Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?

[Bernice Moore]

Fetzer of course has things backwards photographic evidence discredits witness testimony not the other way round.

"Secret Service agent John Ready, who was on the right running board…began to respond but was called back by Emory Roberts"

Citation?

"the vehicles were in the wrong order"

Citation and more important relevence?

"the 112th Military Intelligence Unit was ordered to "stand down" rather than provide protection throughout the city"

The whole "stand down" story stinks perhaps Fetzer (or Jack) can cite any examples of the 112th or any other Army units or any other military units (other than the Color Guard) preforming "Protection for the President"? This would seem to be a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act which forbids the use of the armed forces (other than Coast Guard and National Guard) " from exercising nominally state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order" on non-federal property (states and their counties and municipal divisions) within the United States."

http://en.wikipedia....e_Comitatus_Act

The 112th was a counter-intel unit, why would they be involved in personal security?

I could not find any other mentions on the Net of there ever being people named Maximillian (w/ 1 or 2 Ls) Reich or Joel Cabaza in the US Army, odd that a Col. and Lt. Col. the CO and "his deputy" of an important unit wouldn't show up anywhere.

Here is some information for you len, the signifigance of the motorcade being out of order, was for one his personal physician Dr.Burkley was nowhere near him, as well as the black bag that held the retalitory nuclear strike information was not in the same car as he was, which is always near the president...besides that it went missing for a bit, if my memory serves, i will find the info on the bag..and post i still have it i believe...b

At this time the U.S. Secret Service follow-up car seemed to slow and I heard someone from inside this car say: ''he's shot". I left the follow-up car in the direction of the President's car but was recalled by ATSAIC Emory Roberts (Secret Service) as the cars increased their speeds. I got back on the car and seated myself beside Mr. Roberts in the right front seat. The cars proceeded to the hospital several miles distance.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/Sa-ready.htm

Burkley stated a few years after the assassination:

I accompanied President Kennedy on every trip that he took during his time as President ... I went on all trips ... we had a regular setup ...

all the possible angles were covered by cooperation with the Secret Service, in that we knew the areas of most likely danger. We knew where additional medical aid would be available, and things of that nature

... When we were in Fort Worth, Mrs. [Evelyn] Lincoln and I were in the second car in the motorcade ... [in Dallas] I complained to the Secret Service that I should be either in the follow up car or the lead car ... this was brought to their [the Secret Service’s] attention very strongly at the foot of the stairway from the airplane [Air Force One] ... Most of the time, however, I was within one or two cars of the President.

This was one of the few times that this did not occur

. (emphasis added)

⁵⁵

In fact, Burkley rode in the lead car in Miami on November 18, 1963.⁵⁶ “The only other time that it did not occur, to my direct recollection, is when we were in Rome [July 2, 1963]”⁵⁷ (emphasis added), which was a model of very good security in every other respect.

Evelyn Lincoln, JFK’s secretary, confirmed Burkley’s feelings on the matter to the HSCA:

Mrs. Lincoln also mentioned what she thought was a curious incident in Dallas prior to the assassination. She said she was with Dr. Burkley ... when they left Love Field for the beginning of the motorcade. She said they were somewhat surprised at being ‘shoved’ back in the motorcade into a bus. She said they usually rode in an automobile a few cars behind the car carrying the President.

⁵⁸

It appears even Jackie Kennedy and, by extension, Dave Powers, were wondering about this situation regarding Burkley: On the weekend after President Kennedy’s funeral, Powers showed Mrs. Kennedy the color still frames from the Zapruder film as displayed in that week’s Life magazine. The pictures, of course, depict Jackie leaving the rear seat to crawl onto the back of the car. “Dave, what do you think I was trying to do?” she asked. Dave could only suggest that maybe she was searching for the President’s doctor, Rear Admiral George G. Burkley, who was in a bus at the rear of the motorcade.”<A href="http://www.ctka.net/reviews/#N_59_">⁵⁹

I

http://www.ctka.net/reviews/kennedydetailreview.html

the ss roberts being called back by ss roberts , is also within the w/c testimony....b

[Bernice Moore]

Fetzer of course has things backwards photographic evidence discredits witness testimony not the other way round.

"Secret Service agent John Ready, who was on the right running board…began to respond but was called back by Emory Roberts"

Citation?

"the vehicles were in the wrong order"

Citation and more important relevence?

"the 112th Military Intelligence Unit was ordered to "stand down" rather than provide protection throughout the city"

The whole "stand down" story stinks perhaps Fetzer (or Jack) can cite any examples of the 112th or any other Army units or any other military units (other than the Color Guard) preforming "Protection for the President"? This would seem to be a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act which forbids the use of the armed forces (other than Coast Guard and National Guard) " from exercising nominally state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order" on non-federal property (states and their counties and municipal divisions) within the United States."

http://en.wikipedia....e_Comitatus_Act

The 112th was a counter-intel unit, why would they be involved in personal security?

I could not find any other mentions on the Net of there ever being people named Maximillian (w/ 1 or 2 Ls) Reich or Joel Cabaza in the US Army, odd that a Col. and Lt. Col. the CO and "his deputy" of an important unit wouldn't show up anywhere.

Here is some information for you len, the signifigance of the motorcade being out of order, was for one his personal physician Dr.Burkley was nowhere near him, as well as the black bag that held the retalitory nuclear strike information was not in the same car as he was, which is always near the president...besides that it went missing for a bit, if my memory serves, i will find the info on the bag..and post i still have it i believe...b

At this time the U.S. Secret Service follow-up car seemed to slow and I heard someone from inside this car say: ''he's shot". I left the follow-up car in the direction of the President's car but was recalled by ATSAIC Emory Roberts (Secret Service) as the cars increased their speeds. I got back on the car and seated myself beside Mr. Roberts in the right front seat. The cars proceeded to the hospital several miles distance.

http://mcadams.posc....ss/Sa-ready.htm

Burkley stated a few years after the assassination:

I accompanied President Kennedy on every trip that he took during his time as President ... I went on all trips ... we had a regular setup ...

all the possible angles were covered by cooperation with the Secret Service, in that we knew the areas of most likely danger. We knew where additional medical aid would be available, and things of that nature

... When we were in Fort Worth, Mrs. [Evelyn] Lincoln and I were in the second car in the motorcade ... [in Dallas] I complained to the Secret Service that I should be either in the follow up car or the lead car ... this was brought to their [the Secret Service's] attention very strongly at the foot of the stairway from the airplane [Air Force One] ... Most of the time, however, I was within one or two cars of the President.

This was one of the few times that this did not occur

. (emphasis added)

⁵⁵

In fact, Burkley rode in the lead car in Miami on November 18, 1963.⁵⁶ "The only other time that it did not occur, to my direct recollection, is when we were in Rome [July 2, 1963]"⁵⁷ (emphasis added), which was a model of very good security in every other respect.

Evelyn Lincoln, JFK's secretary, confirmed Burkley's feelings on the matter to the HSCA:

Mrs. Lincoln also mentioned what she thought was a curious incident in Dallas prior to the assassination. She said she was with Dr. Burkley ... when they left Love Field for the beginning of the motorcade. She said they were somewhat surprised at being 'shoved' back in the motorcade into a bus. She said they usually rode in an automobile a few cars behind the car carrying the President.

⁵⁸

It appears even Jackie Kennedy and, by extension, Dave Powers, were wondering about this situation regarding Burkley: On the weekend after President Kennedy's funeral, Powers showed Mrs. Kennedy the color still frames from the Zapruder film as displayed in that week's Life magazine. The pictures, of course, depict Jackie leaving the rear seat to crawl onto the back of the car. "Dave, what do you think I was trying to do?" she asked. Dave could only suggest that maybe she was searching for the President's doctor, Rear Admiral George G. Burkley, who was in a bus at the rear of the motorcade."<A href="http://www.ctka.net/reviews/#N_59_">⁵⁹

I

http://www.ctka.net/...tailreview.html

the ss roberts being called back by ss roberts , is also within the w/c testimony....b

Len here is further information on the 'football'...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3833&st=15&start=15

b

[Pat Speer]

Astonishing how casually you can dismiss the personal report of the man who was there about his actions during the most important moments of his life, which he has consistently adhered to for some 47 years. I hate to say it, but your meaningless psychobabble is no substitute for and does not undermine the significance of what Clint Hill has to tell us, where the actions he describes having taken BEFORE THE LIMO REACHED THE TRIPLE UNDERPASS are not shown in the film. It is more than a stretch for you to substitute your speculations for his recollections. From those reports of his actions, we know the film has been faked--which we knew before from dozens of indications of the kind I reported in "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid", "US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication", and "The JFK 'Head Shot' Paradox".

I would also observe that, since you are conceding JFK had a massive blow-out to the back of the head the size of a fist, as Clint Hill describes, you acknowledge that the witnesses who reported a massive blow out to the back of the head were correct, that the HSCA diagram and photograph are faked, that Crenshaw's diagram is more or less accurate, and that the official X-rays were "patched", as Mantik's studies have revealed. I take it you also agree that Pat Speer's research is seriously flawed since it does not acknowledge the witness reports, the Parkland physicians' observations, or the mortician's summary of the wounds. Since the blow out has been painted over in the film--with the exception of a few frames, such as 374, where it is visible--your position also implies that the Zapruder film has been faked. Thanks for admitting this much, which is more than I expected from you.

