DID ZAPRUDER FILM "THE ZAPRUDER FILM"?

[Pat Speer]

I very much appreciate this exchange, Cliff & Jim. A lot of good stuff here, IMO. Cliff, correct me if

I'm wrong, but for clarity--I placed an emphasis on one of the words you used above, namely, the word:

CONCLUDE.

It may have indeed been coincidence. That's a hard one to "nail down"...and the term "coincidence" is hardly

anything but imprecise. I remember commenting on the JFKresearch Forum that I would reject a shot through

the windshield as a "first choice" when other--more desirable--positions were available. John Ritchson retorted

something that I find very compelling. He said that firing a sniper shot through a windshield is not a problem at

all. The glass is a non-issue. The broader issue is this: If a shot needed to originate from that spot in order to

establish triangulation...then so be it. Done deal.

This is not correct, Greg. I've done quite a bit of reading on this over the years, and the shooter forums are filled with tales of men shooting into windshields and measuring the deflection. It's quite substantial...when a bullet enters glass at an angle, it's deflected towards a right angle to the glass.

In this case, it's hard to see how a shot could hit the front windshield flush. If someone were to aim directly at Kennedy from in front of him and shoot through the front windshield the bullet would be deflected down towards Connally.

Edited April 12, 2011 by Pat Speer

[Greg Burnham]

And I've done quite a bit of shooting...

[Mark Knight]

As distasteful as it is for me to support Craig Lamson, we cannot honestly compare the images in post 507 without knowing the exact orientation of the windshield in the second image. In the second image, there's simply no reference to what's top or bottom of the windshield, and as to whether the image is taken from what was the inside or the outside of the windshield. The second image in post 499 would seem to IMPLY that the second image in post 506 may have been taken from what would've been the INSIDE of the car. So until/unless we can document the orientation of the second image in post 507, it's hard to say whether it's a match or not. AND without tilting the image [and inducing the corresponding distortion] to correspond with the INSTALLED angle of the windshield, even a "near" match may appear to look completely differently...i.e., some of the cracks in the windshield may not be visible in the Parkland [?] photo because of the angle of the sun in relation to the edge of the crack, for example. But Lamson's correct...until we take perspective into consideration, ANY comparison is moot.

Mark The orientation can be seen in this image i posted originally in this thread. It shows the crack is on the INSIDE OF THE WINDSCREEN This image more correctly align's with Altgens 7 NOT altgens 6

NARA image flipped and placed over the top of the whitehouse garage image so as to approximate the Altgens 6 orientation

NARA color image resized only ( no rotation )

Small GIF ( 3-frames )

Thanks, Robin...clarifies things quite well.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

OK. It appears that I mistook the inside view for an outside view and that they are the same. But they are

both from the substitute windshield. That pattern of cracks, assuming they are inside/outside views, is not

seen in the Altgens. The through-and-through hole is the white, spiral nebula with a dark hole in the center at

a location where JFK's left ear would be visible were it not obscured by the nebula. Take another look at the

location I am describing. The damage to the windshields is not remotely the same. Here's page 21 from HOAX:

Moreover, we know that multiple windshields were involved. Bob Livingston reported having learned that

the Secret Service had obtained a dozen for "target practice". Clearly, that would be necessary if a bullet

was going to be fired through the windshield. They would do that PRECISELY BECAUSE no one would be

inclined to think that such a shot would be attempted. But the evidence supporting it is rather substantial.

JFK's military aide, who normally rode between Greer and Kellerman, was completely removed from the limo.

The shot to the throat, on the assumption it passed through the hole, leads back to a shooting location on

the south end of the Triple Underpass, as Doug Weldon has confirmed. The bullet appears to have hit bone

and fragmented, part going downward into the lung, part upward and rupturing the tough tentorium. As I

have explained several times, it was Bob's opinion--as a world authority on the human brain and an expert

on wound ballistics--that cerebellum would not have been extruding unless the tentorium were damaged.

How is that supposed to happen with an ice bullet? Indeed, is there any other reasonable explanation for

the extruding cerebellum? Not only can we see the through-and-through hole in the windshield in the

Altgens photograph, but the shot appears to have hit shortly before frame 225 was taken. That appears

to be right in timing, since JFK has just begun to raise his hands toward his throat in that frame. Plus, as

I have also explained, we have the reports of the sound of a firecracker, which such a shot would make.

So we have a shot to the throat. We have a hole in the windshield. We have a frame showing that hole in

proximity to JFK beginning to raise his hands to his throat. We have the sound of a firecracker. We have

a shot that traces back--from his throat and the hole in the windshield--to a firing location on the south

end of the Triple Underpass. We have JFK's aide moved to avoid the obstruction. We have the substitute

windshield and a shot to which Greer and Kellerman would have reacted had they not known it was coming.

This last observation is rather telling. If this were simply a through-and-through shot that Kellerman and

Greer HAD NOT KNOWN WAS COMING, surely their reaction would have been dramatic. The probability of

the evidence that I have described on the basis of the hypothesis that the shot was fired as described is

very high, since all of the activities (obtaining a dozen windshields, replacing the original, and such) and

effects (the hole, the sound, the hit, etc.) then have a common cause with a probability about equal to one.

Otherwise, you have an incredible series of improbable coincidences, with the Secret Service just happening

to obtain a dozen windshields, JFK's military aide just happening to be moved, a bullet just happening to be

fired through the windshield, the sound of a firecracker just happening at that time, JFK just happening to be

hit in the throat by a separate shot, his tentorium just happening to be ruptured and, most implausibly, Greer

and Kellerman just happening TO NOT REACT to the shot, the probability of which together approaches zero.

Since the strength of evidence of alternative hypotheses in scientific reasoning is measured by their relative

likelihoods, where the likelihood of an hypothesis (hi) given the evidence is equal to the probability of that

evidence if (hi) were true, we have two hypotheses, (h1) that there was a shot from the south end of the TUP

that hit JFK in the throat, causing all of the effects described; and (h2) that these effects were instead "just

coincidental occurrences", where the likehihood of (h1) is approximately one and of (h2) approximately zero.

Since an hypothesis (h1) is preferable to an alternative (h2) when the likelihood of (h1) is greater than that of

(h2), since a likelihood of one is greater than a likelihood of zero, (h1) is clearly preferable to (h2). Indeed,

since the preferable hypothesis is also acceptable (in the tentative and fallible fashion of science) when the

evidence has "settled down", (h1) is not only preferable but also acceptable, where it has even been proven

"beyond a reasonable doubt", which is the case when no alternative explanation appears to be reasonable.

Edited April 12, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Pat Speer]

OK. It appears that I mistook the inside view for an outside view and that they are the same. But they are

both from the substitute windshield. That pattern of cracks, assuming they are inside/outside views, is not

seen in the Altgens. The through-and-through hole is the white, spiral nebula with a dark hole in the center at

a location where JFK's left ear would be visible were it not obscured by the nebula. Take another look at the

location I am describing. The damage to the windshields is not remotely the same. Here's page 21 from HOAX:

Moreover, we know that multiple windshields were involved. Bob Livingston reported having learned that

the Secret Service had obtained a dozen for "target practice". Clearly, that would be necessary if a bullet

was going to be fired through the windshield. They would do that PRECISELY BECAUSE no one would be

inclined to think that such a shot would be attempted. But the evidence supporting it is rather substantial.

JFK's military aide, who normally rode between Greer and Kellerman, was completely removed from the limo.

The shot to the throat, on the assumption it passed through the hole, leads back to a shooting location on

the south end of the Triple Underpass, as Doug Weldon has confirmed. The bullet appears to have hit bone

and fragmented, part going downward into the lung, part upward and rupturing the tough tentorium. As I

have explained several times, it was Bob's opinion--as a world authority on the human brain and an expert

on wound ballistics--that cerebellum would not have been extruding unless the tentorium were damaged.

How is that supposed to happen with an ice bullet? Indeed, is there any other reasonable explanation for

the extruding cerebellum?

Pardon me if I'm not reading this correctly, but are you REALLY claiming that the bullet you claim exploded from the back of Kennedy's head entered at Kennedy's throat? If so, then why do you persist on pretending Robinson's statements support there was an entrance wound on the front of the head?

Or are you now claiming TWO bullets exited the back of the head?

[Greg Burnham]

That is an extremely compelling argument, Jim. The absence of Godfrey McHugh from the front seat coupled with the absolute dereliction of duty by both

Greer and Kellerman--among the other things--may, indeed, speak volumes.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pat,

JFK was hit four times: once in the throat from in front; once in the back from behind; and twice

in the head, once from behind (near the EOP) and once from in front (entering the right temple).

This tells me that you have never even read my summary overview of the assassination, which is

archived several places. Enter "Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK?", and download

it at http://www.und.edu/instruct/jfkconference/UNDchapter30.pdf or visit my blog at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2009/11/dealey-plaza-revisited-what-happened-to.html

No bullet exited directly out the back of his head. The shot that entered his right temple was an

exploding (or "frangible") bullet, which created shock waves that blew his brains out the back of an

already weakened cranium. A fragment from the throat shot had ruptured the tentorium, which is

the reason why cerebellum was extruding from the wound, as the Parkland physicians reported. I

would be glad if we could come to some kind of mutual understanding about all four of his wounds.

OK. It appears that I mistook the inside view for an outside view and that they are the same. But they are

both from the substitute windshield. That pattern of cracks, assuming they are inside/outside views, is not

seen in the Altgens. The through-and-through hole is the white, spiral nebula with a dark hole in the center at

a location where JFK's left ear would be visible were it not obscured by the nebula. Take another look at the

location I am describing. The damage to the windshields is not remotely the same. Here's page 21 from HOAX:

Moreover, we know that multiple windshields were involved. Bob Livingston reported having learned that

the Secret Service had obtained a dozen for "target practice". Clearly, that would be necessary if a bullet

was going to be fired through the windshield. They would do that PRECISELY BECAUSE no one would be

inclined to think that such a shot would be attempted. But the evidence supporting it is rather substantial.

JFK's military aide, who normally rode between Greer and Kellerman, was completely removed from the limo.

The shot to the throat, on the assumption it passed through the hole, leads back to a shooting location on

the south end of the Triple Underpass, as Doug Weldon has confirmed. The bullet appears to have hit bone

and fragmented, part going downward into the lung, part upward and rupturing the tough tentorium. As I

have explained several times, it was Bob's opinion--as a world authority on the human brain and an expert

on wound ballistics--that cerebellum would not have been extruding unless the tentorium were damaged.

How is that supposed to happen with an ice bullet? Indeed, is there any other reasonable explanation for

the extruding cerebellum?

Pardon me if I'm not reading this correctly, but are you REALLY claiming that the bullet you claim exploded from the back of Kennedy's head entered at Kennedy's throat? If so, then why do you persist on pretending Robinson's statements support there was an entrance wound on the front of the head?

Or are you now claiming TWO bullets exited the back of the head?

Edited April 12, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Pat Speer]

Pat,

JFK was hit four times: once in the throat from in front; once in the back from behind; and twice

in the head, once from behind (near the EOP) and once from in front (entering the right temple).

This tells me that you have never even read my summary overview of the assassination, which is

archived several places. Enter "Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK?", and download

it at http://www.und.edu/instruct/jfkconference/UNDchapter30.pdf or visit my blog at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2009/11/dealey-plaza-revisited-what-happened-to.html

No bullet exited directly out the back of his head. The shot that entered his right temple was an

exploding (or "frangible") bullet, which created shock waves that blew his brains out the back of an

already weakened cranium. A fragment from the throat shot had ruptured the tentorium, which is

the reason why cerebellum was extruding from the wound, as the Parkland physicians reported. I

would be glad if we could come to some kind of mutual understanding about all four of his wounds.

OK. It appears that I mistook the inside view for an outside view and that they are the same. But they are

both from the substitute windshield. That pattern of cracks, assuming they are inside/outside views, is not

seen in the Altgens. The through-and-through hole is the white, spiral nebula with a dark hole in the center at

a location where JFK's left ear would be visible were it not obscured by the nebula. Take another look at the

location I am describing. The damage to the windshields is not remotely the same. Here's page 21 from HOAX:

Moreover, we know that multiple windshields were involved. Bob Livingston reported having learned that

the Secret Service had obtained a dozen for "target practice". Clearly, that would be necessary if a bullet

was going to be fired through the windshield. They would do that PRECISELY BECAUSE no one would be

inclined to think that such a shot would be attempted. But the evidence supporting it is rather substantial.

JFK's military aide, who normally rode between Greer and Kellerman, was completely removed from the limo.

The shot to the throat, on the assumption it passed through the hole, leads back to a shooting location on

the south end of the Triple Underpass, as Doug Weldon has confirmed. The bullet appears to have hit bone

and fragmented, part going downward into the lung, part upward and rupturing the tough tentorium. As I

have explained several times, it was Bob's opinion--as a world authority on the human brain and an expert

on wound ballistics--that cerebellum would not have been extruding unless the tentorium were damaged.

How is that supposed to happen with an ice bullet? Indeed, is there any other reasonable explanation for

the extruding cerebellum?

Pardon me if I'm not reading this correctly, but are you REALLY claiming that the bullet you claim exploded from the back of Kennedy's head entered at Kennedy's throat? If so, then why do you persist on pretending Robinson's statements support there was an entrance wound on the front of the head?

Or are you now claiming TWO bullets exited the back of the head?

I've read your stuff, but I guess this aspect of your theory never sunk in. You have a bullet entering near the EOP, correct? This bullet damaged the area low on the back of the head. And then you have a second bullet entering the right temple and blowing out the back of the head. That's 2 bullets doing extensive damage to the area low on the back of the head. So why presume a THIRD bullet caused the damage to the tentorium?

To be clear, my theory has a bullet heading down the neck from the entrance by the EOP. If there is any evidence a bullet went up the neck and damaged the tentorium, it supports my theory the throat wound and rear head wound are connected. What evidence, if any, have you uncovered to show these wounds were connected?

[Pat Speer]

Pat,

JFK was hit four times: once in the throat from in front; once in the back from behind; and twice

in the head, once from behind (near the EOP) and once from in front (entering the right temple).

This tells me that you have never even read my summary overview of the assassination, which is

archived several places. Enter "Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK?", and download

it at http://www.und.edu/instruct/jfkconference/UNDchapter30.pdf or visit my blog at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2009/11/dealey-plaza-revisited-what-happened-to.html

No bullet exited directly out the back of his head. The shot that entered his right temple was an

exploding (or "frangible") bullet, which created shock waves that blew his brains out the back of an

already weakened cranium. A fragment from the throat shot had ruptured the tentorium, which is

the reason why cerebellum was extruding from the wound, as the Parkland physicians reported. I

would be glad if we could come to some kind of mutual understanding about all four of his wounds.

OK. It appears that I mistook the inside view for an outside view and that they are the same. But they are

both from the substitute windshield. That pattern of cracks, assuming they are inside/outside views, is not

seen in the Altgens. The through-and-through hole is the white, spiral nebula with a dark hole in the center at

a location where JFK's left ear would be visible were it not obscured by the nebula. Take another look at the

location I am describing. The damage to the windshields is not remotely the same. Here's page 21 from HOAX:

Moreover, we know that multiple windshields were involved. Bob Livingston reported having learned that

the Secret Service had obtained a dozen for "target practice". Clearly, that would be necessary if a bullet

was going to be fired through the windshield. They would do that PRECISELY BECAUSE no one would be

inclined to think that such a shot would be attempted. But the evidence supporting it is rather substantial.

JFK's military aide, who normally rode between Greer and Kellerman, was completely removed from the limo.

The shot to the throat, on the assumption it passed through the hole, leads back to a shooting location on

the south end of the Triple Underpass, as Doug Weldon has confirmed. The bullet appears to have hit bone

and fragmented, part going downward into the lung, part upward and rupturing the tough tentorium. As I

have explained several times, it was Bob's opinion--as a world authority on the human brain and an expert

on wound ballistics--that cerebellum would not have been extruding unless the tentorium were damaged.

How is that supposed to happen with an ice bullet? Indeed, is there any other reasonable explanation for

the extruding cerebellum?

Pardon me if I'm not reading this correctly, but are you REALLY claiming that the bullet you claim exploded from the back of Kennedy's head entered at Kennedy's throat? If so, then why do you persist on pretending Robinson's statements support there was an entrance wound on the front of the head?

Or are you now claiming TWO bullets exited the back of the head?

I've read your stuff, but I guess this aspect of your theory never sunk in. You have a bullet entering near the EOP, correct? This bullet damaged the area low on the back of the head. And then you have a second bullet entering the right temple and blowing out the back of the head. That's 2 bullets doing extensive damage to the area low on the back of the head. So why presume a THIRD bullet caused the damage to the tentorium?

To be clear, my theory has a bullet heading down the neck from the entrance by the EOP. If there is any evidence a bullet went up the neck and damaged the tentorium, it supports my theory the throat wound and rear head wound are connected. What evidence, if any, have you uncovered to show these wounds were connected?

I went back and reread your article on what happened. I didn't see anything in there about a fragment of the bullet entering the throat shooting upwards and destroying the tentorium, just before another shot entered near the EOP, just before yet another shot entered the right temple and blew out the back of the head.

Was this something you discussed elsewhere? Or is this a new theory that just popped out the other day?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Please read the statements of Robert B. Livingston, M.D., in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998),

beginning at page 161 but especially pages 163-164, but also page 173 and page 175. It was his

opinion--and we discussed this in person--that even the near simultaneous damage from the back-

of-the-head-near-the-EOP shot and the bullet that entered at his right temple would not have been

sufficient to disrupt cerebellar tissue UNLESS the tentorium had already been damaged. Given his

standing as a world authority on the human brain and an expert on wound ballistics, I would hope

you could take his reports into account and reconsider your position regarding these head wounds.

Pat,

JFK was hit four times: once in the throat from in front; once in the back from behind; and twice

in the head, once from behind (near the EOP) and once from in front (entering the right temple).

This tells me that you have never even read my summary overview of the assassination, which is

archived several places. Enter "Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK?", and download

it at http://www.und.edu/instruct/jfkconference/UNDchapter30.pdf or visit my blog at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2009/11/dealey-plaza-revisited-what-happened-to.html

No bullet exited directly out the back of his head. The shot that entered his right temple was an

exploding (or "frangible") bullet, which created shock waves that blew his brains out the back of an

already weakened cranium. A fragment from the throat shot had ruptured the tentorium, which is

the reason why cerebellum was extruding from the wound, as the Parkland physicians reported. I

would be glad if we could come to some kind of mutual understanding about all four of his wounds.

OK. It appears that I mistook the inside view for an outside view and that they are the same. But they are

both from the substitute windshield. That pattern of cracks, assuming they are inside/outside views, is not

seen in the Altgens. The through-and-through hole is the white, spiral nebula with a dark hole in the center at

a location where JFK's left ear would be visible were it not obscured by the nebula. Take another look at the

location I am describing. The damage to the windshields is not remotely the same. Here's page 21 from HOAX:

Moreover, we know that multiple windshields were involved. Bob Livingston reported having learned that

the Secret Service had obtained a dozen for "target practice". Clearly, that would be necessary if a bullet

was going to be fired through the windshield. They would do that PRECISELY BECAUSE no one would be

inclined to think that such a shot would be attempted. But the evidence supporting it is rather substantial.

JFK's military aide, who normally rode between Greer and Kellerman, was completely removed from the limo.

The shot to the throat, on the assumption it passed through the hole, leads back to a shooting location on

the south end of the Triple Underpass, as Doug Weldon has confirmed. The bullet appears to have hit bone

and fragmented, part going downward into the lung, part upward and rupturing the tough tentorium. As I

have explained several times, it was Bob's opinion--as a world authority on the human brain and an expert

on wound ballistics--that cerebellum would not have been extruding unless the tentorium were damaged.

How is that supposed to happen with an ice bullet? Indeed, is there any other reasonable explanation for

the extruding cerebellum?

Pardon me if I'm not reading this correctly, but are you REALLY claiming that the bullet you claim exploded from the back of Kennedy's head entered at Kennedy's throat? If so, then why do you persist on pretending Robinson's statements support there was an entrance wound on the front of the head?

Or are you now claiming TWO bullets exited the back of the head?

I've read your stuff, but I guess this aspect of your theory never sunk in. You have a bullet entering near the EOP, correct? This bullet damaged the area low on the back of the head. And then you have a second bullet entering the right temple and blowing out the back of the head. That's 2 bullets doing extensive damage to the area low on the back of the head. So why presume a THIRD bullet caused the damage to the tentorium?

To be clear, my theory has a bullet heading down the neck from the entrance by the EOP. If there is any evidence a bullet went up the neck and damaged the tentorium, it supports my theory the throat wound and rear head wound are connected. What evidence, if any, have you uncovered to show these wounds were connected?

Edited April 13, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Pat Speer]

Please read the statements of Robert B. Livingston, M.D., in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998),

beginning at page 161 but especially pages 163-164, but also page 173 and page 175. It was his

opinion--and we discussed this in person--that even the near simultaneous damage from the back-

of-the-head-near-the-EOP shot and the bullet that entered at his right temple would not have been

sufficient to disrupt cerebellar tissue UNLESS the tentorium had already been damaged. Given his

standing as a world authority on the human brain and an expert on wound ballistics, I would hope

you could take his reports into account and reconsider your position regarding these head wounds.

I just re-read Livingston's letters in Assassination Science, and Livingston never says anything about a bullet entering the neck's exploding upwards to damage the tentorium. As his letters were written from the perspective of someone who only knew about two wounds--a small throat entrance, and a blow-out on the back of the head with extruding cerebellum--moreover, it would not be surprising if he did discuss this possibility.

What would be surprising, however, is if, when accepting the possibility the tentorium had been damaged from both a bullet entering the skull from behind, and a second bullet exploding through the skull from the front, he still insisted the damage to the tentorium must have come from a bullet fragment rising from the neck entrance. This is a total non-sequitur.

And it's not his opinion on this I am doubting. It's your memory on this I am doubting. Why did he never write this down? Why are you only coming forward with this more than a decade after Assassination Science was published? Why did you claim this was mentioned in your more recent article, when it is, in fact, never mentioned? Why did Livingson, if he believed the cerebellar extrusion must have been preceded by damage related to the neck wound, tell Lifton, in his 1992 letter published in Assassination Science, that he'd told Humes "that the neck wound would probably not have anything to do with the main cause of death--massive, disruptive, brain injury--because of the angle of the bullet trajectory..."?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pat,

I even gave you the page numbers, especially pages 163-164. He explains that something had to

have disrupted the tenrotium, that a bullet from behind would "press down" on the tentorium and

that it would have been most unlikely to have been damaged by a shot from in front. The second

paragraph on page 164 states, "Therefore, if cerebellum was extruding posteriorly--and I believe

the medical witnesses at Parkland could not have been mistaken about this--it means there had to

be powerful forces exerted from beneath, which developed sufficient shock against the tentorium to

rupture it upwards and simultaneously to detach and extrude cerebellar tissue though the wound in

the back of the president's head. This might have been caused by a bullet entering his neck from in

front, or perhaps a fragment of such a bullet, passing upward through the floor of the posterior fossa

and disrupting the cerebellum and tentorium." He confirmed to me during conversation that this was

his opinion: that the bullet that hit his throat fragmented, part of which went into the right lung and

part of which went upward to disrupt the tentorium. We know that cerebellum was extruding and that

would not have been caused even by the interaction of the EOP hit and the frangible bullet that came

in by his right temple. The only explanation for extruding cerebellum is the one that he has described,

which means that JFK's death was consequently caused by the interaction of three different bullets.

Please read the statements of Robert B. Livingston, M.D., in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998),

beginning at page 161 but especially pages 163-164, but also page 173 and page 175. It was his

opinion--and we discussed this in person--that even the near simultaneous damage from the back-

of-the-head-near-the-EOP shot and the bullet that entered at his right temple would not have been

sufficient to disrupt cerebellar tissue UNLESS the tentorium had already been damaged. Given his

standing as a world authority on the human brain and an expert on wound ballistics, I would hope

you could take his reports into account and reconsider your position regarding these head wounds.

I just re-read Livingston's letters in Assassination Science, and Livingston never says anything about a bullet entering the neck's exploding upwards to damage the tentorium. As his letters were written from the perspective of someone who only knew about two wounds--a small throat entrance, and a blow-out on the back of the head with extruding cerebellum--moreover, it would not be surprising if he did discuss this possibility.

What would be surprising, however, is if, when accepting the possibility the tentorium had been damaged from both a bullet entering the skull from behind, and a second bullet exploding through the skull from the front, he still insisted the damage to the tentorium must have come from a bullet fragment rising from the neck entrance. This is a total non-sequitur.

And it's not his opinion on this I am doubting. It's your memory on this I am doubting. Why did he never write this down? Why are you only coming forward with this more than a decade after Assassination Science was published? Why did you claim this was mentioned in your more recent article, when it is, in fact, never mentioned? Why did Livingson, if he believed the cerebellar extrusion must have been preceded by damage related to the neck wound, tell Lifton, in his 1992 letter published in Assassination Science, that he'd told Humes "that the neck wound would probably not have anything to do with the main cause of death--massive, disruptive, brain injury--because of the angle of the bullet trajectory..."?

Edited April 14, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Pat Speer]

Pat,

I even gave you the page numbers, especially pages 163-164. He explains that something had to

have disrupted the tenrotium, that a bullet from behind would "press down" on the tentorium and

that it would have been most unlikely to have been damaged by a shot from in front. The second

paragraph on page 164 states, "Therefore, if cerebellum was extruding posteriorly--and I believe

the medical witnesses at Parkland could not have been mistaken about this--it means there had to

be powerful forces exerted from beneath, which developed sufficient shock against the tentorium to

rupture it upwards and simultaneously to detach and extrude cerebellar tissue though the wound in

the back of the president's head. This might have been caused by a bullet entering his neck from in

front, or perhaps a fragment of such a bullet, passing upward through the floor of the posterior fossa

and disrupting the cerebellum and tentorium." He confirmed to me during conversation that this was

his opinion: that the bullet that hit his throat fragmented, part of which went into the right lung and

part of which went upward to disrupt the tentorium. We know that cerebellum was extruding and it

would not have been caused even by the interaction of the EOP hit and the frangible bullet that came

in by his right temple. The only explanation for extruding cerebellum is the one that he has described,

which means that JFK's death was consequently caused by the interaction of three different bullets.

Please read the statements of Robert B. Livingston, M.D., in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998),

beginning at page 161 but especially pages 163-164, but also page 173 and page 175. It was his

opinion--and we discussed this in person--that even the near simultaneous damage from the back-

of-the-head-near-the-EOP shot and the bullet that entered at his right temple would not have been

sufficient to disrupt cerebellar tissue UNLESS the tentorium had already been damaged. Given his

standing as a world authority on the human brain and an expert on wound ballistics, I would hope

you could take his reports into account and reconsider your position regarding these head wounds.

I just re-read Livingston's letters in Assassination Science, and Livingston never says anything about a bullet entering the neck's exploding upwards to damage the tentorium. As his letters were written from the perspective of someone who only knew about two wounds--a small throat entrance, and a blow-out on the back of the head with extruding cerebellum--moreover, it would not be surprising if he did discuss this possibility.

What would be surprising, however, is if, when accepting the possibility the tentorium had been damaged from both a bullet entering the skull from behind, and a second bullet exploding through the skull from the front, he still insisted the damage to the tentorium must have come from a bullet fragment rising from the neck entrance. This is a total non-sequitur.

And it's not his opinion on this I am doubting. It's your memory on this I am doubting. Why did he never write this down? Why are you only coming forward with this more than a decade after Assassination Science was published? Why did you claim this was mentioned in your more recent article, when it is, in fact, never mentioned? Why did Livingson, if he believed the cerebellar extrusion must have been preceded by damage related to the neck wound, tell Lifton, in his 1992 letter published in Assassination Science, that he'd told Humes "that the neck wound would probably not have anything to do with the main cause of death--massive, disruptive, brain injury--because of the angle of the bullet trajectory..."?

Thanks, Jim. Livingston does indeed offer the scenario you describe. Have you found any other doctors to support his opinion? Because it's pretty wild. He seems to think 1) the hole on the back of the head was above the EOP, and that the cerebellum must have been forced upwards out of this hole from a force below the cerebellum, and 2) this force was most likely a fragment from the neck shot...which came seconds before the shot causing the hole (s) on the back of the head. In other words, he seems to have believed a fragment of the bullet entering Kennedy's throat had enough force to rise within the neck, destroy the tentorium, and lift the cerebellum upwards, and that a second bullet then tore through the cerebellum from behind, and then a third bullet from the front exploded it back out a hole on the back of the head.

Perhaps he thought the cerebellum had some sort of homing mechanism attached to it. That's a bad joke, I know. But I find it hard to believe any other doctor would go along with such a thing.

[William Kelly]

Pat,

I even gave you the page numbers, especially pages 163-164. He explains that something had to

have disrupted the tenrotium, that a bullet from behind would "press down" on the tentorium and

that it would have been most unlikely to have been damaged by a shot from in front. The second

paragraph on page 164 states, "Therefore, if cerebellum was extruding posteriorly--and I believe

the medical witnesses at Parkland could not have been mistaken about this--it means there had to

be powerful forces exerted from beneath, which developed sufficient shock against the tentorium to

rupture it upwards and simultaneously to detach and extrude cerebellar tissue though the wound in

the back of the president's head. This might have been caused by a bullet entering his neck from in

front, or perhaps a fragment of such a bullet, passing upward through the floor of the posterior fossa

and disrupting the cerebellum and tentorium." He confirmed to me during conversation that this was

his opinion: that the bullet that hit his throat fragmented, part of which went into the right lung and

part of which went upward to disrupt the tentorium. We know that cerebellum was extruding and it

would not have been caused even by the interaction of the EOP hit and the frangible bullet that came

in by his right temple. The only explanation for extruding cerebellum is the one that he has described,

which means that JFK's death was consequently caused by the interaction of three different bullets.

Please read the statements of Robert B. Livingston, M.D., in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998),

beginning at page 161 but especially pages 163-164, but also page 173 and page 175. It was his

opinion--and we discussed this in person--that even the near simultaneous damage from the back-

of-the-head-near-the-EOP shot and the bullet that entered at his right temple would not have been

sufficient to disrupt cerebellar tissue UNLESS the tentorium had already been damaged. Given his

standing as a world authority on the human brain and an expert on wound ballistics, I would hope

you could take his reports into account and reconsider your position regarding these head wounds.

I just re-read Livingston's letters in Assassination Science, and Livingston never says anything about a bullet entering the neck's exploding upwards to damage the tentorium. As his letters were written from the perspective of someone who only knew about two wounds--a small throat entrance, and a blow-out on the back of the head with extruding cerebellum--moreover, it would not be surprising if he did discuss this possibility.

What would be surprising, however, is if, when accepting the possibility the tentorium had been damaged from both a bullet entering the skull from behind, and a second bullet exploding through the skull from the front, he still insisted the damage to the tentorium must have come from a bullet fragment rising from the neck entrance. This is a total non-sequitur.

And it's not his opinion on this I am doubting. It's your memory on this I am doubting. Why did he never write this down? Why are you only coming forward with this more than a decade after Assassination Science was published? Why did you claim this was mentioned in your more recent article, when it is, in fact, never mentioned? