A Few Thoughts on the Zapruder Film

[Don Jeffries]

Josiah,

I asked you earlier in this thread a very simple question. Once again, it appears you are ignoring me. Not sure why- I've never been uncivil with you.

I'll try one more time- how can you state that the evidence indicates the throat wound was not of entrance, but merely say "I don't know" in regards to whether it could have been of exit? That seems awfully inconsistent to me. If you're going to be agnostic about this issue, intellectual honesty demands that you be consistent.

[Dean Hagerman]

I believe there is sufficient evidence to speculate reasonably that

JFK was hit 3 times in the head.

Cliff the things you say keep getting more and more ludicrous each day

[Cliff Varnell]

I believe there is sufficient evidence to speculate reasonably that

JFK was hit 3 times in the head.

Cliff the things you say keep getting more and more ludicrous each day

And your dismissals grow ever more contentless by the day.

My next scheduled discussion of the head wounds isn't until 2011.

I'll give you my reasoning then.

Edited January 6, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[William Kelly]

A Few Thoughts on the Zapruder Film

Think for a moment of what our knowledge of November 22nd would be without the Zapruder film.

Sure we'd have the other films shot in Dealey Plaza and the Moorman photo and the Altgens photo. From the other films and witness reports we'd have some fragmentary sense that JFK might have been bowled over backwards by the shot that killed him. But we'd have nothing firm, nothing that was indisputable. And the single-bullet theory would have nothing concrete to show the impacts on the two men were off in timing. There would be a general fog over the event complicated by contradictory witness reports and physical evidence that made things even less clear. Whatever happened that day would remain forever a mystery.

No one could have expected we would have an 8 mm film taken from the position a Hollywood film crew would have picked to film the assassination. From back in the spring of 1964 when John and Mrs. Connally and several Parkland doctors were confronted with the film, it became clear that this completely unexpected gift to knowledge of the shooting was causing insuperable difficulties for the official story. Point after point raised by critics since that time have depended upon details available to inspection only via the film.

The film could have been seized as evidence. Forrest Sorrels could have watched the film after its development at the Kodak plant in Dallas and said to Abraham Zapruder, "I'm sorry, Mr. Zapruder, I'm seizing your film as evidence in this crime." At any time that weekend, the film could have been seized. It would have disappeared into government hands never to reappear or only to reappear in whatever guise was decided. What saved this film from that fate is still to me unclear. If there was a giant conspiracy to make the shooting look like the work of an isolated lone nut and if the film was central piece in the puzzle why not just seize it? No one then would have objected and the conspirators would have covered any angles with respect to the film that they needed to cover.

Some have asked why I have so vehemently defended the authenticity of the Zapruder film.

Professor Fetzer, always ready to impugn the motives of anyone he disagrees with, has claimed that I defend the authenticity of the Zapruder film because Six Seconds was built on it. That, of course, is untrue. Six Seconds was built on the concept that no one had tried to reconstruct what happened in Dealey Plaza from the available evidence. We knew the Warren Report was woefully defective but that didn't mean that we knew what happened that November noon. Six Seconds was an attempt to answer that question. In answering the question, it drew on every piece of evidence available at that time. To this day, the Zapruder film remains a central and indispensable piece of evidence. Hence, I relied on it as everyone else did and does. In spite of what Fetzer says, Six Seconds was not built on the Zapruder film and I have never claimed to be an expert on it.

I believe the Zapruder film to be authentic because no significant case has ever been made to show its inauthenticity. It is elementary that photos and films of the same event taken from different vantage points have to match. If one doesn't, it stands out like a sore thumb. In spite of persistent and long-lasting efforts that stretch now over several decades, no one has yet been able to show any discrepancy in the photo record of Dealey Plaza. The photo record from Dealey Plaza forms a self-authenticating whole Given this fact, the exponents of Zapruder film tampering have had to expand the circle of faked-up films to encompass virtually the whole inventory of films and photos of the assassination.

The long-lasting argument over Mary Moorman's position in the Zapruder film illustrates this point. Jack White mismeasured a line-of-sight present in the Moorman photo that would establish the height of her camera above the ground. When the mistake was pointed out and the line-of-sight correctly measured, it coincided with the position of Moorman's camera in the Zapruder film. This sort of exact correspondence between different photos and films establishes the basis for the film's authenticity.