What nonsense, Jim. Of course, I acknowledge the witness reports. I've created the largest database of eyewitness reports on the net, and maybe anywhere. Eyewitnesses to the shooting... I also have a chapter devoted to the Parkland witnesses and why I think they were wrong about the head wound location.

To be CLEAR. The witnesses to the shooting OVERWHELMINGLY claimed the large head wound was on the right side of Kennedy's head, by his ear. Meanwhile, the Parkland witnesses--whose statements were not nearly as consistent as you'd like us to believe--claimed, on balance, that the large head wound was on the upper RIGHT REAR of Kennedy's head, above and behind his ear.

Now, I have always admitted that the statements of the Dealey witnesses and Parkland witnesses are in disagreement. I have NEVER pretended otherwise.

There is a clique of researchers, of which you are a member, who have totally misled the research community as a whole, however, and have PRETENDED that the Parkland witnesses support 1) that there was an entrance wound on the front of JFK's head; 2) that the so-called McClelland drawing showing a large wound on the back of Kennedy's head at and below the level of his right ear is accurate; and 3) that Kennedy's occipital bone was blasted out, and that the Harper fragment was occipital. When one actually READS the statements of the Parkland witnesses, it is clear that none of this is true.

You reveal your inconsistency, moreover, by PRETENDING you accept the words of men like Hill and Robinson, when your contempt for the statements of all the witnesses is more than clear. Hill said he thought the first shot came from the rear. Do you believe him? Hill said the head wound was above Kennedy's ear. Do you believe him? And Robinson, who made a number of erratic statements, was clear on at least one point which you no doubt ignore--he recalled seeing a trajectory rod connecting a wound on the back of Kennedy's head (the EOP entrance) and Kennedy's throat wound. Now, this is exactly what I ended up concluding...that these two wounds were connected. I did so, moreover, BEFORE I realized TWO witnesses to the autopsy--Robinson and Lipsey--said the doctors concluded as much on the night of the autopsy. But do I cite Robinson as "proof" of my theory? OF COURSE NOT. Unlike yourself, I realize the inherent inconsistency of cherry-picking a few words from someone else's statements and saying their words PROVE something, and then ignoring or disputing the rest of what they have to say.

May you see the error of your ways.

P.S. You're still running from my question. Was the wound you imagine to be on the back of Kennedy's head ABOVE or BELOW the top of his right ear?

Edited January 14, 2011 by Pat Speer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

What is there here that you do not understand? And

are you unaware of the location of the cerebellum?

So it is your contention that you, Pat Speer, are

right and the witnesses, who were there, are wrong?

Aguilar's study of the descriptions of the wound at

the right rear confirm my position, not your scheme.

That means the HSCA photo/diagram is faked, which, all

things considered, would be reasonable for you to admit.

And these witnesses are from Dealey Plaza, Parkland,

and Bethesda, even including Special Agents of the FBI.

So it's not just Pat Speer against the Parkland doctors,

but Pat Speer against the vast majority of the witnesses.

Here we can actually see the blow out to the back of

the head, where the pinkish skull flap is also visible:

Astonishing how casually you can dismiss the personal report of the man who was there about his actions during the most important moments of his life, which he has consistently adhered to for some 47 years. I hate to say it, but your meaningless psychobabble is no substitute for and does not undermine the significance of what Clint Hill has to tell us, where the actions he describes having taken BEFORE THE LIMO REACHED THE TRIPLE UNDERPASS are not shown in the film. It is more than a stretch for you to substitute your speculations for his recollections. From those reports of his actions, we know the film has been faked--which we knew before from dozens of indications of the kind I reported in "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid", "US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication", and "The JFK 'Head Shot' Paradox".

I would also observe that, since you are conceding JFK had a massive blow-out to the back of the head the size of a fist, as Clint Hill describes, you acknowledge that the witnesses who reported a massive blow out to the back of the head were correct, that the HSCA diagram and photograph are faked, that Crenshaw's diagram is more or less accurate, and that the official X-rays were "patched", as Mantik's studies have revealed. I take it you also agree that Pat Speer's research is seriously flawed since it does not acknowledge the witness reports, the Parkland physicians' observations, or the mortician's summary of the wounds. Since the blow out has been painted over in the film--with the exception of a few frames, such as 374, where it is visible--your position also implies that the Zapruder film has been faked. Thanks for admitting this much, which is more than I expected from you.

What nonsense, Jim. Of course, I acknowledge the witness reports. I've created the largest database of eyewitness reports on the net, and maybe anywhere. Eyewitnesses to the shooting... I also have a chapter devoted to the Parkland witnesses and why I think they were wrong about the head wound location.

To be CLEAR. The witnesses to the shooting OVERWHELMINGLY claimed the large head wound was on the right side of Kennedy's head, by his ear. Meanwhile, the Parkland witnesses--whose statements were not nearly as consistent as you'd like us to believe--claimed, on balance, that the large head wound was on the upper RIGHT REAR of Kennedy's head, above and behind his ear.

Now, I have always admitted that the statements of the Dealey witnesses and Parkland witnesses are in disagreement. I have NEVER pretended otherwise.

There is a clique of researchers, of which you are a member, who have totally misled the research community as a whole, however, and have PRETENDED that the Parkland witnesses support 1) that there was an entrance wound on the front of JFK's head; 2) that the so-called McClelland drawing showing a large wound on the back of Kennedy's head at and below the level of his right ear is accurate; and 3) that Kennedy's occipital bone was blasted out, and that the Harper fragment was occipital. When one actually READS the statements of the Parkland witnesses, it is clear that none of this is true.

You reveal your inconsistency, moreover, by PRETENDING you accept the words of men like Hill and Robinson, when your contempt for the statements of all the witnesses is more than clear. Hill said he thought the first shot came from the rear. Do you believe him? Hill said the head wound was above Kennedy's ear. Do you believe him? And Robinson, who made a number of erratic statements, was clear on at least one point which you no doubt ignore--he recalled seeing a trajectory rod connecting a wound on the back of Kennedy's head (the EOP entrance) and Kennedy's throat wound. Now, this is exactly what I ended up concluding...that these two wounds were connected. I did so, moreover, BEFORE I realized TWO witnesses to the autopsy--Robinson and Lipsey--said the doctors concluded as much on the night of the autopsy. But do I cite Robinson as "proof" of my theory? OF COURSE NOT. Unlike yourself, I realize the inherent inconsistency of cherry-picking a few words from someone else's statements and saying their words PROVE something, and then ignoring or disputing the rest of what they have to say.

May you see the error of your ways.

P.S. You're still running from my question. Was the wound you imagine to be on the back of Kennedy's head ABOVE or BELOW the top of his right ear?

Edited January 14, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Your problem seems to be to have confused the skull

flap with the wound at the right rear of the head.

I have explained this before, but you persist in your

charade. It's time for you to admit you were wrong.

Here we can still see the skull flap, but the wound

at the back of the head is missing. Why is that?

And here we have David's study of the lateral cranial

X-ray. Notice any resemblance of "Area P" to the blow

out as we observe it in frame 374 above? Why is that?

And why is your bizarre theory so inconsistent with

the available evidence? The Parkland physicians were

uniform in describing cerebellar as well as cerebral

tissue exuding from the wound at the back of the head?

Do you think cerebellum would extrude from a wound at

the location around the right ear you prefer? Do you

know where the cerebellum is located? And what good

is it for you to collate evidence that you disregard?

Edited January 14, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

According to you, it is my position that "if [you] do not buy body hijacking and alteration and the Zapruder film as a modern special effects compendium made in Hollywood, then somehow [you] believe that all the medical evidence is genuine."

Now why do you have to go out of your way to distort my position? And how can you not understand that, if there WAS "this gaping, avulsive exit hole in the back of the skull", the film has to have been altered? How is that possible?

Do you not understand that it cannot be seen in most of the frames of the film, especially around 313-316, for example? Which means that it has been taken out, just as it has been taken out of the HSCA disagrams and photographs above.

If Roderick Ryan explained to Noel Twyman back in 1997 that the "blob" had been painted in and the new Hollywood experts have explained how the wound has been painted over in black, what is there that you are in the position to contest?

Since I have explained how altering the film, faking autopsy photographs, and "patching" the X-rays were mutually reinforcing deceptions, how can you reasonably contend that some of them were done but others not? I don't get it.

Surely you agree that it HAS been taken out of the HSCA diagrams and photographs. So what makes the film so special that the conspirators would not remove it from the film as well? They even "patched" the X-rays. Why is the film sacrosanct?

Indeed, we have multiple lines of proof that the film has been recreated, not merely by removing frames but by using optical printing and special effects to remove some events--such as the limo stop--and introduce others. Why can't you get that?

It was necessary to re-shoot each frame in a studio to preserve the "ghost panels". It was not done in Hollywood, so it cannot be a "modern special effects compendium made in Hollywood". We know it was done in Rochester and brought to the NPIC.

