were hit by separate shots fired from an automatic weapon, of course, the overly-rapid reaction by Kennedy in comparison to the impact on Connally is more readily explained.

But that's neither here nor there. For now. What's important for now is that we realize that Lattimer and his devotee Posner, by pushing the "Thorburn theory," were simultaneously rejecting the conclusions of both the Warren Commission and HSCA that Kennedy was hit when he came out from behind the sign, and were instead pushing that Kennedy was not responding to a shot, but only waving, in frames 224 and 225 of the Zapruder film. And that's just plain silly.

Actually, Posner and the single-assassin community's propping up of Lattimer and his "Thorburn theory" to help sell the single-bullet theory is worse than their simply being silly. Lattimer's "Thorburn theory," holding that Kennedy's arms immediately locked into place after being hit, was, and is, a hoax. A careful viewing of the Zapruder film shows that although Kennedy’s elbows remain slightly bent after frame 224 for the phenomenal length of five seconds, his arms themselves are far from locked and drop almost immediately. Even more damaging, as discovered by Millicent Cranor and reported by Wallace Milam, the position described by Thorburn in the 1800's was not an immediate locking of the arms, but a position assumed over a couple of days as the afflicted patient sunk into paralysis and death.

Edited January 6, 2010 by Pat Speer

[Josiah Thompson]

"Yikes. The "Thorburn" reflex was a myth propagated by Dr. John Lattimer and Gerald Posner in an attempt to explain how Kennedy could have raised his hands to his throat within a split second after being hit by the single-bullet shot. It was debunked my Wallace Milam and Millicent Cranor years ago."

Excellent point, Pat. The "Thorburn reflex" has been a dead puppy for years!

Josiah Thompson

Unchallenged? You mean in the micro-universe of your mind, which by

your own account is bereft of most knowledge about the case? What am

I missing? Robert Livingston, M.D., who was a world authority on the human

brain and also an expert on wound ballistics, concluded that the bullet that

hit JFK in the throat had probably fragments, one part going downward into

his lung, the other upward and severing the tentorium, a tough membrane

covering the cerebellum. He did not believe it would be possible for such

a blood spray to have occurred unless a pool of blood had accumulated

and, more importantly, that even two (closely spaced) shots to the head

would not have been enough to disgorge cerebellum unless the tentorium

had been ruptured in advance. I gather you are one of those who likes

to discount those who actually have background and abilities appropriate

to the study of technical, scientific aspects of the case. But you should

know that, while many fragments were removed from the body and not

archived as evidence, there were no "disappearing" bullets or paralyzing

darts or whatever. He was hit in the throat and his arms came up as the

result of (what is known as) the Thorburn reflex, which, he advised me,

would have been the result of the impact of the bullet on JFK's neck. So

there it i--a challenge to your mystery bullet--one more addition to your

stock of knowledge about the death of JFK! Good luck with all of this!

Thank you, Jim.

It's a minor point but Todd is very likely correct about Henchliffe's statements

re the clothing removal. I like to get my minutiae straight.

The fact JFK was struck in the throat from the front by a projectile that didn't

exit and left an air pocket instead of a bullet remains unchallenged.

Yikes. The "Thorburn" reflex was a myth propagated by Dr. John Lattimer and Gerald Posner in an attempt to explain how Kennedy could have raised his hands to his throat within a split second after being hit by the single-bullet shot. It was debunked my Wallace Milam and Millicent Cranor years ago.

Now, Kennedy may have reacted to his throat injury by raising his hands...but it was not the "Thorburn" reflex.

From patspeer.com, chapter 12;

Dr. Lattimer and his devotees, in an attempt to preserve the single-bullet theory, have tried to pretend that the HSCA Photographic Panel was full of beans and that there are no signs of Kennedy's being hit before frame 224 of the Zapruder film. While looking to Connally's movements to tell them the moment of a first shot miss circa frame 160, they willfully ignore Kennedy's far more significant movements between frames 190 and 210. Somehow they perceive the frantic movements apparent as he heads behind the sign as his calmly waving to the crowd. Heck, even the Warren Commission knew this wasn't true.

To refresh, a 4-22-64 memo written by Warren Commission counsel Melvin Eisenberg revealed:

* A screening was held of the Zapruder film and of slides prepared by LIFE from the film. Each slide corresponded with a separate frame of film, beginning with frame 171. The consensus of the meeting was as follows:

* The President had been definitely hit by frames 224-225,when he emerges from behind a sign with his hands clutching his throat.

* The reaction shown in frames 224-225 may have started at an earlier point - possibly as early as frame 199 (when there appears to be some jerkiness in his movement) or, with a higher degree of possibility, at frames 204-206 (where his right elbow appears to be raised to an artificially high position).

So, how do Lattimer and his #1 devotee, Gerald Posner, the author of Case Closed, deal with this memo? They are, after all, defenders of the Warren Commission. They can't just ignore that the commission lawyers charged with studying the Zapruder film saw evidence suggesting that Kennedy was hit before the frame number eventually chosen as the moment of the first shot's impact.

Wanna bet? In Case Closed, Posner presents "The latest enhancements show that before the President disappeared behind the sign at frame 200, he was waving to the crowd with his right hand. Even when the car and his body are obscured by the road sign, the top of his right hand can be seen waving."

The "jerkiness" and "artificially high position" of Kennedy's right elbow had thereby been flushed down the memory hole.