Recently, it has become apparent that another, distinctly different kind of evidence confirms the authenticity of the film. I have in mind here the acoustic evidence. With the revelations brought forward by Don Thomas in the last decade, it is now possible to see that shot events on the Dallas police channel can be correlated exactly with visual events in the Zapruder film. Both the impact of shots on the occupants of the limousine and the involuntary startle response of Zapruder to these shots can be shown to match up exactly with the shots on the Dallas police channel.

Putting these two elements together provide us for the first time with an armature on which to both hang and evaluate other evidence. What does that armature look like? Five shots from three directions. The fourth at Z 313 from the stockade fence. One or two from a location at the north end of Elm Street. Two or three from the TSBD 6th floor window. Additional work needs to be done, but, for the first time, I can see a consensus solution to the puzzle. From the very beginning, the Zapruder film has been the bugaboo of the Warren Commission and the most indisputable evidence of a shot from the right front. With the advances of the last decade, this consensus solution will form a basis for future historians when they get around to writing a history of the event.

At certain times, it has come to seem that any questioning of Zapruder film tampering was a reactionary move... a protective move on the part of "the old guard" to protect its turf and reputations. In reality, nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact, it is the proven authenticity of the Zapruder film that vouches safe a scientifically confirmed reconstruction of the event. This fact is becoming ever more clear as wrangling over the film continues even more heatedly.

An example of this wrangling has occupied us over the last week. Back in 2003, David Lifton claimed that Doug Horne had found in Zavada's experiments significant evidence that the Zapruder film was a fake. The evidence? Using cameras of the same make and model as Zapruder's, Zavada had been unable to achieve "full flush left image penetration." "In not one instance – not a single one – could Rollie Zavada get the image to go full flush left," wrote Lifton in Fetzer's book, TGZFH. "It couldn't be done because the camera just isn't designed that way."

Lifton and Fetzer even published photos from Zavada's studies to demonstrate their claim. Zavada, however, was having none of it. He pointed out two photos from his studies showed precisely the effect Lifton said he could not achieve. One of these was actually used by Fetzer and Lifton in a blurry, black and white version. When the photo was scanned from Zavada's study and it exhibited "full flush left image penetration" Fetzer and Lifton agreed that it falsified Lifton's claim. Why had it been published with text that said the opposite? Fetzer said it was Lifton's fault. Although Lifton had produced the blurry, black and white version, he said he had never seen the clear color original in Zavada's Study #3.

Lifton and Doug Horne have been working on this issue since at least 2003. Again and again we have heard the complaint that Rollie Zavada did not run test shots though the Zapruder camera. They have proposed that even now test shots be made by filming Dealey Plaza with the Zapruder camera. As Duncan MacRae brilliantly pointed out yesterday, precisely such a film was made in the spring of 1964 and sits in NARA. Zapruder's camera as well as other cameras were used in 1964 to take test shots during the reconstruction. If this film in NARA shows what we have every expectation it will show, then this little theory.... like "the seven foot woman," like "Moorman-in-the-Street," like all the silly-ass little sketches made for tabloids that I can't remember... will end up like all the others in the dust pile.

And so it goes. The exponents of alteration will continue finding ever more arcane reasons for believing the film has been altered by shadowy conspirators. The argument over this will proceed into its second decade and maybe its third. Meanwhile, the path of fruitful inquiry will continue to lie elsewhere. As for me, I'm sure many others will pursue this question and be able to mount the appropriate counter-arguments to each new iteration of the alteration claim. I hope you will all understand if I say that after a decade of arguing against this claim, I have better things to do. Why, for example, should I even care to learn what "full frame left image penetration" is when it finally leads nowhere and when its exponents could have resolved the question years ago?

Josiah Thompson

[Bernice Moore]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The tape copy first provided to the HSCA by Mary Ferrell was determined to be a multiple generation copy

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/...iew_and_History

b..

Edited January 6, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[Barb Junkkarinen]

"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

Thanks to both of you, Pat and Tink. "Thorburn" ... yikes is right! But then after "blood soluble" bullets, that apparently can leave an "air pocket" where a "conventional bullet" is unable to leave such a thing in its wake, I shouldn't have been surprised to see that long ago dealt with and relegated to the junk heap Thorburn thing dragged in, I guess.

Subcutaneous or interstitial air is caused by either pathology (disease), which does not apply in this case, or by an injury causing a breach in the closed respiratory system, like, say .... a HOLE in the trachea. The air pocket is caused by the breach which allows air to escape into the surrounding tissues .... regardless of whether that injury (breach) was caused by a "blood soluble" or "conventional" bullet .... or a nail or a stick or a rhinestone covered letter opener. The object causes the breach ... the breach allows the air to leak into the tissues and form the air pocket.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Edited January 6, 2010 by Barb Junkkarinen

[Cliff Varnell]

"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

Thanks to both of you, Pat and Tink. "Thorburn" ... yikes is right! But then after "blood soluble" bullets, that apparently can leave an "air pocket" where a "conventional bullet" is unable to leave such a thing in its wake, I shouldn't have been surprised to see that long ago dealt with and relegated to the junk heap Thorburn thing dragged in, I guess.

Subcutaneous or interstitial air is caused by either pathology (disease), which does not apply in this case, or by an injury causing a breach in the closed respiratory system, like, say .... a HOLE in the trachea. The air pocket is caused by the breach which allows air to escape into the surrounding tissues .... regardless of whether that injury (breach) was caused by a "blood soluble" or "conventional" bullet .... or a nail or a stick or a rhinestone covered letter opener. The object causes the breach ... the breach allows the air to leak into the tissues and form the air pocket.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Thank you, Barb. Excellent explanation!

Of course, the air pocket is only part of the equation. The fact that there was no

exit and no bullet and only an air pocket and a hairline fracture of the right T1

transverse process is consistent with what the prosectors suspected the night of the

autopsy.

We have a similar situation with the back wound -- shallow, no exit, no bullet.

Given Oswald's proven intelligence connections, I find it curious that so many are so

reflexively dismissive of evidence which points directly at persons associated with

the Central Intelligence Agency.

Edited January 6, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Well, I am reporting what Bob Livingston, M.D., the scientific director of

the National Institute for Mental Health and of the National Institute of

Neuorological Diseases and Blindness, explained to me. I suppose his

only advantage over liminaries such as Cliff Varnell, Pat Speer, and Tink

Thompson in relation to his opinion about the Thorburn reflex is that he

was a world authority on the human brain and also an expert on wound

ballistics. It was his professional judgment that the entry wound to the

throat had hit the skeleton and fragmented, part going downward into

the lung, part going upward and severing the tentorium, this very tough

membrane that covers the cerebellum. It was his opinion that, even if

JFK had been subjected to the "double hit" that Josiah is now so eager

to disavow--no doubt because, if it occurred, it is decisive evidence of

conspiracy!--that would not have been enough to cause cerebellar tissue

to extrude from the wound. And we have physician after physician who

reported observing cerebellar as well as cerebral tissue extruding from

the wound. Appeals to fine distinctions about the timing sequence of

events as they appear in the film is quite ridiculous, given knowledge of

the fabrication of the film. But since there appears to be no way that

cerebellum could have been extruding from the wound UNLESS THE

TENTORIUM HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY RUPTURED, how can any of you--

all of whom are grossly unqualified in comparison to Bob Livingston!--

explain how cerebellar tissue in addition to cerebral could have been

extruding from the wound? I also find it fascinating that Thompson is

making an argument based upon the claim that there was too brief an

interval of time for these events to occur, when--on another thread--he

has asserted that, relative to frame 313, the hit and "startle response"

were simultaneous, which entails violations of laws of nature regarding

the speed of sound, the speed of bullets, and the inducement of such a

response. So he is claiming that there is too little time for the Thorburn

reflex to take place as an effect of the impact of a bullet with skeleton

bones but enough time for a "startle response" to occur AT THE SAME

TIME as the bullet hit the body! If anyone is looking for consistency

from Josiah Thompson, you can find it--not in his reasoning, which is

manifestly impoverished--but in his new mission, which is to question

everything possible that would point to conspiracy in the death of JFK,

which is laying the groundwork for him to make a dramatic reversal of

his stance on conspiracy in time for the 50th observance! Even though

he won't admit it, Vincent Salandria nailed him when his book initally

appeared, because in the last paragraph he states that none of this

"proves" a conspiracy, which he sought to shrug off on the basis of an

"infelicity" of language. Salandria didn't buy it and I don't buy it and

if, after having exposed him for a charlatan and a fraud, you are still

in Tink's corner, then I wonder what you are doing here studying the

case at all, because his role is to conceal, not reveal, the true causes

of the death of our 35th president. And that is something that I have

already proven on this forum, where he continues to bob and weave,

duck and hide, and betray the principles of philosophy, which places a

premium on finding the truth while deploring obfuscation and sophistry.

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 James H. Fetzer

[Todd W. Vaughan]

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.

Cliff,

Did you even read my articles?