I have explained the inconsistencies between the medical evidence and the film in many places. Try "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid", "US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication", and "The JFK 'Head Shot' Paradox".

What don't you understand? Please be specific. I think you are pretty good on the trees but terrible on the forest. What good does it do if you understand the blow out but do not understand that it BY ITSELF establishes that that film is fake?

And what is supposed to be "extreme" about my "gestalt of the JFK assassination"? If I am responsive to the evidence but you are not, that does not make my position "extreme". It means you have problems adding "2" and "2", which bothers me.

Here is Crenshaw's diagram, which accords with Gary's study and shows the blow-out to the back of the head:

Here are the HSCA photograph and diagram, from which the blow out to the back of the head is clearly missing:

Now if you are capable of drawing the inference that the latter has been faked to conceal the former, how can you be incapable of drawing the same inference about the film, most of whose frames (but not 374!) have been altered for the very same purpose?

And when David Mantik, John Costella, David Lifton, Doug Horne, Jack White, David Healy and I are essentially in agreement about the recreation of the film, one of us may have views that are "extreme", but that would seem to describe your position, not mine.

Jim:

The above rant about me shows one of your great failings as a poster and a researcher. That is your failure to read closely what others write when they disagree with your own extreme gestalt of the JFK assassination. Therefore I have had to endure slur after slur by you, simply because I did not buy each and every aspect of Horne's 1800 page book. Which means of course, that if I do not buy body hijacking and alteration and the Zapruder film as a modern special effects compendium made in Hollywood, then somehow I believe that all the medical evidence is genuine.

I don't.

At the beginning of my Horne review Part One, I outlined the five schools of thought on this subject. I did not place myself in that hierarchy since, except for my Bugliosi review Part Four, I have not written extensively on the subject. But if I would have, I would have grouped myself with Gary Aguilar. Like Gary, who I have had many discussions on the subject with, I believe this gaping, avulsive exit hole in the back of the skull existed. It was seen at both Parkland and Bethesda, as Gary has proven. The HSCA concocted a cover story to conceal this fact, since it clearly indicates that, unlike what Blakey wrote in the report, the shot from the front did not miss. (Which is something I always thought was ridiculous. I mean just go there to the end of the fence and see what a great shot that is.)

Therefore, unlike Horne, I beleive what Groden believes: that the photos have been altered. And if you read my Bugliosi Part Four, I believe the X rays have been altered, to achieve that unique chiaroscuro effect, and also to add the 6.5 Mm fragment, and subtract the lower occipital trail of fragments leading to the top trail.

I mean, you do read some of my stuff don't you Jim? BTW, that particular installment was praised by Dave Mantik and Milicent Cranor. Who both know about twice as much as you do about this topic. David called it "brilliant"; and Milicent, who I believe knows more about the medical evidence than any person alive, said I deserved a pat on the back.

So yes, I do know what I am saying Jim. And its all consistent with that essay.

Edited January 14, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Pat Speer]

What is there here that you do not understand? And

are you unaware of the location of the cerebellum?

So it is your contention that you, Pat Speer, are

right and the witnesses, who were there, are wrong?

Aguilar's study of the descriptions of the wound at

the right rear confirm my position, not your scheme.

That means the HSCA photo/diagram is faked, which, all

things considered, would be reasonable for you to admit.

And these witnesses are from Dealey Plaza, Parkland,

and Bethesda, even including Special Agents of the FBI.

So it's not just Pat Speer against the Parkland doctors,

but Pat Speer against the vast majority of the witnesses.

Here we can actually see the blow out to the back of

the head, where the pinkish skull flap is also visible:

What nonsense, Jim. I go through those 18 witnesses one by one on my website, and show how they absolutely positively 100% DO NOT confirm your position that the Harper fragment was OCCIPITAL bone, and that there was a large blow-out on the MIDDLE of the back of JFK's head! Two of the witnesses--Phil Willis and Aubrey Rike--never saw the wound. Two of the witnesses--Custer and O'Connor--described a wound from the front of JFK's head all the way to the back, and were clearly describing the wound after the scalp was peeled back, and skull fell to the table. Five of the witnesses--M. Willis, Hoffman, Carrico, Dulaney, and O'Neil--claimed the wound was high on the head, above the ear and the occipital region. Two more--Salyer and Ward--placed it on the side of the head, and not the far back. When finally shown them by the ARRB, Floyd Riebe deferred to the accuracy of the autopsy photos. So what does that leave? Six witnesses of EIGHTEEN who one might honestly claim support the fervent belief there was a large blow-out on the far back of Kennedy's head in the occipital region, and one of these, Oliver, might very well have not even seen the wound. So that's five. Well, how many of these five have claimed the boh autopsy photos are fake? McClelland won't say so--he thinks they're legit, but that some loose scalp has been lifted. So, what are you left with? Not much. Crenshaw and Bell were so erratic that they couldn't even place the head wound in the same place on the ARRB's anatomy drawings as they had but a moment before.

And you KNOW this, don't you? Not only have we gone through this before, but you admitted in this post that Aguilar's witnesses were for a wound to the "right rear"...NOT the middle of the back of JFK's head, where Mantik and YOU place the wound.

So...drum roll, please, are you finally willing to admit that the witnesses are not exactly consistent and that Mantik's placement of the Harper fragment puts him at odds with the witnesses?

[Robert Harris]

Who’s telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?

Agent’s reports contradict JFK film, autopsy X-rays and other crucial photographs

Jim Fetzer

“In the midst of the mayhem the agents were calm, but ready to react in a

millisecond if anything got out of hand.”—Jerry Blaine, THE KENNEDY DETAIL

According to Jerry Blaine, the author of THE KENNEDY DETAIL (2010), his purpose in writing this book was “to set history straight, to leave a book for [his] grandchildren that they could read and know the truth beyond any measure of doubt.” What Blaine has actually done, however, moves us further toward the truth by revealing that the words of Clint Hill, the only agent to respond during the assassination, contradict his actions as shown in the Zapruder film, in which his efforts to protect Jackie Kennedy are among its most indelible features. They also impeach autopsy X-rays and other photographs. We therefore have in Clint Hill’s own words stunning new proof that the extant film has been faked. The book—and presentations to promote it—thus contributes to “setting history straight”, but not in the sense its author intended.

Clint Hill was not the only agent to attempt to respond after shots rang out. Secret Service agent John Ready, who was on the right running board whereas Clint was on the left, began to respond but was called back by Emory Roberts, Agent in Charge of the Presidential Protection Detail. This is stunning in itself, but is only one of more than fifteen indications that the Secret Service set up JFK for the hit, which include that two agents were left behind at Love Field, that the vehicles were in the wrong order, that the 112th Military Intelligence Unit was ordered to “stand down” rather than provide protection throughout the city, and that the motorcycle escort was reduced to four, who were instructed not to ride forward the rear wheels. Open windows were not covered and the crowd was allowed to spill out into the street.

When I discovered that Jerry and Clint had made presentations at book signings, I sent out a notice to several of my closest collaborators, all of whom contributed to the three JFK books I edited, ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003). I had reported there that we had found multiple indications the film had been reconstructed, where rather important events, such as the driver, William Greer, bringing the limo to a halt, had been removed and the film redone. An expert on special effects, Roderick Ryan, had told Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997), that the “blob” of brains exploding to the right/front had been painted in, while, as Doug Horne, INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), has explained, a new group of Hollywood experts has found that a massive defect to the back of JFK’s head had been concealed by being (crudely) painted over in black.

The Costella Response

John Costella, Ph.D., the leading expert on the film in the world today, who earned his doctorate in physics with a specialization in electromagnetism, the properties of light and images of moving objects, responded almost immediately. “Forget about the book”, he wrote. “That YouTube video [of Blaine and Hill at a book signing, which can be found here:

] is worth its weight in gold!” A few years ago, after he did a compilation of eyewitness reports from Dealey Plaza [ http://assassinationresearch.com/v5n1/v5n1costella.pdf ] and created a stabilized version of the Zapruder film, in which the limousine does not move vertically within frames (below), John recognized that what Clint has described from the days after the assassination, to his testimony to the Warren Commission and right up to his last public interviews in the 1970s or 1980s, was consistent but contradicts the film. At the book signing,

24:30: "As I approached the vehicle there was a third shot. It hit the President in the head, upper right rear of the right ear, caused a gaping hole in his head, which caused brain matter, blood, and bone fragments to spew forth out over the car, over myself. At that point Mrs. Kennedy came up out of the back seat onto the trunk of the car. She was trying to retrieve something that had gone off to the right rear. She did not know I was there. At that point I grabbed Mrs. Kennedy, put her in the back seat. The President fell over into her lap, to his left.

His right side of his head was exposed. I could see his eyes were fixed. There was a hole in the upper right rear portion of his head about the size of my palm. Most of the gray matter in that area had been removed, and was scattered throughout the entire car, including on Mrs. Kennedy. I turned and gave the follow-up car crew the thumbs-down, indicating that we were in a very dire situation. The driver accelerated; he got up to the lead car which was driven by Chief Curry, the Dallas Chief of Police . . .”.

