DID ZAPRUDER FILM "THE ZAPRUDER FILM"?

[Robin Unger]

Malcolm Kilduff under pressure.

Atkin's out take frames.

[Robin Unger]

Drain Hole on autopsy table.

I beleive the F8 photo shows the scalp reflected FORWARD over the face as per a normal autopsy

and not reflected SIDEWAYS HALF WAY ACROSS THE SKULL as some orientation's of this image would imply.

Also the visible drain hole shown on the autopsy table in F8 leads me to orientate the image as shown below.

Edited April 1, 2011 by Robin Unger

[Robin Unger]

What appears to me to show two half circles.

Edited April 1, 2011 by Robin Unger

[James R Gordon]

Robin,

I agree that FOX 1 does show both parts of the neck wound. Where I disagree is that you do not see both half’s. I believe that the tracheotomy damaged the upper half of it and only small portion of that remains.

That said, what does remain is of crucial importance. It is so because it places where the wound was on the body. For a long time I was of the opinion we could never properly establish exactly where on the neck this wound impacted the body. Although, just like Malcolm Perry, Charles Carrico was asked to point, on his own body, to where the bullet impacted. Where no one said where Perry was pointing, Alan Dulles did say that he was pointing above the knot in his tie.

Recently I devised a method where we might be able to prove Carrico and Perry’s evidence. There is a weakness in this proof and maybe others will be better able to darken the neck area of FOX 1 and remove the over brightness of the flash on the neck area. That said, I believe I can demonstrate exactly where the bullet impacted on Kennedy’s throat.

The crucial aspects of the evidence is the location of the upper part of the throat wound ( not the bottom half which has fallen by this point ) and the picture taken of Kennedy in Fort Worth that morning as he was speaking to the crowd. Why, for me, the Fort Worth image is so important is that it shows that Kennedy had creases in his neck. Further these creases have not changed their position since that morning. Linking these creases, that are also visible in FOX 1, is the way it can be demonstrated where the bullet impacted.

Hopefully others will be more skilled in being able to adjust flash reflection in FOX 1 and thereby more clearly prove what I believe I have proved. I believe my demonstration shows clearly that the bullet entered just above the knot in his tie.

James.

[Jack White]

I remember reading that the CEREBELLUM is a distinctly different COLOR than the CEREBRUM, so the doctors

could not possibly mistake the two. A little research could verify this.

Jack

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Robin,

I agree that FOX 1 does show both parts of the neck wound. Where I disagree is that you do not see both half’s. I believe that the tracheotomy damaged the upper half of it and only small portion of that remains.

That said, what does remain is of crucial importance. It is so because it places where the wound was on the body. For a long time I was of the opinion we could never properly establish exactly where on the neck this wound impacted the body. Although, just like Malcolm Perry, Charles Carrico was asked to point, on his own body, to where the bullet impacted. Where no one said where Perry was pointing, Alan Dulles did say that he was pointing above the knot in his tie.

Recently I devised a method where we might be able to prove Carrico and Perry’s evidence. There is a weakness in this proof and maybe others will be better able to darken the neck area of FOX 1 and remove the over brightness of the flash on the neck area. That said, I believe I can demonstrate exactly where the bullet impacted on Kennedy’s throat.

The crucial aspects of the evidence is the location of the upper part of the throat wound ( not the bottom half which has fallen by this point ) and the picture taken of Kennedy in Fort Worth that morning as he was speaking to the crowd. Why, for me, the Fort Worth image is so important is that it shows that Kennedy had creases in his neck. Further these creases have not changed their position since that morning. Linking these creases, that are also visible in FOX 1, is the way it can be demonstrated where the bullet impacted.

Hopefully others will be more skilled in being able to adjust flash reflection in FOX 1 and thereby more clearly prove what I believe I have proved. I believe my demonstration shows clearly that the bullet entered just above the knot in his tie.

James.

All,

I offer up this 4pt article to counter the claim that Dr. Carrico said the throat wound was above the collar:

http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/06/twists-turns-of-single-bullet-critics.html

http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/12/twists-turns-of-single-bullet-critics.html

http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/12/twists-turns-of-single-bullet-critics_26.html

http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/07/twists-turns-of-single-bullet-critics.html

Todd

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

1. There were, of course, two shots to the head, where the entry wound in the back of the head has been established on the basis of the beveling of a bone fragment, as David Mantik has explained in "Paradoxes of the JFK Assassination: The Medical Evidence Decoded", MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000). He explains how we know that the wound at the crown on the head shown in the HSAC photograph and diagram is not an authentic wound, but also how we know where to place the Harper fragment and the beveling that enabled him to establish the location of the entry of the bullet fired from behind.