Even sillier (or devious--let's get real) is that Lattimer and his devotee Posner try to explain away what would have to be seen as an incredibly rapid reaction by Kennedy to the bullet striking him at 224 by asserting that the bullet nicked his spine and caused him to assume the “Thorburn’s Position.” an immediate locking of the arms.

The reasons for this silliness were clearly demonstrated in the 1992 mock trial of Oswald put on by the American Bar Association, and televised by Court TV. During this trial, prosecution witness Dr. Robert Piziali, after studying President Kennedy's movements in the Zapruder film after frame 224, asserted that the same bullet struck Kennedy and Connally at frame 224, and that a "reflexive reaction" to this impact would take "approximately 200 ms, which is exactly the time from when the bullet passes through Governor Connally's lapel and we see the first motion of the President's elbow." Ouch. This was painfully incorrect. It was so incorrect that even the most ardent single-assassin theorists could see that it was incorrect. Beyond that the bullet did not pass through Connally's lapel, but at a lower point on his jacket, 200 ms is more than three-and-a-half frames of the Zapruder film. No one outside Dr. Piziali, of whom I am aware, has ever, after studying the Zapruder film, asserted that Kennedy's "reflexive reaction" doesn't start till frame 227 of the film. Equally suspicious, upon cross-examination, Dr. Piziali confirmed that yes, it was his expert opinion that Kennedy was bringing his hand down after a wave in frame 225. This ignored that Kennedy's hands began rising back up in frame 226, not 227, and that frame 226 was not three and a half frames after the impact on Connally first apparent at frame 224.

Afterward, defense witness Dr. Roger McCarthy confirmed that a reflexive reaction on Kennedy's part would take about 200 ms, but disagreed with Piziali's conclusions. He asserted that Kennedy's hand movements in frames 225 and 226 were much too rapid to be reflective of his bringing his hand down after a wave, and that Kennedy was therefore most likely reacting to a shot at this time. He testified that, accordingly, Kennedy was most likely hit no later than frame 221, by a different bullet than the one hitting Connally at frame 224.

This didn't jive with the single-assassin theory, of course, and had to be rejected. Thus, in 1993, the next year, writer Gerald Posner offered the single-assassin faithful the hope they'd been looking for, telling them on page 328 that a spinal injury to Kennedy's sixth cervical vertebra, as purported by Lattimer, would cause an "instantaneous reaction." On the next page he spelled out just how "instantaneous." He wrote: "Kennedy's Thorburn response, from spinal damage, at frames 226-227, came between one tenth to two tenths of a second after the bullet hit him, which translates to 1.8 to 3.66 Zapruder frames." By pretending that Kennedy's reaction could have started as late as frame 227, and that it could have taken as little as one-tenth of a second, Posner was, not surprisingly, covering his pet assassination theory. If people said Kennedy was hit by 227, he could say the reaction took two-tenths of a second. If they said he was hit by 226 he could say it took one tenth of a second. Posner failed to tell his readers that both the Warren Commission and HSCA concluded that Kennedy was clearly reacting to something before frame 226, and that both sides of the 1992 mock trial he cited throughout his book agreed that the reaction time would be at least two tenths of a second, and that the one tenth of a second reaction time he presented for his readers' consideration was something he just made up.

The irony here is that I agree with Posner about the one-tenth of a second reaction time. Well, only sort of. It seems quite possible that Kennedy, at frame 226, is reacting to the same burst of gunfire hitting Connally at frame 224. You see, the flipping of Connally's lapel was most probably not caused by the bullet itself, but by the explosion of blood and rib from Connally's chest after the bullet made its exit. The bullet causing this reaction would most probably have hit Connally just after frame 223. Kennedy's hands lift in frame 226, which means they had reversed course either between frames 224 and 225 or 225 and 226, most logically the latter. This would indicate a reaction time of around 2 frames or just over the one-tenth second reaction time offered by Posner, provided both men were hit by the same bullet. If Kennedy and Connally were hit by separate shots fired from an automatic weapon, of course, the overly-rapid reaction by Kennedy in comparison to the impact on Connally is more readily explained.

But that's neither here nor there. For now. What's important for now is that we realize that Lattimer and his devotee Posner, by pushing the "Thorburn theory," were simultaneously rejecting the conclusions of both the Warren Commission and HSCA that Kennedy was hit when he came out from behind the sign, and were instead pushing that Kennedy was not responding to a shot, but only waving, in frames 224 and 225 of the Zapruder film. And that's just plain silly.

Actually, Posner and the single-assassin community's propping up of Lattimer and his "Thorburn theory" to help sell the single-bullet theory is worse than their simply being silly. Lattimer's "Thorburn theory," holding that Kennedy's arms immediately locked into place after being hit, was, and is, a hoax. A careful viewing of the Zapruder film shows that although Kennedy’s elbows remain slightly bent after frame 224 for the phenomenal length of five seconds, his arms themselves are far from locked and drop almost immediately. Even more damaging, as discovered by Millicent Cranor and reported by Wallace Milam, the position described by Thorburn in the 1800's was not an immediate locking of the arms, but a position assumed over a couple of days as the afflicted patient sunk into paralysis and death.

[Bernice Moore]

Essay - Acoustics Overview and History - MFF

would have to be a copy. Mary Ferrell, who along with Gary Mack brought .. communicating over two radio frequencies, both of .. originals, the Bowles tapes are considered to

Essay - Acoustics Overview and History - MFF

B..