This is completely consistent with every account Clint has ever given. He insists that he reached Mrs. Kennedy, pushed her down into the back seat, and was lying over the President, close enough to view the exact wounds, before the driver accelerated away—and certainly before they got to the lead car. The problem is that the extant Zapruder film—together with the less familiar Nix and Muchmore films—has Clint never actually touching Mrs. Kennedy; indeed, the extant Zapruder shows that he never got further than the rear foothold until the time that the limo passed the lead car and went under the Triple Underpass. Instead, it shows him stuck there on the rear foothold (below).)

According to Clint Hill (shown here on the rear foothold of the limousine as the vehicle is about to enter the Triple Underpass), he had already reached Mrs. Kennedy and pushed her down in the back seat. JFK had fallen to the left into her lap, where the right side of his head was exposed to Clint, who was lying over them. This photo is supposed to have been taken by Ike Altgens and corresponds with late Zapruder frames. Clint’s testimony not only falsifies the Zapruder film, but also shows that this photograph was faked to agree with it.

Lest there be any doubt on this crucial point, in Clint Hill’s written statement dated 30 November 1963, which was published as Commission Exhibit CE 1024, he wrote: “As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President’s head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lying on the seat” [18H742]. And in his testimony to the commission on 9 March 1964, “The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the middle of the car. His brain was exposed.” [2H141]. Since he has told us he made these observations before the limousine had reached the pilot car drive by Chief Curry (shown above), this photo has to have been faked. Clint could not have made these observations from the rear foothold as it represents. (His descriptions of the wound to the right rear of JFK’s head are discussed below.)

The Limo Stop

Not the least fascinating aspect of Clint Hill’s latest remarks is his observation that he was covered with brains and gore as he ran forward from the left running board of the Secret Service Cadillac—called “The Queen Mary”—which, according to Emory Roberts (THE KENNEDY DETAIL, page 215), was 15 feet back. This is consistent with the report of Officer Bobby Hargis riding to the left/rear of the limousine, who was hit so hard by the brains and debris that he thought he himself might have been shot. Agents who saw JFK’s brains splattered across the trunk in Washington, D.C. would be nauseated by the sight, as I explained in HOAX, page 27. But it is not in the film. So John wrote to Clint—and he got it, because John has the signed Registered Mail receipt card—urging him to be certain to record his version of events for posterity. Now he is on the road, participating in book signings and talking publicly again, for the first time in decades. His story is still exactly the same and, most important, still does not agree with his actions as seen in the film.. Here is a clip featuring what is shown of his actions in the film:

The film itself thus demonstrates that the Zapruder version of Clint Hill’s actions up to the Triple Underpass is not consistent with Clint Hill’s words describing what he actually did.

John’s collation of eyewitness reports about the assassination includes dozens and dozens about the limo stop. Some reported seeing it slow dramatically and others that it came to a complete stop, which makes sense since, from different positions, different witnesses would have seen it slow dramatically as it came to a complete stop. Among them is Toni Foster, who was interviewed by Debra Conway in 2000. As Daniel Gallup has observed, Foster seems to have no idea that her recollections contradict the official record. Toni told Debra, "For some reason, the car stopped. It did stop for seconds. I don't even know why it stopped and all of a sudden it sped up and they went under the underpass. I could never figure out why the car stopped." “The way she delivers these lines,” Gallup observed, “I doubt Toni had ever seen the extant Z-film, and had no idea her recollections contradicted that film.” He said he was reminded of David Lifton's early (1971) interviews with the Newmans who also said the limo had stopped. “They had no way of knowing at the time that the Z-film showed no such stop. All of this is to say, the earliest recollections of individuals are likely to be the most significant,” he added, “especially if there is evidence of a lack of exposure to contrary viewpoints that might influence memory”. For a few more:

Billy Lovelady (on the steps of the Texas School Book Depository), 19 March 1964: “I recall that following the shooting I ran toward the spot where President Kennedy’s car had stopped.” [FBI statement: 22H662]

Roy Truly (on the north side of Elm Street in front of the building), 24 March 1964: “The car—I saw the President’s car swerve to the left and stop somewhere down in this area” [Later:] (Mr. Belin: “When you saw the President’s car seem to stop, how long did it appear to stop?) Mr. Truly: It would be hard to say, over a second or two, something like that. I didn’t see—I just saw it stop. I don’t know. I didn’t see it start up.” [Warren Commission testimony: 3H221]

Mrs. Earle Cabell (four cars behind the Presidential limousine, at the top of Elm Street at the time of the shots), 13 July 1964: “I was aware that the motorcade stopped dead still. There was no question about that.” [Later:] “As I told you, the motorcade was stopped.” [Later:] (Mr. Hubert: “That was when your car at least had come to a standstill?”) Mrs. Cabell: “Every car in the motorcade had come to a standstill.” [Later:] “… we were dead still for a matter of some seconds—“ [Warren Commission Testimony” 7H486-7]

These reports are significant from multiple points of view. Roy Truly was Oswald’s supervisor in the Book Depository and would reassure Officer Marrion Baker, when he confronted Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room 90 seconds after the assassination, that he was an employee and belonged there. Billy Lovelady was another employee who looked enough like Oswald to be mistaken for him. And Earle Cabell, the Mayor of Dallas at the time, was the brother of Lt. Gen. Charles Cabell, USAF (ret.), whom JFK removed as a deputy director of the CIA after the disastrous Bay of Pigs fiasco.

The limo stop—during which JFK was hit twice in the head, once from behind and once from in front—was such an obvious indication of Secret Service complicity that it had to be taken out, which is undoubtedly the principal reason for fixing the film. But it had other ramifications. What Clint Hill has consistently described is not in the Zapruder film: he describes several actions in those seconds around the limo stop that were deleted from the extant film. In editing the timeline of the extant film, it was necessary to delete his pushing of Mrs. Kennedy back into the seat—there just wasn't enough time left in the film once the limo stop had been deleted. There is no possible way in which Clint could possibly have seen what he claims to have seen before the car accelerated away and passed the lead car when he was stuck on the back of the speeding limo as he is shown doing in the extant film. And from his initial reports right up to his latest “book signing” interview, he has insisted that that was when he saw those things, that he did reach Mrs. Kennedy and that he did push her down into the car, unlike what the film shows. Which means that the film is a fake.

PART II (below)

If you want to know what really happened on 11/22/63, you look at the earliest statements, NOT what the witness says half a century later, when he probably has to struggle to remember what he had for breakfast that morning.

Hill NEVER claimed in 1963, or in 1964 that he saw the head explosion and in fact, he didn't actually claim that in the video. He only said it happened, which we all know. And he didn't recall "three" shots at the time. He only heard two of them.

Hill leaped from the limo almost simultaneous with the 313 head explosion, in direct reaction to the gunshot he had heard immediately prior to that. That was the shot at frame 285. The 130 decibel shock wave of that bullet, temporarily deafened the man and he never heard the 312-313 shot. The next one he heard was the final shot, a fraction of a second later. This from his original WC testimony,

"This is the first sound that I heard; yes, sir. I jumped from the car, realizing that something was wrong, ran to the Presidential limousine. Just about as I reached it, there was another sound, which was different than the first sound. I think I described it in my statement as though someone was shooting a revolver into a hard object"

That same shot was clearly described by Charles Brehm and more than a few other witnesses. There is absolutely nothing in Hill's original statements that contradict the Zapruder film, once one understands the shooting sequence.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

You must suffer from selective reading. There are four parts to this posts, demontrating that he has

been consistent in his reports and observations for 47 years! Try his statement of 30 November 1963.

Of course his actions, as he describes them, contradict the Zapruder film, once you understand both

his actions and the film. You are suppressing one or the other or both. That is really quite remarkable.

Who’s telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?

Agent’s reports contradict JFK film, autopsy X-rays and other crucial photographs

Jim Fetzer

“In the midst of the mayhem the agents were calm, but ready to react in a

millisecond if anything got out of hand.”—Jerry Blaine, THE KENNEDY DETAIL

According to Jerry Blaine, the author of THE KENNEDY DETAIL (2010), his purpose in writing this book was “to set history straight, to leave a book for [his] grandchildren that they could read and know the truth beyond any measure of doubt.” What Blaine has actually done, however, moves us further toward the truth by revealing that the words of Clint Hill, the only agent to respond during the assassination, contradict his actions as shown in the Zapruder film, in which his efforts to protect Jackie Kennedy are among its most indelible features. They also impeach autopsy X-rays and other photographs. We therefore have in Clint Hill’s own words stunning new proof that the extant film has been faked. The book—and presentations to promote it—thus contributes to “setting history straight”, but not in the sense its author intended.

