The JFK "Head Shot" Paradox

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Yes, he corrected for pincushion and aspect ratio distortion and added the missing frames due to those

splices. You can find both the frames and a stabilized version at http://assassinationscience.com. This

also includes the sprocket images. You can learn more about differences between different versions by

going to YouTube and entering "Zapruder fakery", where I discuss this question in the first few segments.

Is the superior version the one where Costella corrected for pin cushioning?

Edited November 18, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Craig, I have no doubt that you are better at counting pixels than am I and that I have misstated what I was told.

I would be more impressed if I thought that you were devoting yourself to exposing truths about the Zapruder film,

insofar as even you should be willing to grant that its alteration has been established and is not in serious doubt,

at the very least regarding the "blob" and blood spray being painted in and the rear-head defect being painted out.

John,

Good question. They (the new group of film restoration experts) obtained the so-called "forensic version" from the National Archives and have created a 6k copy,which Lamson once criticized for being flimsy (assuming the 6k was the total number of pixels). When I visited her and viewed their version with Sydney Wilkinson, however, she explained to me that it is 6k on the horizontal dimension (as I recall), meaning it is overwhelmingly greater in its pixel density than Lamson assumed. The copy itself strikes me as an odd one for the National Archives to provide as "the forensic version", since it is very scratched and (I would say) rather dirty as a strip of celluloid. Mike Pincher, an attorney who co-authored an article about the film for ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), accompanied me for the viewing, and we have discussed this point more than once. Since there are far superior versions, such as the "Costella Combined Cut" archived at http://assassinationscience.com and available to the public for free, I infer that (i) they wanted a copy obtained from the National Archives and (ii) that the scratches and dirt don't adversely affect the studies they are undertaking. I am glad that they have already established the faking of the film by painting over the blow-out to the back of the head in black, but there are many other indications of fakery internal to the film, as I have explained in several previous posts.

Jim

Uh Jim, you really should know what you are talking about before banging your keyboard.

YOUR exact words as posted on this forum: (my bolding)

The Hollywood group scanned the entire 35 mm film frame at 6K, but then cropped the image so that the extra space is not shown---so that only the full frame of the Z film is shown. Each cropped 6K image is 4096 x 3112 pixels (along the horizontal and vertical axes), which means that in its cropped form, it approximates a "4K" scan in terms of the number of pixels actually composing the useful image content.

Each one of these 4096 x 3112 pixel "6K" scans (sometimes called "4K" by the research group because they are cropped) consists of an amazing 12.75 million pixels of information (4096 x 3112=12,746,752 pixels)! And each one of these frames is 72.9 MB in size. (Too big to be transmitted on the internet.)

To which I correctly replied:

Wow! the scan is equal to the pixel count of a 160 dollar point and shoot digital camera. Color me impressed!

Can't transmit via the internet? How silly, I do it every day. Ask Dean Hagerman if he can get a 107 mb digital file via the internet?

Horne continues to unimpress.[/1]

I know EXACTLY what a 6k scan entails, digital imaging is muy PROFESSION. Is it yours? In any case the ACTUAL z frame image area is far less than 6000 pixels wide. As I stgated then and now, this leaves an image area thats about the equal of a standard Point and Shoot digital camera. The question is why this august group use a 6k scan instead of something more accurate like a drum scan? Why stop at half way? And of course that was always the point, even if your ignornace of the subject matter made it impossible for you to understand.

[John Dolva]

How many peripheral marbles did Costella lose in producing this best version?

edit typo

Edited November 18, 2010 by John Dolva

[Craig Lamson]

Craig, I have no doubt that you are better at counting pixels than am I and that I have misstated what I was told.

I would be more impressed if I thought that you were devoting yourself to exposing truths about the Zapruder film,

insofar as even you should be willing to grant that its alteration has been established and is not in serious doubt,

at the very least regarding the "blob" and blood spray being painted in and the rear-head defect being painted out.

Established? I don't care WHO you are, thats funny!

Alteration has been established? Sorry, that just keeps cracking me up. Some guys saying it's painted in just ain't gonna cut it Jim. And please don't quote Costella...sheesh the guy can't even get photographic parallax correct. But then again thats about the best you really have. And thus the continued and baseless bluster.

Truth? You don't understand the meaning of that word Jim.

Edited November 19, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

John,

Are you going flaky on me? Have you watched his tutorial? Do you have an argument to present?

Jim

How many peripheral marbles did Costella lose in producing this best version?

edit typo

[Robert Harris]

The shot at 312-313 came from the rear and there was no "paradox". The head was immediately blown forward as is crystal clear in the Zapruder film and fragments of metal and bone were blown forward, striking and causing minor damage to the windshield. No other shot that day is consistent with that damage.

The second headshot was fired a small fraction of a second later, from the front and caused massive damage to the upper rear of the BOH. It is easily seen in frames following 330.

Drs. Mantik, Riley, and Robertson each went to the archives and studied the Xrays. Their conclusion was unanimous, that there were two shots which struck head - one from the rear and one from the front.

The reason that the BOH damage was not seen in some of the autopsy photos was explained by Dr. Thornton Boswell in his testimony before the ARRB. A large piece of skull was blown out and to the rear, which remained attached to the scalp. By simply flipping the scalp and bone back into place, the damage was covered over. Dr. Boswell's hand can be seen, holding the scalp in place to prevent it from falling back and uncovering the damage. This is all explained in the following article.

http://jfkhistory.com/LastShot2/BOHDamage.html

This video also explains the BOH damage, but more visually.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65inNE7dCUE

[Pat Speer]

Ahhh... I think I see what you're talking about now. You're not talking about the dark area, but the area just to its right. Can't say for sure what that is. Does the hair appear to be lighter because the angle of the sun? Don't know. Since blood would be readily apparent should that be an explosive wound on the skull, however, we can say with some certainty that the grayish hue is not indicative of brain matter.

While blood is indeed visible toward the bottom, this could very well be blood from the EOP entrance, or blood from the back wound.

As far as the so-called McClelland drawing, Horne attributed it to an artist named Philip Johnson in his book. I checked this out with Thompson, who thought this was incorrect. When Horne pointed out that he'd got this from the credits in Thompson's book, however, Tink admitted he'd been mistaken as to the name of the artist. The point, moreover, is not who drew the drawing, but that the McClelland drawing was created by an artist hired by Tink to depict the wound described by McClelland, as Johnson and Thompson interpreted McClelland's words, and that McClelland himself would later disavow their depiction.

The reality, of course, is that virtually NONE of the so-called back of the head witnesses described a wound on the far back of the head in the location of the McClelland drawing.

Pat,

This tells me you have never read THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), which features color copies of frame 374 quite prominently in the color-photo section. You should have no trouble seeing those, where I am just the least bit astonished that you claim to be unable to see them in this presentation.

It is not a DARK AREA but a BLUISH-GRAY AREA where his brains are actually exposed. In addition, the pink shape beside it is the blown out flap described by Tom Robinson, which you have ofter mentioned in your own work. Something is very wrong. You see black, when you should be seeing blue-gray.

Go to http://www.und.edu/org/jfkconference/UNDchapter30.pdf Go to page 360. Zoom in to see better. Then go to page 359. Compare the shape of the blow-out seen with "Area P" of Mantik's analysis. It should be obvious that they have a similar shape. Use the ear bone to correlate. Repeat as needed.

The drawing on page 359/top has long been attributed to Dr. McClelland. See, for example, Tink on page 107, who offers it as "a pictorial representation of the President Kennedy's head wound as described by Dr. Robert McClelland of Parkland Hospital". Give me the Horne reference to check. Whether or not it derived from this source, it's know by that name.

It take it that everyone knows the Ida Dox drawing is a fraudulent misrepresentation, since JFK had his brains blown out the back his head, from which cerebral and cerebellar tissue was extruding. See, for example, the summary on page 360/bottom. No one I know believes there was an entry wound there except for the revised testimony of Humes and Boswell before the HSCA. Do you agree with them? Do you think the photograph is genuine?

Jim

This article is archived here with active links, photos and film clips:

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/11/jfk-head-shot-paradox.html

The JFK “Head Shot” Paradox*

by Jim Fetzer

Recently by Jim Fetzer: The Place of Probability in Science

As a philosopher of science with a keen interest in the nature of scientific knowledge, I have been fascinated by the recent book by G. Paul Chalmers, Head Shot: The Science Behind the JFK Assassination (2010). I have found several aspects of his discussion of interest, including his conclusion—that the fatal shot to JFK’s head seen in the Zapruder film was caused by a shot from the right-front (“the grassy knoll”)—which he affirms on the basis of his competence as a physicist. He does not seem to notice that JFK’s brains and blood are blown out to the right-front in the Zapruder film, which he takes to be authentic and unaltered. But that means there is a paradox in his analysis, since, if the film is authentic, the blow-out to the right-front contradicts his conclusion that the shot that caused this effect was fired from the right-front, which is founded on elementary laws of physics. This, in turn, implies that he has not taken into account all the relevant evidence and thereby violated a basic principle of scientific reasoning, which may be appropriate for politicians, editorial writers, and used-car salesmen, but not for him.

. . .

It not only troubles me profoundly that Chalmers violates a basic principle of scientific reasoning and that evidence internal to the extant film refutes his presumption that the film is authentic but that Jefferson Morley endorses the book with the following claim: “He dismantles the bad science at the core of Vincent Bugliosi’s flabby Reclaiming History [2007] and politely punts the fantasy that the Zapruder film was altered.” While I agree that Bugliosi’s work is indefensible, to the best of my knowledge, Morley has never studied the film and is not in a position to know whether it is authentic or not. This is not the first time Morley has proven to be unequal to the demands of serious research about the assassination of one of the Kennedys. Science, as we have seen, can enable us to sort out authentic from inauthentic evidence, but we have to think things through and not let ourselves be misled by pseudo-science masquerading as genuine in the search for truth.

* Thanks to David W. Mantik, John Costella, and Morgan Reynolds for their feedback.

Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer who earned his Ph.D. in the history and the philosophy of science, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the Duluth campus of the University of Minnesota. He co-edits assassinationresearch.com with John Costella.

A couple of quick comments.

1) You inaccurately attribute your belief the x-rays have been altered to hide a blow-out in the back of the head to Dr. Mantik. In his most recent comments he acknowledged that the white patch on the x-rays does not overlay the area on the back of the head from which the Harper fragment was dislodged. He also claimed that it does not conceal missing bone, but missing brain. If researchers (not just yourself but Doug Horne, Jim Douglass, and others) are gonna cite Mantik as an expert supporting there was a blow-out to the back of the head, they should present his conclusions accurately, correct? If so, you should acknowledge that Mantik believes brain is missing from the back of the head, but thinks (strangely, in my opinion) that the x-rays fail to reveal missing bone.

2) Your assertion that the explosion of blood and brain in frame 313 suggests a shot from behind...is not as true as most (including until recently myself) believe. As shown in the following slide, blood spatter experts have confirmed that the explosion of blood and matter from a skull is not an indication of bullet direction. As a result, frame 313 could very well suggest the knoll shot so many suspect... (Keep in mind I write this even though I no longer suspect such a shot.)

Pat,

David Mantik is preparing a detailed response to your claims, which we await with

great interest. Since we can actually SEE the blow-out to the back of the head

in frame 374 and can actually SEE that it corresponds to what he calls "Area P"

in his study of the lateral cranial X-ray, which also obviously does NOT show

it, how can you persist with allegations that it was NOT patched over? Take a

look at http://www.und.edu/org/jfkconference/UNDchapter30.pdf where I have presented them

nearly side-by-side. I have made this point repeatedly and you have never, to

my knowledge, acknowledged it. Yet it blows your claim right out of the water!

The point of my piece was to observe the paradox between the back-and-to-the

-left motion of his body and the brains bulging out to the right-front, which was

painted in, as Ryan observed, to created the impression of a shot from behind.

I have no idea why you contest it, since that was the reason for this fabrication.

Jim

I don't see a blow-out in frame 374. I see a dark area at the back of the head. Probably shadow. Now I can't say for sure that this shadow is on the up and up, in that, if a series of actual experts were to look at the film and conclude this area had been painted in, I might believe them.

But I just don't see a hole in that image in your article.

FWIW, while looking back through your article I noticed a few mistakes. On page 357, for example, you compare the wrong part of the skull in the black and white back of the head photo to the cowlick area in the Dox drawing. On page 359, for further example, you credit Dr. McClelland for the so-called McClelland drawing, when, as pointed out by Doug Horne in his book, he had nothing to do with it, and actually disputed its representation of the wounds.

[John Dolva]

Jim, if you ask Costella he may fill you in.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

So you are telling me that you have never studied the multipe and consistent reports from the physicians at Parkland Hospital, who reported that cerebellar as well as cerebral tissue was extruding from the wound? Which means you really are unfamiliar with some of the most basic medical evidence in this case, even though I have now repeatedly invited your attention to it? Have you therefore never read the statements by Robert M. Livingston, M.D., a world authority on the human brain and an expert on wound ballistics, in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), where his conclusion that the brain shown in diagrams and photographs at the National Archives cannot possibly be that of JFK? or the study by Gary Aguilar, M.D., in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), which demonstrates the consistency of the descriptions of the wound to the back of the head from every witness except for Boswell and Humes, who were describing the wound AFTER HUMES HAD ALTERED THE HEAD BY MEANS OF SURGERY, as Doug Horne, INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), has so meticulously explained? This is really stunning, Pat, because no one else could better demonstrate your ignorance of the medical evidence. If I or anyone else had any lingering doubts about your competence, they have now been finally and decisively resolved. Thanks for that. Now I understand why so many of your "observations" have struck me as odd or even bizarre.

Ahhh... I think I see what you're talking about now. You're not talking about the dark area, but the area just to its right. Can't say for sure what that is. Does the hair appear to be lighter because the angle of the sun? Don't know. Since blood would be readily apparent should that be an explosive wound on the skull, however, we can say with some certainty that the grayish hue is not indicative of brain matter.

While blood is indeed visible toward the bottom, this could very well be blood from the EOP entrance, or blood from the back wound.

As far as the so-called McClelland drawing, Horne attributed it to an artist named Philip Johnson in his book. I checked this out with Thompson, who thought this was incorrect. When Horne pointed out that he'd got this from the credits in Thompson's book, however, Tink admitted he'd been mistaken as to the name of the artist. The point, moreover, is not who drew the drawing, but that the McClelland drawing was created by an artist hired by Tink to depict the wound described by McClelland, as Johnson and Thompson interpreted McClelland's words, and that McClelland himself would later disavow their depiction.

The reality, of course, is that virtually NONE of the so-called back of the head witnesses described a wound on the far back of the head in the location of the McClelland drawing.

Pat,

This tells me you have never read THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), which features color copies of frame 374 quite prominently in the color-photo section. You should have no trouble seeing those, where I am just the least bit astonished that you claim to be unable to see them in this presentation.

It is not a DARK AREA but a BLUISH-GRAY AREA where his brains are actually exposed. In addition, the pink shape beside it is the blown out flap described by Tom Robinson, which you have ofter mentioned in your own work. Something is very wrong. You see black, when you should be seeing blue-gray.

Go to http://www.und.edu/org/jfkconference/UNDchapter30.pdf Go to page 360. Zoom in to see better. Then go to page 359. Compare the shape of the blow-out seen with "Area P" of Mantik's analysis. It should be obvious that they have a similar shape. Use the ear bone to correlate. Repeat as needed.

The drawing on page 359/top has long been attributed to Dr. McClelland. See, for example, Tink on page 107, who offers it as "a pictorial representation of the President Kennedy's head wound as described by Dr. Robert McClelland of Parkland Hospital". Give me the Horne reference to check. Whether or not it derived from this source, it's know by that name.

It take it that everyone knows the Ida Dox drawing is a fraudulent misrepresentation, since JFK had his brains blown out the back his head, from which cerebral and cerebellar tissue was extruding. See, for example, the summary on page 360/bottom. No one I know believes there was an entry wound there except for the revised testimony of Humes and Boswell before the HSCA. Do you agree with them? Do you think the photograph is genuine?

Jim

This article is archived here with active links, photos and film clips:

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/11/jfk-head-shot-paradox.html

The JFK “Head Shot” Paradox*

by Jim Fetzer

Recently by Jim Fetzer: The Place of Probability in Science

As a philosopher of science with a keen interest in the nature of scientific knowledge, I have been fascinated by the recent book by G. Paul Chalmers, Head Shot: The Science Behind the JFK Assassination (2010). I have found several aspects of his discussion of interest, including his conclusion—that the fatal shot to JFK’s head seen in the Zapruder film was caused by a shot from the right-front (“the grassy knoll”)—which he affirms on the basis of his competence as a physicist. He does not seem to notice that JFK’s brains and blood are blown out to the right-front in the Zapruder film, which he takes to be authentic and unaltered. But that means there is a paradox in his analysis, since, if the film is authentic, the blow-out to the right-front contradicts his conclusion that the shot that caused this effect was fired from the right-front, which is founded on elementary laws of physics. This, in turn, implies that he has not taken into account all the relevant evidence and thereby violated a basic principle of scientific reasoning, which may be appropriate for politicians, editorial writers, and used-car salesmen, but not for him.

. . .

It not only troubles me profoundly that Chalmers violates a basic principle of scientific reasoning and that evidence internal to the extant film refutes his presumption that the film is authentic but that Jefferson Morley endorses the book with the following claim: “He dismantles the bad science at the core of Vincent Bugliosi’s flabby Reclaiming History [2007] and politely punts the fantasy that the Zapruder film was altered.” While I agree that Bugliosi’s work is indefensible, to the best of my knowledge, Morley has never studied the film and is not in a position to know whether it is authentic or not. This is not the first time Morley has proven to be unequal to the demands of serious research about the assassination of one of the Kennedys. Science, as we have seen, can enable us to sort out authentic from inauthentic evidence, but we have to think things through and not let ourselves be misled by pseudo-science masquerading as genuine in the search for truth.

* Thanks to David W. Mantik, John Costella, and Morgan Reynolds for their feedback.

Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer who earned his Ph.D. in the history and the philosophy of science, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the Duluth campus of the University of Minnesota. He co-edits assassinationresearch.com with John Costella.

A couple of quick comments.

1) You inaccurately attribute your belief the x-rays have been altered to hide a blow-out in the back of the head to Dr. Mantik. In his most recent comments he acknowledged that the white patch on the x-rays does not overlay the area on the back of the head from which the Harper fragment was dislodged. He also claimed that it does not conceal missing bone, but missing brain. If researchers (not just yourself but Doug Horne, Jim Douglass, and others) are gonna cite Mantik as an expert supporting there was a blow-out to the back of the head, they should present his conclusions accurately, correct? If so, you should acknowledge that Mantik believes brain is missing from the back of the head, but thinks (strangely, in my opinion) that the x-rays fail to reveal missing bone.

2) Your assertion that the explosion of blood and brain in frame 313 suggests a shot from behind...is not as true as most (including until recently myself) believe. As shown in the following slide, blood spatter experts have confirmed that the explosion of blood and matter from a skull is not an indication of bullet direction. As a result, frame 313 could very well suggest the knoll shot so many suspect... (Keep in mind I write this even though I no longer suspect such a shot.)

Pat,

David Mantik is preparing a detailed response to your claims, which we await with

great interest. Since we can actually SEE the blow-out to the back of the head

in frame 374 and can actually SEE that it corresponds to what he calls "Area P"

in his study of the lateral cranial X-ray, which also obviously does NOT show

it, how can you persist with allegations that it was NOT patched over? Take a

look at http://www.und.edu/org/jfkconference/UNDchapter30.pdf where I have presented them

nearly side-by-side. I have made this point repeatedly and you have never, to

my knowledge, acknowledged it. Yet it blows your claim right out of the water!

The point of my piece was to observe the paradox between the back-and-to-the

-left motion of his body and the brains bulging out to the right-front, which was

painted in, as Ryan observed, to created the impression of a shot from behind.

I have no idea why you contest it, since that was the reason for this fabrication.

Jim

I don't see a blow-out in frame 374. I see a dark area at the back of the head. Probably shadow. Now I can't say for sure that this shadow is on the up and up, in that, if a series of actual experts were to look at the film and conclude this area had been painted in, I might believe them.

But I just don't see a hole in that image in your article.

FWIW, while looking back through your article I noticed a few mistakes. On page 357, for example, you compare the wrong part of the skull in the black and white back of the head photo to the cowlick area in the Dox drawing. On page 359, for further example, you credit Dr. McClelland for the so-called McClelland drawing, when, as pointed out by Doug Horne in his book, he had nothing to do with it, and actually disputed its representation of the wounds.

Edited November 19, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Bob,

Thanks for filling me in on your take on the medical evidence. Until now, I had not realized that anyone still took the second photo in your study seriously, given the extensive and detailed reports by highly qualified physicians at Parkland Hospital that there was cerebellar as well as cerebral tissue extruding from the wound. You really should go back and read--if you have ever read!--the same sources I recommended to Pat. This is simply stunning. Tomas Evan Robinson, in case you have heard of him, give a summary of the wounds to Joe West, which is also included in my presentation, DEALEY PLAZA REVISITED: WHAT HAPPENED TO JFK?, http://www.und.edu/org/jfkconference/UNDchapter30.pdf So if you are agreeing with Pat about the McClelland diagram, then you are also disregarding the Crenshaw diagram on page 357 (which he most certainly did not "disavow"), the visual depictions of the location of the wound on page 358, Mantik's study of the lateral cranial X-ray on page 359, the visible damage to the back of the head in frame 374 and the Parkland physicians' reports on the same page, and Robert Livingston's conclusion about the brain in diagrams and photographs at the National Archives on page 360. The summary of the observations by the mortician who prepared the body for burial observations is on page 363, including that, in addition to a large gaping hole in the back of the head, there was a small wound in the right temple, and a wound on the back, 5 to 6 inches below the shoulder to the right of the spinal column. But he also mentions the bone flap that you and others do not seem to understand which was indeed present and is accurately diagrammed in the photo you like so much (where the hole in the back of his head has so obviously been covered up, just as it has in those early frames of the Zapruder, which the Hollywood experts have reported was painted over in black), which apparently was sprung out when the frangible (or exploding) bullet entered his right temple. So I trust you understand that, for your interpretation to be correct, you have to disavow or "explain away" all of the evidence I have just cited. Could you tell me where you have done that, starting with the multiple and consistent reports from the Parkland physicians? I think you need to go back to the drawing board and reconsider your position. In addition to Aguilar's chapter in MURDER, here is something else for you to consider, where he and Kathy Cunningham clearly explain the mistakes that others like you and Pat have made in the past and--to my utter astonishment!--continue to make to this day.

HOW FIVE INVESTIGATIONS INTO JFK’S MEDICAL/AUTOPSY EVIDENCE GOT IT WRONG

Gary L. Aguilar, MD and Kathy Cunningham (May 2003)

http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_tabfig.htm

The shot at 312-313 came from the rear and there was no "paradox". The head was immediately blown forward as is crystal clear in the Zapruder film and fragments of metal and bone were blown forward, striking and causing minor damage to the windshield. No other shot that day is consistent with that damage.

The second headshot was fired a small fraction of a second later, from the front and caused massive damage to the upper rear of the BOH. It is easily seen in frames following 330.

Drs. Mantik, Riley, and Robertson each went to the archives and studied the Xrays. Their conclusion was unanimous, that there were two shots which struck head - one from the rear and one from the front.

The reason that the BOH damage was not seen in some of the autopsy photos was explained by Dr. Thornton Boswell in his testimony before the ARRB. A large piece of skull was blown out and to the rear, which remained attached to the scalp. By simply flipping the scalp and bone back into place, the damage was covered over. Dr. Boswell's hand can be seen, holding the scalp in place to prevent it from falling back and uncovering the damage. This is all explained in the following article.

http://jfkhistory.com/LastShot2/BOHDamage.html

This video also explains the BOH damage, but more visually.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65inNE7dCUE

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

This is pretty strange, Kathy. The man who wouldn't lie or even distort

a single word is Noel Twyman. I have met and know Noel, who doesn't

have a duplicitous bone in his body. What do you know about Zavada,

who was assigned to be the apologist for Kodak? He was brought out

of retirement for this specific purpose. Many witnesses have recanted

their testimony because they have been massively harassed. The case

of Malcolm Perry, M.D., comes to mind. Mary Morgan, who saw "the

mystery woman" in a car parked outside her home, is another. And if

Roderick Ryan wanted to get off "the hot seat" because he was pressed

by others who were berating him, that would not surprise me. There is no

comparison between Roderick Ryan's competence with regard to effects

like these, which are overwhelmingly superior to Rollie Zavada's. You do

know Roderick Ryan received the Academy Award in 2000? And if you

know the medical evidence, especially as I have been outlining the key

points to Pat and Bob, you should realize that he was right--the "blob"

and the blood spray were obviously painted in, just as the defect to the

back of the head was painted out. You can actually see the wound to

the back of the head in frame 374. (I think Pat has forgotten there is

reason they call it "grey matter"!) Give this more thought, Kathy, You

are very smart. You can do better thinking than you are showing here.

And read "US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication". I

would like to hear your further thoughts about all of this. Many thanks.

Kathy,

That Roderick Ryan may have felt "uncomfortable" about Noel's citing him

is not surprising. Many experts have not wanted to become involved lest

they become subject to attacks from persons like some of those on this

forum. Moreover, Rollie's suggestion that "Rod" did not on that occasion

cite features that were indicative of forgery is obviously self-serving and

cannot be taken for granted. (1) Ryan may not even have said it, since it

contradicts his previous findings. And (2) even if he had said it, that would

not show that his previous findings were false. In fact, we know that they

are true. Read "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid",

if you haven't already, to see how we know the blob and spray were faked.

I am reading Zavada's response to Horne, where I accent this part thereof:

Zavada’s Open Letter Response to Doug Horne’s Chapter (14 May 26, 2010)

10. [HORNE] His expertise is very limited: he is a retired film chemist

who expended considerable effort to become self-taught in how the

Zapruder camera operated--but he was not, and is not, an expert in special

effects, and he did not conduct an investigation into image content in the

Zapruder film. (p1290)

You are well aware that my motion picture expertise extends well beyond

emulsion chemistry. You may not know that I have knowledge of film

dimensions and printer gates and movements; and also the tools needed

for in-camera and optical effects. FYI, you may wish to review my article

on the fundamental film dimensional technology requirements for

potentially using 16mm films for special effects production in “Challenges to

the Concept of Cancellation" SMPTE Journal, December 1981, Vol 90, pages

1173-1183.

You criticize that I did not conduct an image content evaluation of the

Zapruder film. However, it is not until your parenthetical addendum

comment (p1353) that you inform your readers that the omission was an

initial and specific contractual constraint in the work agreement developed

between Kodak and the ARRB. (Also confirmed in your interview on Black

OP Radio, 12/10/09.)

So Horne observes that Rollie Zavada did not undertaken an image-content

analysis of the film--which would have revealed additional evidence that

what we have today cannot possibly be the camera original--and he rebuts

that by saying that he wasn't asked to perform an image-content analysis?

Obviously, you cannot DEFEAT the observation that he didn't do an image-

content analysis by observing that, according to the terms of his contract,

HE WASN'T ALLOWED TO DO AN IMAGE-CONTENT ANALYSIS. But this

means that any reference to Zavada as supporting the authenticity of the

film should carry the caveat that, since he did not undertake an image-

content analysis, it remains entirely possible that proof of the fabrication

of the film might derive from that process, which we know is indeed the case.

As I have explained in my response to Jim DiEugenio, this confirms the point

that, merely by looking at the strip of celluloid, you cannot determine what

content anomalies may exist. What is even more troubling, therefore, is that

we know this new group of Hollywood experts confirmed that the blow-out to the

back of the head has been painted over in black. You can actually see what was

covered up by looking at frame 374, where you can see the blow-out; and that

the blob and the blood spray were painted in, as we know from the reasoning I

outline in the article I have just cited and as John Costella has verified in his

tutorial about the fabrication of the film. But, since these are features internal

to the film, how could someone of Zavada's status possibly have missed them?

Jim

Dr. Fetzer,

Your statement (1)

Ryan may not even have said it, since it

contradicts his previous findings

I take a bit of offense at this, as there was no reason for Rollie to misinform. I do not believe he would do such a thing.

I do not understand your supposition (2):

And (2) even if he had said it, that would

not show that his previous findings were false.

It certainly would. If we believe something, and later find it not to be case, wouldn't our later conclusion take precedence over our previous belief?

Also, a microscopic study of the film IMO would take precedence over what someone thinks they see. Any alterations would be detected.

When you are asking your audience to read this or that book, please consider that if the information is within the book, that it should be without the book as well. That we come to a conclusion because it was stated in one of your books is not enough. It should be provable outside of it.

Kathy

Edited November 19, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

This is pretty strange, Kathy. The man who wouldn't lie or even distort

a single word is Noel Twyman.

(snip the fetzering)

Twyman showed a multi-generational B/W print to Ryan. THEN Ryan reviewed hte extant film with a MICROSCOPE and changed his opinion. Say POOF to Twyman...no 'distortion' between a low quality b/w print and the actual film under a microscope...

[Robert Harris]

Bob,

Thanks for filling me in on your take on the medical evidence. Until now, I had not realized that anyone still took the second photo in your study seriously, given the extensive and detailed reports by highly qualified physicians at Parkland Hospital that there was cerebellar as well as cerebral tissue extruding from the wound. You really should go back and read--if you have ever read!--the same sources I recommended to Pat. This is simply stunning. Tomas Evan Robinson, in case you have heard of him, give a summary of the wounds to Joe West, which is also included in my presentation, DEALEY PLAZA REVISITED: WHAT HAPPENED TO JFK?, http://www.und.edu/org/jfkconference/UNDchapter30.pdf So if you are agreeing with Pat about the McClelland diagram, then you are also disregarding the Crenshaw diagram on page 357 (which he most certainly did not "disavow"), the visual depictions of the location of the wound on page 358, Mantik's study of the lateral cranial X-ray on page 359, the visible damage to the back of the head in frame 374 and the Parkland physicians' reports on the same page, and Robert Livingston's conclusion about the brain in diagrams and photographs at the National Archives on page 360. The summary of the observations by the mortician who prepared the body for burial observations is on page 363, including that, in addition to a large gaping hole in the back of the head, there was a small wound in the right temple, and a wound on the back, 5 to 6 inches below the shoulder to the right of the spinal column. But he also mentions the bone flap that you and others do not seem to understand which was indeed present and is accurately diagrammed in the photo you like so much (where the hole in the back of his head has so obviously been covered up, just as it has in those early frames of the Zapruder, which the Hollywood experts have reported was painted over in black), which apparently was sprung out when the frangible (or exploding) bullet entered his right temple. So I trust you understand that, for your interpretation to be correct, you have to disavow or "explain away" all of the evidence I have just cited. Could you tell me where you have done that, starting with the multiple and consistent reports from the Parkland physicians? I think you need to go back to the drawing board and reconsider your position. In addition to Aguilar's chapter in MURDER, here is something else for you to consider, where he and Kathy Cunningham clearly explain the mistakes that others like you and Pat have made in the past and--to my utter astonishment!--continue to make to this day.

HOW FIVE INVESTIGATIONS INTO JFK’S MEDICAL/AUTOPSY EVIDENCE GOT IT WRONG

Gary L. Aguilar, MD and Kathy Cunningham (May 2003)

http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_tabfig.htm

The shot at 312-313 came from the rear and there was no "paradox". The head was immediately blown forward as is crystal clear in the Zapruder film and fragments of metal and bone were blown forward, striking and causing minor damage to the windshield. No other shot that day is consistent with that damage.

The second headshot was fired a small fraction of a second later, from the front and caused massive damage to the upper rear of the BOH. It is easily seen in frames following 330.

Drs. Mantik, Riley, and Robertson each went to the archives and studied the Xrays. Their conclusion was unanimous, that there were two shots which struck head - one from the rear and one from the front.

The reason that the BOH damage was not seen in some of the autopsy photos was explained by Dr. Thornton Boswell in his testimony before the ARRB. A large piece of skull was blown out and to the rear, which remained attached to the scalp. By simply flipping the scalp and bone back into place, the damage was covered over. Dr. Boswell's hand can be seen, holding the scalp in place to prevent it from falling back and uncovering the damage. This is all explained in the following article.

http://jfkhistory.com/LastShot2/BOHDamage.html

This video also explains the BOH damage, but more visually.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65inNE7dCUE

I'm not sure I understand your position here. Are you disputing my argument that there were two headshots?

Are you suggesting that frame 337 is not an accurate depiction?

The whitish object seen at app. the base of his neck in frames during the 370's is undoubtedly, skull bone. If you read my article, you know that the ugly protrusion seen in the 330's was made up of a large piece of skull that flipped to the rear, taking hair and scalp with it, which wrapped itself over part of the inner surface of that skullpiece.

At 337, the inner surface of that bone was facing upward and outward. It makes sense that that same piece of skull flipped to the rear again, leaving it's inner surface turned inward. Its outer surface or part of its outer surface is what we see in the 370's. Its location is at exactly where we would expect it to be if that explanation is correct.

[Pat Speer]

So you are telling me that you have never studied the multipe and consistent reports from the physicians at Parkland Hospital, who reported that cerebellar as well as cerebral tissue was extruding from the wound? Which means you really are unfamiliar with some of the most basic medical evidence in this case, even though I have now repeatedly invited your attention to it? Have you therefore never read the statements by Robert M. Livingston, M.D., a world authority on the human brain and an expert on wound ballistics, in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), where his conclusion that the brain shown in diagrams and photographs at the National Archives cannot possibly be that of JFK? or the study by Gary Aguilar, M.D., in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), which demonstrates the consistency of the descriptions of the wound to the back of the head from every witness except for Boswell and Humes, who were describing the wound AFTER HUMES HAD ALTERED THE HEAD BY MEANS OF SURGERY, as Doug Horne, INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), has so meticulously explained? This is really stunning, Pat, because no one else could better demonstrate your ignorance of the medical evidence. If I or anyone else had any lingering doubts about your competence, they have now been finally and decisively resolved. Thanks for that. Now I understand why so many of your "observations" have struck me as odd or even bizarre.

No, Jim, what is truly stunning is that you continue to pretend I am some newbie who should genuflect before anything written in your books. Read this and comprehend. I have studied the medical evidence, including the articles on the medical evidence in your books, with more interest and from more angles than you can can imagine. At first I bought the CT line that the autopsy photos and x-rays were incompatible. The more I studied, however, the more I realized this wasn't true. At first I thought the statements of the Parkland doctors was the Rosetta Stone to the case. Upon further study, however, I realized that this was just the CT spin, and that most of these witnesses had deferred to the authenticity of the autopsy photos, and that the statements of these witnesses weren't consistent with what CTs such as yourself want to believe anyhow.

To be clear, when you actually READ the statements of the Parkland witnesses, and study their depictions of the large wound they saw, it is 100% obvious they are not describing a blow-out on the far back of the head in the occipital region, as proposed by many if not most CTs, including Mantik and yourself. And yet this doesn't stop you from pretending that anyone saying the wound was on the rear half of the skull or in the posterior region was describing such a wound. This, to me, is as deceptive as the LN claim that every witness claiming to have heard three shots supports the single-assassin conclusion, even when they insist the last two of these shots were near simultaneous.

In other words, it's nonsense. Instead of following the evidence and noting that every witness claiming the wound was near the top of the head is a witness DISPUTING an occipital blow-out, and that every witness for a defect of scalp and skull is a witness DISPUTING there was a large bone flap on the back of the head, most CTs simply note that the Parkland witnesses, by and large, do not support the accuracy of the autopsy photos, and then PRETEND that they DO support the accuracy of whatever they want them to support. This is critical thinking in critical condition. One can not take from mom's claim she wore white to her wedding that the photos showing her in beige are a fraud, or that she actually wore black. And yet that is what most CTs prefer to do.

I have created a chapter explaining all this, and have discussed this chapter on this forum many times. Here is a sample from this chapter:

JFK and the Unthinkable

On pages 86-88 of Robert Groden's The Killing of a President (1993), the photographs of 18 witnesses are presented, accompanied by the following text:

"The Parkland Hospital doctors were the best eyewitnesses to the President's wounds. They had at least 20 minutes, and some had longer, to examine the President's injuries immediately after the shooting. The doctors' oral and written statements provided the only reliable clues to the snipers' locations and bullet trajectories..."

From this one might assume the witnesses presented were at Parkland and had 20 minutes or more in which they viewed the President's wounds. But this is far from the case. Only 10 of these witnesses were at Parkland and very few of these witnesses got much of a look at the President. Even worse, while Groden uses the photographs of these witnesses--with them pointing to a wound location other than that shown in the autopsy photos--to suggest there was a wound on the back of the head as purportedly observed at Parkland, he fails to explain that only a handful of these witnesses described a wound similar to the one he proposes (a large gaping hole from front to back).

Even so, when one studies Groden's "back of the head" witnesses, one comes to an even bigger surprise. Many of these witnesses are not pointing to the back of the head, but are instead pointing to the top or side of the head, at locations just as close or closer to the wound location depicted in the autopsy photos and x-rays as the wound location depicted in the so-called "McClelland" drawing shown on the slide above.

(Although Groden, in The Killing of a President, claims Dr. McClelland himself made this drawing, he is clearly mistaken. In June, 2010, Josiah Thompson, who first published the drawing, wrote me and confirmed that while this famous drawing--which has come to represent the "actual" location and appearance of the president's large head wound to many, if not the majority, of conspiracy theorists--was based upon Dr. McClelland's description of the large head wound to the Warren Commission, Dr. McClelland had in fact "had nothing to do with the preparation of the drawing.")

Let's go through these witnesses, then, so you can see for yourself (the pictures in Groden's book are on the slide above).

Groden starts out with four witnesses who purportedly saw Kennedy not at Parkland, but in Dealey Plaza during the shooting.

While Beverly Oliver claims to have been one of the closest witnesses to the shooting, many if not most long time researchers doubt her claims, as she only came forward years after the shooting, and told some pretty wild stories. Even so her description of a wound on the back of the head is in keeping with the wound described by Dr. McClelland, and the drawing prepared by Phillip Johnson. Back of the head witness.

Although Phil Willis made several statements over the years indicating he thought the fatal shot blew out the back of Kennedy's head, he was clearly repeating what his wife and daughters had told him. You see, he'd testified before the Warren Commission that he was not looking at Kennedy at the time of the head shot. Not actually a witness.

Although Marilyn Willis, Phil's wife, was a witness to the head shot, and said the wound was on the "back" of Kennedy's head, when ultimately asked to point out the location of the wound she saw from 50 yards or so away, she pointed to a location high on the top of her head above her right ear. Top of the head witness.

While deaf-mute Ed Hoffman only came forward years after the assassination, and while his stories of watching the shooting from a nearby freeway and then seeing Kennedy's wounds as the limo passed underneath were never fully accepted, he was at least consistent on one point: he always placed the head wound on the top of Kennedy's head. Not always in the same place, mind you. While the photo in Groden's book shows Hoffman with his hand over the crown of his head, other photos found online show him pointing out a wound forward of this location, and in line with the wound seen on the autopsy photos. Top of the head witness.

Groden then presents the photos of ten witnesses observing Kennedy's wound at Parkland Hospital.

As one might expect, the head wound location pointed out by Dr. Robert McClelland is fairly consistent with the head wound location depicted in the drawing by Johnson based upon McClelland's Warren Commission testimony. Fairly consistent but not fully consistent. McClelland's hand in the photo is, in fact, almost entirely above his ear, which places the wound about two inches higher on the back of his head than in the drawing. This is not surprising. As previously mentioned, Josiah Thompson, who'd had the drawing created, admits that Dr. McClelland had actually had "nothing to do with" its creation. And it's not as if McClelland's recollections were reliable anyhow. Although he stood at the head of Kennedy in the ER at Parkland and was thus well-positioned to note his fatal wounds, McClelland's initial report claimed the fatal wound was on Kennedy's left temple, and not his right. In addition, in his ARRB testimony on the drawing made for Thompson, after noting that "the edge of the parietal bone was sticking up through the scalp. And that's not on this picture." McClelland made another gaffe, adding "but what we were trying to depict here was what the posterior part of the wound looked like. In other words, it's not the entire wound. It's simply the posterior part of it and what I thought of as the critical part of it at that time and still do." Yep. That's right. McClelland had in time come to believe both that the wound stretched further forward than as depicted in the "McClelland" drawing...and that he'd participated in the creation of the drawing. In 2010, moreover, it was brought to my attention that in recent years McClelland has taken to claiming he'd personally created the drawing. Ouch. The fallibility of human memory... Back of the head witness who does not support the accuracy of the McClelland drawing.

Dr. Paul Peters, on the other hand, has tried to have it both ways. Although he had repeatedly claimed the wound he saw was in the "occiput" or the back of Kennedy's head, and is pictured in Groden's book pointing to this location, he also told Nova, after being shown Kennedy's autopsy photos in 1988, that the autopsy photos were "pretty much as I remember President Kennedy." He subsequently confirmed his support for the legitimacy of the autopsy photos, moreover, by telling Gerald Posner that the "head wound is more forward than I first placed it. More to the side than to the rear." In Groden's video The Case for Conspiracy, furthermore, he points to several different locations, including one high on the back of the head by the crown, inches away from the wound on the "McClelland" drawing. Finally, when interviewed by the ARRB and given the chance to claim the autopsy photos and x-rays were fake, he instead claimed "I was amazed when I saw the first x-ray of the skull — the lateral skull of the extent of the fragmentation of the skull. I did not appreciate that I think because a lot of it was covered by scalp at the time we worked on him. We were doing a resuscitation, not a forensic autopsy." He had thereby indicated he'd been confused by the bloody hair on the back of JFK's head--hair that did not exist, according to McClelland's drawing. Back of the head witness who does not support the accuracy of the McClelland drawing.

Fortunately, Dr. Kenneth Salyer was a little more consistent. But only a little. From his Warren Commission testimony to the present day, he always claimed the wound was primarily a temporal wound...on the side of the head. The photo in Groden's book, moreover, shows him grabbing the side of his head, just above his ear, an area more suggestive of the wound in the photos than the one in the "McClelland" drawing. Side of the head witness.

Dr. Charles Crenshaw, of course, became a star witness for the supposed wound on the "back of the head" when he wrote a book on his experiences in the early nineties. The problem with Crenshaw as a witness, however, is that, not only did he fail to see Kennedy for more than a few seconds, his recollections were not recorded prior to the publication of the "McClelland" drawing showing him how other Parkland witnesses purportedly recalled the wound. Back of the head witness.

Dr. Ronald Jones, as Peters, has claimed many times in many ways that the wound was on the back of Kennedy's head. In the photo in Groden's book, however, he points to a wound location slightly to the side of the wound on the "McClelland" drawing. In 1992, furthermore, he described the wound as a "side wound." To the ARRB, ultimately, he explained his confusion, insisting "it was difficult to see down through the hair," and by admitting "All my view was from the President's left side." He then clarified his position to researcher Vincent Palamara, first admitting that he really didn't have "a clear view of the back side of the head wound. President Kennedy had very thick dark hair that covered the injured area" and then offering "In my opinion it was in the occipital area in the back of the head." He had thereby made it clear that he'd failed to see the large hole missing scalp and bone depicted in the "McClelland" drawing. Back of the head witness who does not support the accuracy of the "McClelland" drawing, and defers to the accuracy of the autopsy photos.

As the first doctor to inspect Kennedy upon his arrival at Parkland, Dr. Charles Carrico would certainly have been in good position to accurately note the wound location on Kennedy's head. While the wound location he points to in Groden's book is actually a bit too high for anyone to claim he confirmed the "McClelland" drawing, it's really academic. You see, in 1981, he was asked about the "McClelland" drawing by the Boston Globe. He told them: "it was a very large wound as indicated in the drawing. However, I do not believe that the large wound was this far posterior since, one thing I can be certain of, is that we were able to see the majority, if not all of this wound, with the patient laying on his back on a hospital gurney. The location of the wound represented in the drawing suggests that it would barely have been visible, if visible at all, with the patient laying in such a position." Confirming his position, he was reported to have later told Gerald Posner that if he and his colleagues initially claimed the head wound was in the occipital bone, instead of the parietal bone, they "were mistaken." Back of the head witness who does not support the accuracy of the "McClelland" drawing, and defers to the accuracy of the autopsy photos.

Although Dr. Richard Dulaney made many statements over the years claiming the large head wound was on the back of the head and inconsistent with the autopsy photos, the wound location he points to in Groden's book and video is up at the top of the head...as close to the wound depicted in the autopsy photos as the one depicted in the "McClelland" drawing. Top of the head witness.

Nurse Audrey Bell is similar to Dr. Crenshaw in that, while she has been consistent in her claim that the wound was on the back of Kennedy's head, there is no record of her making this claim prior to the 1980's, long after the "McClelland" drawing was published in Six Seconds in Dallas. Back of the head witness.

Justice of the Peace Theron Ward is also similar to Dr. Crenshaw, in that he really didn't get much of a look at the head wound. Even so, when one looks at the interview with Ward in Groden's Case for Conspiracy video, and in the image on the slide above, it's clear that Ward, much as Dr. Salyer, felt the wound was on the side of Kennedy's head, and not the back. Side of the head witness.

This brings us to the final Parkland witness presented in Groden's book. And he wasn't even a witness... While ambulance driver Aubrey Rike claimed to feel a hole in the back of Kennedy's head as he helped put his body in its casket, he has always admitted the head was covered at the time, and that he never actually saw the wound. As a result it's possible Rike was mistaken, or merely confused by the fractured bone on the back of the skull seen on the x-rays. Not actually a witness.

We now move to the Bethesda "back of the head" witnesses... The statements of these witnesses, purported to confirm the Parkland doctors' account of the wounds, should seal the deal if there was really a wound on the back of the head behind the ear.

Unfortunately, they do no such thing. While radiology tech Jerrol Custer made many statements over the years indicating that he thought the autopsy photos and X-rays were faked, he actually told the ARRB, after having finally been shown the original X-rays, that they were indeed the ones he took on 11-22-63, and that he had been in error. This, of course, was years after the publication of Groden's book. Even so, when one watches Groden's video, one can see that Custer was never really a "back of the head" witness, as he does not point out a wound on the back of Kennedy's head, as suggested by the frame used in Groden's book, but drags his hand across the entire top of his head while claiming the wound he saw stretched "From the top of the head almost to the base of the skull..." He was thereby describing Kennedy's a appearance after his scalp had been reflected and skull fell to the table. Entire right side of the head witness. Defers to the accuracy of the autopsy photos.

Ditto Paul O'Connor. While O'Connor, as Custer, had made many statements over the years suggesting the autopsy photos and X-rays had been faked, his credibility, seeing as he'd depicted the wound location in the upper right quadrant of the back of the head in a drawing he'd created for the HSCA, and then moved it to beneath the top of the ear years later, was questionable. In Groden's video The Case for Conspiracy, moreover, O'Connor repeated Custer's performance almost word for word, stating there was "an open area all the way across into the rear of the brain right there," while pointing out the dimensions of this hole--basically the dimensions of the hole after Kennedy's scalp had been reflected. He was thereby, like it or not, supporting the official story of the wounds. Entire right side of the head witness.

Ditto ditto assistant autopsy photographer Floyd Riebe. Much as Custer, Riebe made many statements suggesting the autopsy photos were fake--in Groden's book, he even pointed at the location of the wound in the "McClelland" drawing. Once shown the original photos by the ARRB, however, he, too, deferred to their accuracy. Back of the head witness who defers to the accuracy of the autopsy photos.

This leaves us with Frank O'Neill, an FBI agent in attendance at the autopsy. While O'Neill claimed the large head wound was on the back of Kennedy's head, he always placed this wound towards the top of the back of the head, inches away from the wound in the "McClelland" drawing. He also claimed this wound was an exit for the much smaller entrance wound on the back of Kennedy's head in the location of the wound in the "McClelland" drawing. His recollection of the wounds is therefore far more in line with that of the autopsy doctors than of the Parkland witnesses. Top of the head witness.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Kathy,

Giving this matter more thought during lunch, I would bet that Rollie

has been trading upon an equivocation. His expertise is the strip of

film, the celluloid itself. Roderick's is the content and whether or not it

has been faked. He could agree with Rollie (about the celluloid), yet

disagree about the contents (which were painted in). Then Rollie could

claim that he agreed there were no indications of fakery (in the film as

a strip of celluloid), where Rollie has implied that he agreed there were

no indications of fakery (in the film as to content). From what we know

about the film, it not only displays five physical features distinguishing it

from the original but we know the chain of custody was violated, because

the original was brought to the NPIC on Saturday, while the revised film

was brought to the NPIC on Sunday. The medical evidence established that

there is an inconsistency between what is seen in the film (the bulging

out of the "blob" to the right front) and what witnesses reported (the

brains being blown out to the left-rear). Why, if they were going to go

to the trouble of removing the limo stop (without which the film clearly

implicates the Secret Service in the assassination), would they not both

paint over the actual defect (which we can see in frame 374) and create

features to convey the impression of effects caused by a shot from above

and behind (by adding in the "blob" and the blood spray? John Costella

has shown how most of this was done. The medical evidence, the faking

of the film, and ballistic considerations, when taken together, corroborate

a consistent account, which involves four hits to JFK, as I have explained

in my chapter at http://www.und.edu/org/jfkconference/UNDchapter30.pdf Look again

at the reports from the Pakland physicians, the sketches by McClelland

and Crenshaw, the "Area P" identified by Mantik, the morticians summary

of the wounds, and Robert B. Livingston's report about the brain and it

should become apparent that mutually supporting deceptions were effected

by the fabrication of the film, the alteration of the X-rays, and substituting

another brain, reinforced by LIFE's caption on the frame 313 it published

and Zapruder's appearance on television. It was carefully done and quite

meticulously executed to have taken us all this long to expose as a fraud.

This is pretty strange, Kathy. The man who wouldn't lie or even distort

a single word is Noel Twyman. I have met and know Noel, who doesn't

have a duplicitous bone in his body. What do you know about Zavada,

who was assigned to be the apologist for Kodak? He was brought out

of retirement for this specific purpose. Many witnesses have recanted

their testimony because they have been massively harassed. The case

of Malcolm Perry, M.D., comes to mind. Mary Morgan, who saw "the

mystery woman" in a car parked outside her home, is another. And if

Roderick Ryan wanted to get off "the hot seat" because he was pressed

by others who were berating him, that would not surprise me. There is no

comparison between Roderick Ryan's competence with regard to effects

like these, which are overwhelmingly superior to Rollie Zavada's. You do

know Roderick Ryan received the Academy Award in 2000? And if you

know the medical evidence, especially as I have been outlining the key

points to Pat and Bob, you should realize that he was right--the "blob"

and the blood spray were obviously painted in, just as the defect to the

back of the head was painted out. You can actually see the wound to

the back of the head in frame 374. (I think Pat has forgotten there is

reason they call it "grey matter"!) Give this more thought, Kathy, You

are very smart. You can do better thinking than you are showing here.

And read "US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication". I

would like to hear your further thoughts about all of this. Many thanks.

Kathy,

That Roderick Ryan may have felt "uncomfortable" about Noel's citing him

is not surprising. Many experts have not wanted to become involved lest

they become subject to attacks from persons like some of those on this

forum. Moreover, Rollie's suggestion that "Rod" did not on that occasion

cite features that were indicative of forgery is obviously self-serving and

cannot be taken for granted. (1) Ryan may not even have said it, since it

contradicts his previous findings. And (2) even if he had said it, that would

not show that his previous findings were false. In fact, we know that they

are true. Read "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid",

if you haven't already, to see how we know the blob and spray were faked.

I am reading Zavada's response to Horne, where I accent this part thereof:

Zavada’s Open Letter Response to Doug Horne’s Chapter (14 May 26, 2010)

10. [HORNE] His expertise is very limited: he is a retired film chemist

who expended considerable effort to become self-taught in how the

Zapruder camera operated--but he was not, and is not, an expert in special

effects, and he did not conduct an investigation into image content in the

Zapruder film. (p1290)

You are well aware that my motion picture expertise extends well beyond

emulsion chemistry. You may not know that I have knowledge of film

dimensions and printer gates and movements; and also the tools needed

for in-camera and optical effects. FYI, you may wish to review my article

on the fundamental film dimensional technology requirements for

potentially using 16mm films for special effects production in “Challenges to

the Concept of Cancellation" SMPTE Journal, December 1981, Vol 90, pages

1173-1183.

You criticize that I did not conduct an image content evaluation of the

Zapruder film. However, it is not until your parenthetical addendum

comment (p1353) that you inform your readers that the omission was an

initial and specific contractual constraint in the work agreement developed

between Kodak and the ARRB. (Also confirmed in your interview on Black

OP Radio, 12/10/09.)

So Horne observes that Rollie Zavada did not undertaken an image-content

analysis of the film--which would have revealed additional evidence that

what we have today cannot possibly be the camera original--and he rebuts

that by saying that he wasn't asked to perform an image-content analysis?

Obviously, you cannot DEFEAT the observation that he didn't do an image-

content analysis by observing that, according to the terms of his contract,

HE WASN'T ALLOWED TO DO AN IMAGE-CONTENT ANALYSIS. But this

means that any reference to Zavada as supporting the authenticity of the

film should carry the caveat that, since he did not undertake an image-

content analysis, it remains entirely possible that proof of the fabrication

of the film might derive from that process, which we know is indeed the case.

As I have explained in my response to Jim DiEugenio, this confirms the point

that, merely by looking at the strip of celluloid, you cannot determine what

content anomalies may exist. What is even more troubling, therefore, is that

we know this new group of Hollywood experts confirmed that the blow-out to the

back of the head has been painted over in black. You can actually see what was

covered up by looking at frame 374, where you can see the blow-out; and that

the blob and the blood spray were painted in, as we know from the reasoning I

outline in the article I have just cited and as John Costella has verified in his

tutorial about the fabrication of the film. But, since these are features internal

to the film, how could someone of Zavada's status possibly have missed them?

Jim

Dr. Fetzer,

Your statement (1)

Ryan may not even have said it, since it

contradicts his previous findings

I take a bit of offense at this, as there was no reason for Rollie to misinform. I do not believe he would do such a thing.

I do not understand your supposition (2):

And (2) even if he had said it, that would

not show that his previous findings were false.

It certainly would. If we believe something, and later find it not to be case, wouldn't our later conclusion take precedence over our previous belief?

Also, a microscopic study of the film IMO would take precedence over what someone thinks they see. Any alterations would be detected.

When you are asking your audience to read this or that book, please consider that if the information is within the book, that it should be without the book as well. That we come to a conclusion because it was stated in one of your books is not enough. It should be provable outside of it.

Kathy