2. He also discusses the stunning discrepancy reflected by the difference between the massive absence of 1/4 to 1/3 of the area of the cranium and the much smaller wound described by the sources he cites in his study, which, as David explains on page 234, came as news to those who were in charge. This was such an incompetent investigation that I can hardly believe it has not received more attention from the research community. The Groden photos, as I have said before, are fakes. To offer one nice point of proof, there was no aluminum support device as shown supporting the head in these photos in the morgue.

Not to make an obvious point, but moving the entry of the wound to the back of the head upward by 4"

is hardly going to compensate for the absurdity of contradicting the official autopsy report of missing

mass that represents around 1/4 to 1/3 of the area of the skull. How can making this relatively trivial

move possibly compensate for having to reconstruct the skull compared to the official autopsy report?

They had to have made the enormous gamble that no one would notice what was entirely preposterous.

2 points.

1. When the entrance wound was moved, few were talking about a divide between what was seen in Dallas vs. what was seen in Bethesda. People ASSUMED the wound seen in Bethesda was toward the back of the head, a la the wound in the Rydberg drawings.

2. Simple fact that needs to sink in. The discussion and measurement of the head wound in the autopsy report is a discussion of the head wound AFTER the scalp was peeled back and skull fell to the table. That is why the size of this wound (and the nature of this wound--its stretching into the occipital) is not reflected in the autopsy photos with the scalp intact, but is reflected in the photos with the scalp reflected.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Compare the Crenshaw diagrams, which appear to be quite accurate of the wound before and after the tracheostomy,

which was confirmed by Malcolm Perry during the Parkland press conference, with what you have from Bethesda, which

I also published in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), which substantiate this very small entrance wound to the throat:

In his excellent chapter in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), where Crenshaw discusses the wounds and where his

diagrams of both the throat and the head wound appear as Appendix A, he presents and discusses the descriptions

of the other physicians, including Jenkins, Carrico, Baxter, and Perry, which he summarizes on page 49 as follows:

1. I saw a wound in the back of the head--occipital and parietal. So did Jenkins, Carrico, Baxter and Perry.

Some say occipital and parietal, others say occipital and temporal. The occipital bone in the rear of the head

is mentioned by all of us. The size and nature of the wound is very similar in all our descriptions.

2. I saw cerebellar tissue handing out of the large head wound. So did Jenkins, Carrico, Baxter, and Perry.

3. I saw a small entrance wound in the front of the throat. Perry called it an entrance wound. Carrico called it

a "penetrating wound". Baxter still says it could have been an entrance wound.

And of course Perry, who had performed the tracheostomy through the wound, stated THREE TIMES during the

Parkland press conference that "There was an entrance wound in the neck", "[That the bullet] appeared to be

coming at him", and, later in the conference, Q: "Doctor, describe the entrance wound. You think from the front

of the throat?" PERRY: "The wound appeared to be an entrance wound in the front of the throat, yes, that is correct",

where the transcript of the press conference was published as Appendix C to ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998).

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pat has argued that, if cerebral tissue were macerated (ground up and mixed with blood), then it could be

mistaken for cerebellar tissue, which, I presume, is true. But there is no good reason to think that such a

mistake occurred. The physicians reports were consistent in their descriptions of extruding cerebellum.

Jack has asked me to post another study on his behalf, which I am glad to do. Sorting out the wounds

using photographs of the inside of the cranium is extraordinarily complicated, where I recommend that

anyone with a serious interest in these questions must read Mantik's brilliant chapter in MURDER (2000):

quote name='Jack White' date='01 April 2011 - 04:12 PM' timestamp='1301667123' post='222574']

I remember reading that the CEREBELLUM is a distinctly different COLOR than the CEREBRUM,

so the doctors could not possibly mistake the two. A little research could verify this.

Jack

Edited April 1, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Pat Speer]

Drain Hole on autopsy table.

I beleive the F8 photo shows the scalp reflected FORWARD over the face as per a normal autopsy

and not reflected SIDEWAYS HALF WAY ACROSS THE SKULL as some orientation's of this image would imply.