Clint Hill was not the only agent to attempt to respond after shots rang out. Secret Service agent John Ready, who was on the right running board whereas Clint was on the left, began to respond but was called back by Emory Roberts, Agent in Charge of the Presidential Protection Detail. This is stunning in itself, but is only one of more than fifteen indications that the Secret Service set up JFK for the hit, which include that two agents were left behind at Love Field, that the vehicles were in the wrong order, that the 112th Military Intelligence Unit was ordered to “stand down” rather than provide protection throughout the city, and that the motorcycle escort was reduced to four, who were instructed not to ride forward the rear wheels. Open windows were not covered and the crowd was allowed to spill out into the street.

When I discovered that Jerry and Clint had made presentations at book signings, I sent out a notice to several of my closest collaborators, all of whom contributed to the three JFK books I edited, ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003). I had reported there that we had found multiple indications the film had been reconstructed, where rather important events, such as the driver, William Greer, bringing the limo to a halt, had been removed and the film redone. An expert on special effects, Roderick Ryan, had told Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997), that the “blob” of brains exploding to the right/front had been painted in, while, as Doug Horne, INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), has explained, a new group of Hollywood experts has found that a massive defect to the back of JFK’s head had been concealed by being (crudely) painted over in black.

The Costella Response

John Costella, Ph.D., the leading expert on the film in the world today, who earned his doctorate in physics with a specialization in electromagnetism, the properties of light and images of moving objects, responded almost immediately. “Forget about the book”, he wrote. “That YouTube video [of Blaine and Hill at a book signing, which can be found here:

] is worth its weight in gold!” A few years ago, after he did a compilation of eyewitness reports from Dealey Plaza [ http://assassinationresearch.com/v5n1/v5n1costella.pdf ] and created a stabilized version of the Zapruder film, in which the limousine does not move vertically within frames (below), John recognized that what Clint has described from the days after the assassination, to his testimony to the Warren Commission and right up to his last public interviews in the 1970s or 1980s, was consistent but contradicts the film. At the book signing,

24:30: "As I approached the vehicle there was a third shot. It hit the President in the head, upper right rear of the right ear, caused a gaping hole in his head, which caused brain matter, blood, and bone fragments to spew forth out over the car, over myself. At that point Mrs. Kennedy came up out of the back seat onto the trunk of the car. She was trying to retrieve something that had gone off to the right rear. She did not know I was there. At that point I grabbed Mrs. Kennedy, put her in the back seat. The President fell over into her lap, to his left.

His right side of his head was exposed. I could see his eyes were fixed. There was a hole in the upper right rear portion of his head about the size of my palm. Most of the gray matter in that area had been removed, and was scattered throughout the entire car, including on Mrs. Kennedy. I turned and gave the follow-up car crew the thumbs-down, indicating that we were in a very dire situation. The driver accelerated; he got up to the lead car which was driven by Chief Curry, the Dallas Chief of Police . . .”.

This is completely consistent with every account Clint has ever given. He insists that he reached Mrs. Kennedy, pushed her down into the back seat, and was lying over the President, close enough to view the exact wounds, before the driver accelerated away—and certainly before they got to the lead car. The problem is that the extant Zapruder film—together with the less familiar Nix and Muchmore films—has Clint never actually touching Mrs. Kennedy; indeed, the extant Zapruder shows that he never got further than the rear foothold until the time that the limo passed the lead car and went under the Triple Underpass. Instead, it shows him stuck there on the rear foothold (below).)

According to Clint Hill (shown here on the rear foothold of the limousine as the vehicle is about to enter the Triple Underpass), he had already reached Mrs. Kennedy and pushed her down in the back seat. JFK had fallen to the left into her lap, where the right side of his head was exposed to Clint, who was lying over them. This photo is supposed to have been taken by Ike Altgens and corresponds with late Zapruder frames. Clint’s testimony not only falsifies the Zapruder film, but also shows that this photograph was faked to agree with it.

Lest there be any doubt on this crucial point, in Clint Hill’s written statement dated 30 November 1963, which was published as Commission Exhibit CE 1024, he wrote: “As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President’s head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lying on the seat” [18H742]. And in his testimony to the commission on 9 March 1964, “The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the middle of the car. His brain was exposed.” [2H141]. Since he has told us he made these observations before the limousine had reached the pilot car drive by Chief Curry (shown above), this photo has to have been faked. Clint could not have made these observations from the rear foothold as it represents. (His descriptions of the wound to the right rear of JFK’s head are discussed below.)

The Limo Stop

Not the least fascinating aspect of Clint Hill’s latest remarks is his observation that he was covered with brains and gore as he ran forward from the left running board of the Secret Service Cadillac—called “The Queen Mary”—which, according to Emory Roberts (THE KENNEDY DETAIL, page 215), was 15 feet back. This is consistent with the report of Officer Bobby Hargis riding to the left/rear of the limousine, who was hit so hard by the brains and debris that he thought he himself might have been shot. Agents who saw JFK’s brains splattered across the trunk in Washington, D.C. would be nauseated by the sight, as I explained in HOAX, page 27. But it is not in the film. So John wrote to Clint—and he got it, because John has the signed Registered Mail receipt card—urging him to be certain to record his version of events for posterity. Now he is on the road, participating in book signings and talking publicly again, for the first time in decades. His story is still exactly the same and, most important, still does not agree with his actions as seen in the film.. Here is a clip featuring what is shown of his actions in the film:

The film itself thus demonstrates that the Zapruder version of Clint Hill’s actions up to the Triple Underpass is not consistent with Clint Hill’s words describing what he actually did.

John’s collation of eyewitness reports about the assassination includes dozens and dozens about the limo stop. Some reported seeing it slow dramatically and others that it came to a complete stop, which makes sense since, from different positions, different witnesses would have seen it slow dramatically as it came to a complete stop. Among them is Toni Foster, who was interviewed by Debra Conway in 2000. As Daniel Gallup has observed, Foster seems to have no idea that her recollections contradict the official record. Toni told Debra, "For some reason, the car stopped. It did stop for seconds. I don't even know why it stopped and all of a sudden it sped up and they went under the underpass. I could never figure out why the car stopped." “The way she delivers these lines,” Gallup observed, “I doubt Toni had ever seen the extant Z-film, and had no idea her recollections contradicted that film.” He said he was reminded of David Lifton's early (1971) interviews with the Newmans who also said the limo had stopped. “They had no way of knowing at the time that the Z-film showed no such stop. All of this is to say, the earliest recollections of individuals are likely to be the most significant,” he added, “especially if there is evidence of a lack of exposure to contrary viewpoints that might influence memory”. For a few more:

Billy Lovelady (on the steps of the Texas School Book Depository), 19 March 1964: “I recall that following the shooting I ran toward the spot where President Kennedy’s car had stopped.” [FBI statement: 22H662]

Roy Truly (on the north side of Elm Street in front of the building), 24 March 1964: “The car—I saw the President’s car swerve to the left and stop somewhere down in this area” [Later:] (Mr. Belin: “When you saw the President’s car seem to stop, how long did it appear to stop?) Mr. Truly: It would be hard to say, over a second or two, something like that. I didn’t see—I just saw it stop. I don’t know. I didn’t see it start up.” [Warren Commission testimony: 3H221]

Mrs. Earle Cabell (four cars behind the Presidential limousine, at the top of Elm Street at the time of the shots), 13 July 1964: “I was aware that the motorcade stopped dead still. There was no question about that.” [Later:] “As I told you, the motorcade was stopped.” [Later:] (Mr. Hubert: “That was when your car at least had come to a standstill?”) Mrs. Cabell: “Every car in the motorcade had come to a standstill.” [Later:] “… we were dead still for a matter of some seconds—“ [Warren Commission Testimony” 7H486-7]

These reports are significant from multiple points of view. Roy Truly was Oswald’s supervisor in the Book Depository and would reassure Officer Marrion Baker, when he confronted Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room 90 seconds after the assassination, that he was an employee and belonged there. Billy Lovelady was another employee who looked enough like Oswald to be mistaken for him. And Earle Cabell, the Mayor of Dallas at the time, was the brother of Lt. Gen. Charles Cabell, USAF (ret.), whom JFK removed as a deputy director of the CIA after the disastrous Bay of Pigs fiasco.

The limo stop—during which JFK was hit twice in the head, once from behind and once from in front—was such an obvious indication of Secret Service complicity that it had to be taken out, which is undoubtedly the principal reason for fixing the film. But it had other ramifications. What Clint Hill has consistently described is not in the Zapruder film: he describes several actions in those seconds around the limo stop that were deleted from the extant film. In editing the timeline of the extant film, it was necessary to delete his pushing of Mrs. Kennedy back into the seat—there just wasn't enough time left in the film once the limo stop had been deleted. There is no possible way in which Clint could possibly have seen what he claims to have seen before the car accelerated away and passed the lead car when he was stuck on the back of the speeding limo as he is shown doing in the extant film. And from his initial reports right up to his latest “book signing” interview, he has insisted that that was when he saw those things, that he did reach Mrs. Kennedy and that he did push her down into the car, unlike what the film shows. Which means that the film is a fake.

PART II (below)

If you want to know what really happened on 11/22/63, you look at the earliest statements, NOT what the witness says half a century later, when he probably has to struggle to remember what he had for breakfast that morning.