1. Why do you claim that Dr. Carrico “emphatically” concurred with Dulles' location of the wound”? Where is there any hint of emphasis implied in Dr. Carrico’s testimony?

2. If he hadn’t been interrupted by Dulles, what do you think Dr. Carrico was going to say when he said “Yes, sir; just where the tie —“. Do you think he was going to say “Just where the tie isn’t” or do you think it is more likely that he was going to say “Just where the tie is”?

3. What do you think Dr. Carrico meant when he testified (as opposed to having Dulles interpret his testimony) that the wound was "Just about where your tie would be"?

4. Dr. Carrico testified that the wound was “located in the lower third of the neck, below the thyroid cartilage, the Adams apple.” Do you think that location on the body would be above or below the upper most edge of the President’s buttoned dress shirt?

5. What are your thoughts where, in my fourth article, Dr. Carrico clearly states that President Kennedy’s clothes were removed before Dr. Carrico saw the wound, that the throat wound was located precisely where the collar would have been, and that the standard method for removing clothing in Parkland Hospital's emergency room was for attendants to cut them off with scissors?

6. Why do you minimize McKnight’s questionable behavior in this matter when you say “So what if McKnight didn't get his minutiae straight?”. Do you realize that McKnight’s claim that “As Carrico explained to Specter the use of scalpels was “the usual practice” in a medical emergency of this nature.”, NEVER OCCURRED! Dr. Carrico NEVER, EVER, said any such thin in his testimony to Specter.

7. What do you make of Weisberg’s misrepresentation of the sequence of testimony where he eliminates the part where Dr. Carrico testified that the wound was "Just about where your tie would be"?

8. What do you make of Weisberg’s claim that Dr. Carrico “saw neither the nick in the tie nor the cuts in the shirt before the nurses started cutting.”, given the fact that Dr. Carrico told the Warren Commission that he never even examined the clothing to begin with?

9. What do you make of Weisberg’s claim that “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.” , when in fact one of those times, the time where Dulles did not interrupt Dr. Carrico in midsentence, Dr. Carrico actually testified that the wound was "Just about where your tie would be"?

Todd

Edited January 6, 2010 by Todd W. Vaughan

[Cliff Varnell]

Well, I am reporting what Bob Livingston, M.D., the scientific director of

the National Institute for Mental Health and of the National Institute of

Neuorological Diseases and Blindness, explained to me. I suppose his

only advantage over liminaries such as Cliff Varnell, Pat Speer, and Tink

Thompson in relation to his opinion about the Thorburn reflex is that he

was a world authority on the human brain and also an expert on wound

ballistics.

Dr. Livingston is entitled to his opinions, and they are very well

qualified, obviously.

He is not entitled to his own set of facts, however.

Do Dr. Livingston's conclusions match what the witnesses said,

what the photographs and films/photos show, what the properly

prepared contemporaneous documentation shows?

I will argue his analysis fails to match the evidence.

It was his professional judgment that the entry wound to the

throat had hit the skeleton and fragmented, part going downward into

the lung, part going upward and severing the tentorium, this very tough

membrane that covers the cerebellum.

It nicked the trachea and then hit the skeleton?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the bones of the neck consist of the

base of the skull and the 7 cervical vertebrae?

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 - a clear

front to back path that left no exit and no bullet or bullet fragment.

If a conventional bullet struck bone with enough force to fragment why

did it leave a mere hairline fracture of a transverse process?

Why didn't the neck x-ray show damage below the apex of the lung?

Why didn't the fragment show up on x-ray?

And you would have us believe that JFK suffered a ruptured tentorium

and yet he maintained a "quizzical" look on his face. Is that consistent?

It was his opinion that, even if JFK had been subjected to the "double hit"

that Josiah is now so eager to disavow--no doubt because, if it occurred,

it is decisive evidence of conspiracy!--that would not have been enough

to cause cerebellar tissue to extrude from the wound.

How does this preclude a 3-shot hit? Can you cite any evidence that

precludes a 3 head-shot scenario?

And we have physician after physician who reported observing cerebellar

as well as cerebral tissue extruding from the wound.

Strong supporting evidence for the 3-head-shot scenario!

Appeals to fine distinctions about the timing sequence of events as they

appear in the film is quite ridiculous, given knowledge of the fabrication

of the film.

I have yet to see any case for Zapruder film alteration between

Z186 thru Z255. The actions and reactions of JFK in Z186-255 match

what the closest witnesses observed and what other photographs show.