Also the visible drain hole shown on the autopsy table in F8 leads me to orientate the image as shown below.

Robin, I discuss the drainage hole on my website and in part 4 of my video series, and it suggests the opposite of what you think it does.

Here's another image which may be of interest.

Edited April 1, 2011 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

My response in italics.

Compare the Crenshaw diagrams, which appear to be quite accurate of the wound before and after the tracheostomy,

which was confirmed by Malcolm Perry during the Parkland press conference, with what you have from Bethesda, which

I also published in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), which substantiate this very small entrance wound to the throat:

My response. McClelland--a conspiracy theorist who was far more involved in the autopsy than Crenshaw--has long claimed the autopsy photos accurately reflect the size of the tracheostomy incision. I don't believe Perry, who made the incision, ever claimed the wound in the photos was different than the one he created. If you have evidence he said so, please refresh my memory.

In his excellent chapter in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), where Crenshaw discusses the wounds and where his

diagrams of both the throat and the head wound appear as Appendix A, he presents and discusses the descriptions

of the other physicians, including Jenkins, Carrico, Baxter, and Perry, which he summarizes on page 49 as follows:

1. I saw a wound in the back of the head--occipital and parietal. So did Jenkins, Carrico, Baxter and Perry.

Some say occipital and parietal, others say occipital and temporal. The occipital bone in the rear of the head

is mentioned by all of us. The size and nature of the wound is very similar in all our descriptions.

My response: Yes, the size and nature of the wound is similar. It is also similar to the wound in the autopsy photos. It is only the location that is in question. And none of the other three support Crenshaw's claim the wound was on the back of the head at the level of the ear and below. Baxter, in fact, testified to skull plate extruding from the side of the head, which supports the accuracy of the autopsy photos far more than it does the so-called McClelland drawing.

2. I saw cerebellar tissue handing out of the large head wound. So did Jenkins, Carrico, Baxter, and Perry.

My response: I've read retractions of the claim there was cerebellar tissue by Jenkins, Carrico, and Perry. I'm not sure about Baxter, but would bet there's one out there somewhere.

3. I saw a small entrance wound in the front of the throat. Perry called it an entrance wound. Carrico called it

a "penetrating wound". Baxter still says it could have been an entrance wound.

And of course Perry, who had performed the tracheostomy through the wound, stated THREE TIMES during the

Parkland press conference that "There was an entrance wound in the neck", "[That the bullet] appeared to be

coming at him", and, later in the conference, Q: "Doctor, describe the entrance wound. You think from the front

of the throat?" PERRY: "The wound appeared to be an entrance wound in the front of the throat, yes, that is correct",

where the transcript of the press conference was published as Appendix C to ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998).

My response: This is true. Perry said he thought it was an entrance wound, and then pretended for the Warren Commission that he'd never said it. While this does little to prove it really was an entrance wound--emergency room doctors make mistakes regarding entrance and exit wounds all the time--the reason WHY he thought it was an entrance wound is of great importance--its small size. The small size of this wound does not support that this wound was an exit for a high-velocity bullet. So what was it?

Edited April 1, 2011 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

Pat has argued that, if cerebral tissue were macerated (ground up and mixed with blood), then it could be

mistaken for cerebellar tissue, which, I presume, is true. But there is no good reason to think that such a

mistake occurred. The physicians reports were consistent in their descriptions of extruding cerebellum.

Jack has asked me to post another study on his behalf, which I am glad to do. Sorting out the wounds

using photographs of the inside of the cranium is extraordinarily complicated, where I recommend that

anyone with a serious interest in these questions must read Mantik's brilliant chapter in MURDER (2000):

I remember reading that the CEREBELLUM is a distinctly different COLOR than the CEREBRUM,

so the doctors could not possibly mistake the two. A little research could verify this.

Jack

When Jack first posted this image last year, I honestly thought he was messing with me. But I guess it's for real. Unfortunately, his orientation is self-contradictory. The area on the left of the image, which shows a close-up of the dark area on the left of the photo at right, depicts a bullet entrance just right of the EOP, a bony protuberance in the middle of the back of the head. I agree with him on this. The problem is that, in Jack's orientation for the photo at right, this area is on the left side of the head, an impossibility.