Hill NEVER claimed in 1963, or in 1964 that he saw the head explosion and in fact, he didn't actually claim that in the video. He only said it happened, which we all know. And he didn't recall "three" shots at the time. He only heard two of them.

Hill leaped from the limo almost simultaneous with the 313 head explosion, in direct reaction to the gunshot he had heard immediately prior to that. That was the shot at frame 285. The 130 decibel shock wave of that bullet, temporarily deafened the man and he never heard the 312-313 shot. The next one he heard was the final shot, a fraction of a second later. This from his original WC testimony,

"This is the first sound that I heard; yes, sir. I jumped from the car, realizing that something was wrong, ran to the Presidential limousine. Just about as I reached it, there was another sound, which was different than the first sound. I think I described it in my statement as though someone was shooting a revolver into a hard object"

That same shot was clearly described by Charles Brehm and more than a few other witnesses. There is absolutely nothing in Hill's original statements that contradict the Zapruder film, once one understands the shooting sequence.

Edited January 15, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Daniel Gallup]

[

P.S. You're still running from my question. Was the wound you imagine to be on the back of Kennedy's head ABOVE or BELOW the top of his right ear?

Pat, since Dr. Fetzer mentioned me on page one of this thread, I feel compelled to mention the early reports of cerebellum protruding from the gaping wound in the back of the head. In his report to Parkland Administrator J.C. Price on the day of the assassination, Dr. Jenkins witnessed "...there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the crebellum had protruded from the wound." (CE 392 in 17WCH 15). Jenkins told Specter the same(6WCH 48&51) and years later to Purdy (7HSCA 286-7). In 1978 Jenkins told the Nov. 24, 1978 Amercian Medical News that "part of his cerebellum was hanging out."(p. 14)

I would ask anyone on this forum, and Pat, you in particular, how the cerebellum could be protruding from a wound high in the back of the head.

Perry told the WC: "We speculated as to wheter he had been shot once to twice because we saw the entry in the throat and noted the large occipital wound." (emphasis mine). Dr. Peters tod the WC ofa "large defect in the occiput... in the right occipitoparietal area" (6 WCH 21) and told Lifton in 1966: " I could see the back of his head quite well. The whole occipital area was blown out, and the skin was shoved a little bit forward and his parietal was a little bit wrinkled...[the wound ] was more occipital than parietal...because we had to get up to his head, to look in through the back, to see the extent of the wound." (BE 316). When Lifton asked Peters what he meant by the back of the head, he indicated "much as if you were to put your hand to the back of the head, about where it would go, naturally."

Where my hand goes naturally, I would expect some of my cerebellum to be hanging out, were I shot as Kennedy.

Other witnesses to cerebellum: Dr. Kemp Clark, neurosurgeon, in a report filed the afternoon of the assassination (17 WCH 9-10); also Dr. Baxter (6 WCH 41), Dr. Carrico: ""We opened his shirt and coat and tie and observed a small wound in the anterior lower third of the neck,...The large skull and scalp wound had been previously observed and was inspected a little more closely. There seemed to be a 4-5 cm. area of avulsion of the scalp and the skull was fragmented and bleeding cerebral and cerebellar tissue." (page 3 of his deposition before Specter; also page 6:"The wound that I saw was a large gaping wound, located in the right occipitoparietal area, I would estimate its size to be about 5-7 cm in size, more or less circular...there was shredded macerated cerebral and cerebellar tissues both in the wounds on on the fragments of the dull attached to the dura."), McClelland in his famous description of the wound, Dr. Peters, quoted above, Dr. Perry before the HSCA (7 HAC 302):"And I looked at the head wound briefly by leaning over the table and noticed that the parietal occipital head wound was largely avulsive and there was visible brain tissue in the macard and some cerebellum seen.."; also Crenshaw before the ARRB (March 19,1997). Crenshaw's drawing of the wound encompasses both cerebral and cerebullar areas (Crenshaw 4). Audrey Bell's placement of the wound is very similar (Bell 3 and 4).

If cerebellum was hanging out of the gaping hole in the back of Kennedy's head, then one may deduce that, however high the wound was, it was also quite low. If one take Carrico's 5-7 cm (about 3 inches in diameter) nearly circular wound and place the bottom of it at the upper part of the cerebellum, the wound would probably extend to the the top of the ear. This would be occiptial/parietal, just as the Dallas testimony indicates.

The existence of cerebullar tissue hanging from the wound is decisive as to where the wound in the back of the head was. Best, Daniel.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

I guess if Robert Harris can grossly misrepresent my position by falsely alleging that I am comparing what Clint Hill

had to say in 2010 with the Zapruder film in 1963 (when in fact I have copiously documented that he has been saying

the same thing since 1963), I should not be surprised that you would similarly grossly misrepresent my position by

talking about the HARPER FRAGMENT and falsely claim I said it was in THE CENTER OF THE BACK OF THE HEAD.

You are both engaging in "the straw man" by offering distorted version of the argument to make it easier to attack.

That's pretty bad, Pat, since everyone agrees that it was slightly to the RIGHT OF CENTER. Neither David Mantik

nor I place it precisely at the center. Have you forgotten it is your claim it was at the side of the head?. You claim to

have "gone through those 18 witnesses" on your web site. ALL OF THEM PLACE THE WOUND AT THE BACK OF

THE HEAD. NONE OF THEM PLACE IT AT THE SIDE OF THE HEAD. Not only are you disregarding where these

witnesses placed their hands to demonstrate where the wound was located, but you ignore what they have to say:

Beverly Oliver: "The whole back of his head was flying out the car."

Phillip Willis: "It took the back of his head off."

Marilyn Willis: "A red 'halo'. Matter was coming out the back of his head."

Ed Hoffman: "The back of his head was gone, blasted outward."

Dr. Robert McClelland: "It was in the right back part of the head . . . very large . . ."

Dr. Paul Peters: ". . . right there, occipital/parietal."

Dr. Kenneth Salyer: "This wound extended into the parietal area."

Dr. Charles Carrico: "There was a large--quite a large--defect about here [pointing] on his skull."

Dr. Richard Delaney: "It was up in this area."

Dr. Charles Crenshaw: "The wound was the size of a baseball."

Dr. Ronald Jones: "My impression was there was a wound in this area of the head."

Nurse Audrey Bell: "There was a massive wound at the back of the head."

Theran Ward: "It was right back here."

Aubrey Rike: "You could feel the sharp edges of the bone at the edge of the whole in the back of his head."

Frank O'Neill: ". . . a massive wound in the right rear."

Jerrol Custer: "From the top of the head, almost to the base of the skull, you could see where that part was gone."

Paul O'Connor: "[There was] an open area all the way across into the rear of the brain."

Floyd Riebe: ". . . a big gaping hole in the back of the head."

According to your pet theory, however, there was no massive gaping hole at the back of the head; instead, it was

at the side of the head, although NONE OF THESE WITNESSES PLACED THEIR HAND AT THE SIDE OF THEIR

HEAD and NONE OF THE DESCRIBED THE WOUND AS AT THE SIDE OF THE HEAD. So I am fascinated by the

principle of reasoning you are relying upon, which appears to have the following form (Speer's princple): "If the

witness says it was at the back of the head, discount it and reassert that it was actually at the side of the head."

Moreover, I have repeatedly asked you for the location of the cerebellum, which is shown in my chapter, "Dealey

Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK?", JOHN F. KENNEDY: HISTORY, MEMORY, LEGACY, Chapter 30, on page

361. This is important, because the physicians at Parkland, who were experienced with gunshot wounds. were

quite consistent in describing cerebellar as well as cerebral tissue extruding from the wound at the back of the

head. I have a summary (originally prepared by Gary Aguilar) of their observations on page 360 as follows:

According to Dr. Crenshaw, the cerebellum was hanging out of the rear head wound;

According to Dr. Jenkins, cerebellum was hanging out from a hole in the right rear of the head;

According to Dr. Carrico, the skull was fragmented and bleeding cerebral and cerebellar tissue;

According to Dr. Perry, there was visible brain tissue in the macard and some cerebellum was seen;

According to Dr. McClellan, brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar issue had been blasted out;

According to Dr. Clalrk, cerebral and cerebellar had been damaged and exposed.

Given the relative location of the cerebellum and the location at the side of the wound that Pat Speer prefers, the

probability that cerebellar tissue would be extruding from the side of the head is virtually non-existent, and, of

course, none of the physicians suggested that this massive wound was located anywhere but the rear of the head.

You cannot prove a wound was at the side of the head based on witnesses who report it was at the right rear!

What we have here is the massive disregard of the observations of witnesses at Dealey Plaza, Parkland Hospital,

and even Bethesda, who consistently maintain this massive wound was to the right rear, not at the side of the head.

It a prime attribute of scientific research is to discount the observations of the best witnesses, including, in this case,

the Parkland physicians, then Pat Speer is a paragon of scientific research. Otherwise, he is something else entirely.

What is there here that you do not understand? And

are you unaware of the location of the cerebellum?

So it is your contention that you, Pat Speer, are

right and the witnesses, who were there, are wrong?

Aguilar's study of the descriptions of the wound at

the right rear confirm my position, not your scheme.