But since there appears to be no way that cerebellum could have been extruding

from the wound UNLESS THE TENTORIUM HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY RUPTURED, how

can any of you--all of whom are grossly unqualified in comparison to Bob Livingston!--

explain how cerebellar tissue in addition to cerebral could have been extruding from

the wound?

3 head shots.

I also find it fascinating that Thompson is making an argument based upon the

claim that there was too brief an interval of time for these events to occur,

when--on another thread--he has asserted that, relative to frame 313, the hit

and "startle response" were simultaneous, which entails violations of laws of

nature regarding the speed of sound, the speed of bullets, and the inducement

of such a response. So he is claiming that there is too little time for the Thorburn

reflex to take place as an effect of the impact of a bullet with skeleton bones but

enough time for a "startle response" to occur AT THE SAME TIME as the bullet hit

the body!

Are you sure Dr. Livingston hasn't claimed that the bullet struck

JFK at the back base of the neck?

If he does make such a claim, he is passing off arguably the biggest Big Lie

in the entire case!

If anyone is looking for consistency from Josiah Thompson, you can find

it--not in his reasoning, which is manifestly impoverished--but in his new

mission, which is to question everything possible that would point to conspiracy

in the death of JFK, which is laying the groundwork for him to make a dramatic

reversal of his stance on conspiracy in time for the 50th observance! Even

though he won't admit it, Vincent Salandria nailed him when his book initally

appeared, because in the last paragraph he states that none of this

"proves" a conspiracy, which he sought to shrug off on the basis of an

"infelicity" of language. Salandria didn't buy it and I don't buy it and if, after

having exposed him for a charlatan and a fraud, you are still in Tink's corner,

Excuse me? I am not in the "corner" of anyone who was not a witness

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

I regard the First Day Witnesses as heroes.

What researchers write about stands a chance of being significant around 5% of

the time, in my experience.

The witnesses, on the other hand, have told us what happened.

Unfortunately, many researcher/writers fail to listen to the witnesses, and

this appears to be the case with Dr. Livingston.

Edited January 6, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Todd wrote:

"Cliff, Did you even read my articles?"

Todd,

Only the part I quoted. There is only so much implied witness bashing

that I can stand in one day, so our discussion is going to have to take

place over a period of time.

1. Why do you claim that Dr. Carrico “emphatically” concurred with Dulles' location of the wound”? Where is there any hint of emphasis implied in Dr. Carrico’s testimony?

"Yes, sir." "Yes" is an affirmative. "Yes, sir" is an emphatic affirmative.

2. If he hadn’t been interrupted by Dulles, what do you think Dr. Carrico was going to say when he said “Yes, sir; just where the tie —“. Do you think he was going to say “Just where the tie isn’t” or do you think it is more likely that he was going to say “Just where the tie is”?

I don't put words in people's mouths. You simply have to. Dulles identified the

wound above the tie, Carrico emphatically agreed -- "Yes, sir" -- and later

repeated the same observation to Weisberg.

I don't see where you have a leg to stand on.

3. What do you think Dr. Carrico meant when he testified (as opposed to having Dulles interpret his testimony) that the wound was "Just about where your tie would be"?

But that's not what he testified to in his second statement*. Your clumsy parsing

of words carries no weight.

4. Dr. Carrico testified that the wound was “located in the lower third of the neck, below the thyroid cartilage, the Adams apple.” Do you think that location on the body would be above or below the upper most edge of the President’s buttoned dress shirt?

What I think is irrelevant. The fact is he testified under oath and emphatically

agreed with the description of the wound just above the tie. He reiterated his

observations to Weisberg.

JFK's head was turned hard to the right circa Z190, so comparisons made with

photos NOT showing JFK with his head turned hard to the right are not applicable.

5. What are your thoughts where, in my fourth article, Dr. Carrico clearly states that

President Kennedy’s clothes were removed before Dr. Carrico saw the wound, that

the throat wound was located precisely where the collar would have been, and that

the standard method for removing clothing in Parkland Hospital's emergency room

was for attendants to cut them off with scissors?

My thoughts are that Carrico made it clear in his testimony that he emphatically

agreed with the location of the wound above the top of the tie, and that scissors

can nick ties.

6. Why do you minimize McKnight’s questionable behavior in this matter when you

say “So what if McKnight didn't get his minutiae straight?”

I am far more struck by your questionable behavior -- putting words

in Carrico's mouth, ignoring the location of the back wound and the clear

indications in the photographic evidence that JFK was struck in the throat

from the front.

You are cherry picking testimony and parsing words in a very questionable

manner, Todd.

Do you realize that McKnight’s claim that “As Carrico explained to Specter the use of

scalpels was “the usual practice” in a medical emergency of this nature.”, NEVER

OCCURRED! Dr. Carrico NEVER, EVER, said any such thin in his testimony to Specter.

You are conflating your critique of McKnight with a defense of the SBT.

But you cannot defend the SBT on the evidence, can you?

7. What do you make of Weisberg’s misrepresentation of the sequence of testimony where

he eliminates the part where Dr. Carrico testified that the wound was "Just about where your

tie would be"?

But that's not what Carrico testified. This is very questionable behavior on your

part, Todd.

8. What do you make of Weisberg’s claim that Dr. Carrico “saw neither the nick in the tie nor the cuts in the shirt before the nurses started cutting.”, given the fact that Dr. Carrico told the Warren Commission that he never even examined the clothing to begin with?

Seems highly consistent. There is a difference between "examination" and

incidental observation. That he didn't "examine" the clothing doesn't preclude

observing the clothing in passing and seeing nothing out of the ordinary.

9. What do you make of Weisberg’s claim that “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.” , when in fact one of those times, the time where Dulles did not interrupt Dr. Carrico in midsentence, Dr. Carrico actually testified that the wound was "Just about where your tie would be"?

What do I make of your parsing, cherry picking, and fabrication of witness testimony?

Not much. If this is all you have in defense of the SBT -- you have nothing.

ADDED on EDIT * italics

Edited January 6, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Cliff,

I wrote:

“What do you think Dr. Carrico meant when he testified (as opposed to having Dulles interpret his testimony) that

the wound was "Just about where your tie would be"?

To which you replied:

“That's not what he testified. Your clumsy parsing of words carries no weight.”

I also wrote:

“What do you make of Weisberg’s misrepresentation of the sequence of testimony where he eliminates the part where Dr. Carrico testified that the wound was "Just about where your tie would be"?”

To which you replied:

“But that's not what Carrico testified. This is very questionable behavior on your part, Todd.”

Later you accused me of "fabrication of witness testimony".

As EVERYONE can see for themselves at this link here…

http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol3/page361.php

…Dr. Carrico testified to EXACTLY what I wrote that he did, that the wound in the throat was "Just about where your tie would be".

Looks to me like YOU'RE the one guilty of questionable behavior, Cliff, in your claiming that Dr. Carrico did not say this and in accusing me of fabricating testimony.

Todd

Edited January 6, 2010 by Todd W. Vaughan

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff,

I wrote:

“What do you think Dr. Carrico meant when he testified (as opposed to having Dulles interpret his testimony) that

the wound was "Just about where your tie would be"?

To which you replied:

“That's not what he testified. Your clumsy parsing of words carries no weight.”

My mistake. I thought you were referring to this:

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

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

You have a bad habit of completing Dr. Carrico's thought, which IS a fabrication.

As to the former Carrico quote, what part of the word "about" don't you understand?

Are you claiming that "just about where your tie would be"is the same as "precisely

where your tie would be"?

And please note the structure of the latter quotation: "Yes, sir; just where the tie--"

People don't speak in semi-colons. I could just as readily read that statement,

"Yes, sir. Just where the tie--"

Apparently your entire defense of the SBT rests on you finishing Dr. Carrico's thought.

As I say, you have nothing.

Edited January 6, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Later you accused me of "fabrication of witness testimony".

Right accusation, wrong instance.

Here Todd demonstrates how to fabricate witness intent:

In his first article TWV wrote (emphasis added):

As for the second time Dr. Carrico is asked to locate the wound, Allen Dulles asked “And you put your hand right above where your tie is?” That was a question on Mr. Dulles’s part, not a statement by Dr. Carrico. Dr. Carrico’s reply to that question, “Yes, sir; just where the tie —“, was cut off in mid-sentence. But what was Dr. Carrico going to say, “Just where the tie isn’t.”? Of course not. It’s more than obvious that he was going to repeat the answer that he had already given – that the wound was located “Just about where your tie would be.”

It's more than obvious this spin is pure fabrication.

And again: what part of the qualifier "about" don't you understand, Todd?

Edited January 6, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Jack White]

The above argument is irrelevant. See HORNE IV.

The WOUND IN THE ANTERIOR THROAT WAS ABOVE THE SHIRT COLLAR AND NECKTIE.

Jack