Edited April 1, 2011 by Pat Speer

[James R Gordon]

I offer up this 4pt article to counter the claim that Dr. Carrico said the throat wound was above the collar:

Todd

Todd,

Although you are technically right that Carrico did not specifically say that the wound was above the collar

he did testify to its position by pointing to exactly where he saw the wound. Unlike when Malcolm Perry was asked

to do exactly same thing, no-one commented where he (Perry) was pointing.

You will find the conversation at the bottom of the reference I have included below. What makes

Carrico's testimony different is that Alan Dulles comments exactly where he is pointing to. That is at the top of page 362.

The beginning of this exchange is at the bottom of page 361.

Note the words Dulles says: "And you put your hand right above where your tie is."

I would have thought in anybody's language surely that makes it clear that the wound was above the collar!!

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0185a.htm

James

Edited April 1, 2011 by James R Gordon

[Pat Speer]

I offer up this 4pt article to counter the claim that Dr. Carrico said the throat wound was above the collar:

Todd

Todd,

Although you are technically right that Carrico did not specifically say that the wound was above the collar

he did testify to its position by pointing to exactly where he saw the wound. Unlike when Malcolm Perry was asked

to do exactly same thing, no-one commented where he (Perry) was pointing.

You will find the conversation at the bottom of the reference I have included below. What makes

Carrico's testimony different is that Alan Dulles comments exactly where he is pointing to. That is at the top of page 362.

The beginning of this exchange is at the bottom of page 361.

Note the words Dulles says: "And you put your hand right above where your tie is."

I would have thought in anybody's language surely that makes it clear that the wound was above the collar!!

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0185a.htm

James

I'm sorry, James, but I have to disagree. Dulles says Carrico put his hand above his tie. If Carrico was trying to point out a specific location above his collar, he wouldn't have used his hand, he'd have used a finger. When Dulles says his hand was above his tie, furthermore, it's unclear if this means his hand was above the vertical level of the tie, or simply on the outside of the tie on the same vertical level, covering the tie. If you were asked to put your hand above your heart, and were sitting at a table, you would place it on the same vertical level as your heart. At least I would.

Edited April 1, 2011 by Pat Speer

[Todd W. Vaughan]

I offer up this 4pt article to counter the claim that Dr. Carrico said the throat wound was above the collar:

Todd

Todd,

Although you are technically right that Carrico did not specifically say that the wound was above the collar

he did testify to its position by pointing to exactly where he saw the wound. Unlike when Malcolm Perry was asked

to do exactly same thing, no-one commented where he (Perry) was pointing.

You will find the conversation at the bottom of the reference I have included below. What makes

Carrico's testimony different is that Alan Dulles comments exactly where he is pointing to. That is at the top of page 362.

The beginning of this exchange is at the bottom of page 361.

Note the words Dulles says: "And you put your hand right above where your tie is."

I would have thought in anybody's language surely that makes it clear that the wound was above the collar!!

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0185a.htm

James

James,

Did you even read what I wrote in my article, because one wouldn't think so based on your reply?

#1. As I make clear in part 1 of my article, when first asked where the wound was located Dr. Carrico responded Just about where your tie would be. Like Weisberg, however, you seem to act like Dr. Carrico never said that, never mentioning it in your reply, even though it is the central part of my argument.

Certainly you dont believe that President Kennedy wore his tie above his collar, do you? That would be absurd.

#2. As I also make clear in part 1 of my article, after Dulles says I see. And you put your hand right above where your tie is?, Dr. Carrico replies with Yes, , sir; just where the tie . Dulles cuts Dr. Carrico off at that point with his A little bit to the left.

Had he not been cut off by Dulles, what do you think Dr. Carrico was going to continue saying, Just where the tie is above the collar.? Again, that would be absurd.

#3. As I also make clear in part 4 of my article on August 2, 1977 when asked by Bob Porter, Public Relations Director of The Sixth Floor Museum, if the wound was above or below the collar Dr. Carrico replied with By, by the time I looked, Diane, the nurse had - had started taking his clothes off. Which - which was her job so I really didnt - dont know whether it was through the collar or not but it was certainly at the collar line. It was just about right there, just to the right of the trachea and just a, certainly where his collar should have been.

Safe to safe to say the collar could not have been above the collar.

I suggest you go back and read my article again.

Todd

Edited April 2, 2011 by Todd W. Vaughan