That means the HSCA photo/diagram is faked, which, all

things considered, would be reasonable for you to admit.

And these witnesses are from Dealey Plaza, Parkland,

and Bethesda, even including Special Agents of the FBI.

So it's not just Pat Speer against the Parkland doctors,

but Pat Speer against the vast majority of the witnesses.

Here we can actually see the blow out to the back of

the head, where the pinkish skull flap is also visible:

What nonsense, Jim. I go through those 18 witnesses one by one on my website, and show how they absolutely positively 100% DO NOT confirm your position that the Harper fragment was OCCIPITAL bone, and that there was a large blow-out on the MIDDLE of the back of JFK's head! Two of the witnesses--Phil Willis and Aubrey Rike--never saw the wound. Two of the witnesses--Custer and O'Connor--described a wound from the front of JFK's head all the way to the back, and were clearly describing the wound after the scalp was peeled back, and skull fell to the table. Five of the witnesses--M. Willis, Hoffman, Carrico, Dulaney, and O'Neil--claimed the wound was high on the head, above the ear and the occipital region. Two more--Salyer and Ward--placed it on the side of the head, and not the far back. When finally shown them by the ARRB, Floyd Riebe deferred to the accuracy of the autopsy photos. So what does that leave? Six witnesses of EIGHTEEN who one might honestly claim support the fervent belief there was a large blow-out on the far back of Kennedy's head in the occipital region, and one of these, Oliver, might very well have not even seen the wound. So that's five. Well, how many of these five have claimed the boh autopsy photos are fake? McClelland won't say so--he thinks they're legit, but that some loose scalp has been lifted. So, what are you left with? Not much. Crenshaw and Bell were so erratic that they couldn't even place the head wound in the same place on the ARRB's anatomy drawings as they had but a moment before.

And you KNOW this, don't you? Not only have we gone through this before, but you admitted in this post that Aguilar's witnesses were for a wound to the "right rear"...NOT the middle of the back of JFK's head, where Mantik and YOU place the wound.

So...drum roll, please, are you finally willing to admit that the witnesses are not exactly consistent and that Mantik's placement of the Harper fragment puts him at odds with the witnesses?

Edited January 15, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Daniel,

Good post! I was drafting mine making the same point as well as others and have just discovered yours. Thanks for putting it up. As for the question of whether the wound was ABOVE or BELOW the top of his right ear, it appears to me to have been at approximately the same level as the ear. So my inclination is to say it was BEHIND THE RIGHT EAR AT ABOUT THE SAME LEVEL AS THE WHOLE EAR BUT AT THE RIGHT REAR OF THE HEAD. It does not appear to have extended to the top of the ear. Since we can actually see the wound in frame 374, that is roughly how I would answer your question.

Jim

P.S. You're still running from my question. Was the wound you imagine to be on the back of Kennedy's head ABOVE or BELOW the top of his right ear?

Pat, since Dr. Fetzer mentioned me on page one of this thread, I feel compelled to mention the early reports of cerebellum protruding from the gaping wound in the back of the head. In his report to Parkland Administrator J.C. Price on the day of the assassination, Dr. Jenkins witnessed "...there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the crebellum had protruded from the wound." (CE 392 in 17WCH 15). Jenkins told Specter the same(6WCH 48&51) and years later to Purdy (7HSCA 286-7). In 1978 Jenkins told the Nov. 24, 1978 Amercian Medical News that "part of his cerebellum was hanging out."(p. 14)

I would ask anyone on this forum, and Pat, you in particular, how the cerebellum could be protruding from a wound high in the back of the head.

Perry told the WC: "We speculated as to wheter he had been shot once to twice because we saw the entry in the throat and noted the large occipital wound." (emphasis mine). Dr. Peters tod the WC ofa "large defect in the occiput... in the right occipitoparietal area" (6 WCH 21) and told Lifton in 1966: " I could see the back of his head quite well. The whole occipital area was blown out, and the skin was shoved a little bit forward and his parietal was a little bit wrinkled...[the wound ] was more occipital than parietal...because we had to get up to his head, to look in through the back, to see the extent of the wound." (BE 316). When Lifton asked Peters what he meant by the back of the head, he indicated "much as if you were to put your hand to the back of the head, about where it would go, naturally."

Where my hand goes naturally, I would expect some of my cerebellum to be hanging out, were I shot as Kennedy.

Other witnesses to cerebellum: Dr. Kemp Clark, neurosurgeon, in a report filed the afternoon of the assassination (17 WCH 9-10); also Dr. Baxter (6 WCH 41), Dr. Carrico: ""We opened his shirt and coat and tie and observed a small wound in the anterior lower third of the neck,...The large skull and scalp wound had been previously observed and was inspected a little more closely. There seemed to be a 4-5 cm. area of avulsion of the scalp and the skull was fragmented and bleeding cerebral and cerebellar tissue." (page 3 of his deposition before Specter; also page 6:"The wound that I saw was a large gaping wound, located in the right occipitoparietal area, I would estimate its size to be about 5-7 cm in size, more or less circular...there was shredded macerated cerebral and cerebellar tissues both in the wounds on on the fragments of the dull attached to the dura."), McClelland in his famous description of the wound, Dr. Peters, quoted above, Dr. Perry before the HSCA (7 HAC 302):"And I looked at the head wound briefly by leaning over the table and noticed that the parietal occipital head wound was largely avulsive and there was visible brain tissue in the macard and some cerebellum seen.."; also Crenshaw before the ARRB (March 19,1997). Crenshaw's drawing of the wound encompasses both cerebral and cerebullar areas (Crenshaw 4). Audrey Bell's placement of the wound is very similar (Bell 3 and 4).

If cerebellum was hanging out of the gaping hole in the back of Kennedy's head, then one may deduce that, however high the wound was, it was also quite low. If one take Carrico's 5-7 cm (about 3 inches in diameter) nearly circular wound and place the bottom of it at the upper part of the cerebellum, the wound would probably extend to the the top of the ear. This would be occiptial/parietal, just as the Dallas testimony indicates.

The existence of cerebullar tissue hanging from the wound is decisive as to where the wound in the back of the head was. Best, Daniel.

Edited January 15, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Pat Speer]

I guess if Robert Harris can grossly misrepresent my position by falsely alleging that I am comparing what Clint Hill

had to say in 2010 with the Zapruder film in 1963 (when in fact I have copiously documented that he has been saying

the same thing since 1963), I should not be surprised that you would similarly grossly misrepresent my position by

talking about the HARPER FRAGMENT and falsely claim I said it was in THE CENTER OF THE BACK OF THE HEAD.

You are both engaging in "the straw man" by offering distorted version of the argument to make it easier to attack.

That's pretty bad, Pat, since everyone agrees that it was slightly to the RIGHT OF CENTER. Neither David Mantik

nor I place it precisely at the center. Have you forgotten it is your claim it was at the side of the head?. You claim to

have "gone through those 18 witnesses" on your web site. ALL OF THEM PLACE THE WOUND AT THE BACK OF

THE HEAD. NONE OF THEM PLACE IT AT THE SIDE OF THE HEAD. Not only are you disregarding where these

witnesses placed their hands to demonstrate where the wound was located, but you ignore what they have to say:

Beverly Oliver: "The whole back of his head was flying out the car."

Phillip Willis: "It took the back of his head off."

Marilyn Willis: "A red 'halo'. Matter was coming out the back of his head."

Ed Hoffman: "The back of his head was gone, blasted outward."

Dr. Robert McClelland: "It was in the right back part of the head . . . very large . . ."

Dr. Paul Peters: ". . . right there, occipital/parietal."

Dr. Kenneth Salyer: "This wound extended into the parietal area."

Dr. Charles Carrico: "There was a large--quite a large--defect about here [pointing] on his skull."

Dr. Richard Delaney: "It was up in this area."

Dr. Charles Crenshaw: "The wound was the size of a baseball."

Dr. Ronald Jones: "My impression was there was a wound in this area of the head."

Nurse Audrey Bell: "There was a massive wound at the back of the head."

Theran Ward: "It was right back here."

Aubrey Rike: "You could feel the sharp edges of the bone at the edge of the whole in the back of his head."

Frank O'Neill: ". . . a massive wound in the right rear."

Jerrol Custer: "From the top of the head, almost to the base of the skull, you could see where that part was gone."

Paul O'Connor: "[There was] an open area all the way across into the rear of the brain."

Floyd Riebe: ". . . a big gaping hole in the back of the head."

According to your pet theory, however, there was no massive gaping hole at the back of the head; instead, it was

at the side of the head, although NONE OF THESE WITNESSES PLACED THEIR HAND AT THE SIDE OF THEIR

HEAD and NONE OF THE DESCRIBED THE WOUND AS AT THE SIDE OF THE HEAD. So I am fascinated by the

principle of reasoning you are relying upon, which appears to have the following form (Speer's princple): "If the

witness says it was at the back of the head, discount it and reassert that it was actually at the side of the head."

Moreover, I have repeatedly asked you for the location of the cerebellum, which is shown in my chapter, "Dealey

Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK?", JOHN F. KENNEDY: HISTORY, MEMORY, LEGACY, Chapter 30, on page

361. This is important, because the physicians at Parkland, who were experienced with gunshot wounds. were

quite consistent in describing cerebellar as well as cerebral tissue extruding from the wound at the back of the

head. I have a summary (originally prepared by Gary Aguilar) of their observations on page 360 as follows:

According to Dr. Crenshaw, the cerebellum was hanging out of the rear head wound;

According to Dr. Jenkins, cerebellum was hanging out from a hole in the right rear of the head;

According to Dr. Carrico, the skull was fragmented and bleeding cerebral and cerebellar tissue;

According to Dr. Perry, there was visible brain tissue in the macard and some cerebellum was seen;

According to Dr. McClellan, brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar issue had been blasted out;

According to Dr. Clalrk, cerebral and cerebellar had been damaged and exposed.

Given the relative location of the cerebellum and the location at the side of the wound that Pat Speer prefers, the

probability that cerebellar tissue would be extruding from the side of the head is virtually non-existent, and, of

course, none of the physicians suggested that this massive wound was located anywhere but the rear of the head.

You cannot prove a wound was at the side of the head based on witnesses who report it was at the right rear!

What we have here is the massive disregard of the observations of witnesses at Dealey Plaza, Parkland Hospital,

and even Bethesda, who consistently maintain this massive wound was to the right rear, not at the side of the head.

It a prime attribute of scientific research is to discount the observations of the best witnesses, including, in this case,

the Parkland physicians, then Pat Speer is a paragon of scientific research. Otherwise, he is something else entirely.

What is there here that you do not understand? And

are you unaware of the location of the cerebellum?

So it is your contention that you, Pat Speer, are

right and the witnesses, who were there, are wrong?

Aguilar's study of the descriptions of the wound at

the right rear confirm my position, not your scheme.

That means the HSCA photo/diagram is faked, which, all

things considered, would be reasonable for you to admit.

And these witnesses are from Dealey Plaza, Parkland,

and Bethesda, even including Special Agents of the FBI.

So it's not just Pat Speer against the Parkland doctors,

but Pat Speer against the vast majority of the witnesses.

Here we can actually see the blow out to the back of

the head, where the pinkish skull flap is also visible:

What nonsense, Jim. I go through those 18 witnesses one by one on my website, and show how they absolutely positively 100% DO NOT confirm your position that the Harper fragment was OCCIPITAL bone, and that there was a large blow-out on the MIDDLE of the back of JFK's head! Two of the witnesses--Phil Willis and Aubrey Rike--never saw the wound. Two of the witnesses--Custer and O'Connor--described a wound from the front of JFK's head all the way to the back, and were clearly describing the wound after the scalp was peeled back, and skull fell to the table. Five of the witnesses--M. Willis, Hoffman, Carrico, Dulaney, and O'Neil--claimed the wound was high on the head, above the ear and the occipital region. Two more--Salyer and Ward--placed it on the side of the head, and not the far back. When finally shown them by the ARRB, Floyd Riebe deferred to the accuracy of the autopsy photos. So what does that leave? Six witnesses of EIGHTEEN who one might honestly claim support the fervent belief there was a large blow-out on the far back of Kennedy's head in the occipital region, and one of these, Oliver, might very well have not even seen the wound. So that's five. Well, how many of these five have claimed the boh autopsy photos are fake? McClelland won't say so--he thinks they're legit, but that some loose scalp has been lifted. So, what are you left with? Not much. Crenshaw and Bell were so erratic that they couldn't even place the head wound in the same place on the ARRB's anatomy drawings as they had but a moment before.

And you KNOW this, don't you? Not only have we gone through this before, but you admitted in this post that Aguilar's witnesses were for a wound to the "right rear"...NOT the middle of the back of JFK's head, where Mantik and YOU place the wound.

So...drum roll, please, are you finally willing to admit that the witnesses are not exactly consistent and that Mantik's placement of the Harper fragment puts him at odds with the witnesses?

Oy Vey, Jim, look at the photos YOU'VE posted, will ya? They "prove" the wound was not where you claim it was.

Beverly Oliver--holds her hand to the back of her head on the right side. Her fingers extend above the top of her ear. Is it your contention she was wrong?

Phil Willis--holds his hand to the back of his head ABOVE his ear. But he doesn't count anyway, seeing as he never saw the wound.

Marilyn Willis--holds her hand to the very top of the right side of her head. Not anywhere near where you place the wound. Is it your contention she was wrong?

Ed Hoffman--holds his hand above and in back of his right ear. Other photos show him placing the wound directly above his ear. Is it your contention he was wrong?

Robert McClelland--holds his hand above and in back of his right ear. Is it your contention he was wrong?

Paul Peters--on the far back of the right side of his head, extending well above the level of his ear. Is it your contention he was wrong?

Kenneth Salyer--on the right side of his head, behind and above the level of his ear. Is it your contention he was wrong?

Charles Carrico--on the right back side of his head entirely above the level of his ear. Is it your contention he was wrong?

Richard Dulaney--at the crown of his head, FAR above his ear and far way from where you place the wound. Is it your contention he was wrong?

Charles Crenshaw--on the right back side of his head and stretching slightly above the level of his right ear. Is it your contention he was wrong?

Ronald Jones--on the right back side of his head and almost entirely above the level of his right ear. Is it your contention he was wrong?

Audrey Bell--on the right back side of her head and stretching slightly above the level of her right ear. Is it your contention she was wrong?

Theron Ward--on the right side of his head near his ear. Is it your contention he was wrong?

Aubrey Rike--never saw the wound. He claims he felt the wound, however, on the right back side of the head, mostly above the ear. Is it your contention he was wrong?

Frank O'Neil--at the right back side of his head, entirely above his ear. He also claims there was an entrance wound on the bone near the EOP, where you claim there was a large hole. It IS your contention he was wrong.

Jerrol Custer--at the back of his head behind the right ear, stretching to slightly above his ear. BIG problem, however, the image is a still from a video in which Custer described the wound as stretching from the very top of Kennedy's head all the way back to where his hand is in the image. He is clearly describing the skull AFTER the scalp was reflected and skull fell to the table.

Paul O'Connor--ditto Custer on both points. His hand on the back of his head stretches slightly above the level of his ear AND this image was taken from a video in which he claimed the wound stretched from the top to the back. He was clearly describing what he saw during the autopsy and not at the beginning.

Floyd Riebe--at the back of his head almost entirely above his ear. He later deferred to the accuracy of the autopsy photos. YOU'RE now claiming he was wrong even when he was claiming they were fakes.

Hmmm, how about that? The very photos you claim prove you correct prove you wrong. None of these witnesses placed the wound on the far back of the head, BELOW the top of Kennedy's ear.

Hmmm, how about this? You've also decided to continue pretending Mantik is not at odds with these witnesses by claiming he places the Harper fragment slightly to the right of midline. Well, Mantik's orientation is on the slide below, marked by an H.

The Harper fragment in his orientation is almost exactly in the middle, and stretches well over the midline onto the left side.

So...not only are you in disagreement with the witnesses on the vertical placement of the wound, you are in disagreement on the horizontal placement.

In this light...

1. Do you stick by Mantik's orientation for the Harper fragment?

2. Do you still suspect the large head wound was below the level of the top of Kennedy's ear?

and

3. IF the answers to the above two questions remain YES and YES, then how can you claim your opinion is supported by the statements of ALL these witnesses, when NONE of them remotely agree with you?

P.S. Can you even see the inconsistency in your claiming Clint Hill's memory is correct and that it proves the Z-film is fake when you are in the same thread admitting you believe the head wound was at the level of Kennedy's ear? Uhh, HELLO, Hill has repeatedly claimed the wound was ABOVE Kennedy's ear. I mean, does this even register?

Edited January 15, 2011 by Pat Speer

[Ian Kingsbury]

In his statement Clint Hill says" there was a second shot I did not hear"What if that was the head shot ? and another shot occured after that as in Brehms statement " after the second shot hit the head" would indicate a shot after "313"

Doug Horne whilst discussing the presentation boards( cant remember which set)that the FBI agents stated that 6 - 8 shots could have been fired.If the W.C. admits to 3 shots they must be playing around with the sequence.I do not believe the "313" head shot was the last .And it appears that Clint Hill was told their was a second shot while he was in between the Queen mary and the limo, and the head shot "313" occurred as he got there.and as it has been displayed that Altgens was foggy about his testimony.So once again we have the age old problem of witness testimonies or our Lyin eyes.

We are being told in testimony of many events occurring at the time and just after the shooting we tend to believe our eyes because its there in front of us .Chaney's forward ride for example .If you follow the testimony we should be looking at a completely different film or are we?.

Ian

[Daniel Gallup]

Pat,

What about the reports of cerebellum?

Just so. Pictures of people putting their hand in the back of the head, while certainly backing the notion that there was an exit wound there, pales in significance to the actual type of brain herniation observed and recorded contemporaneously at Parkland. I would suggest everyone go back to Dr. Peter's description to Lifton of the interior of the back of the head, BE chapter 13, esp pp. 324-5. Best, Daniel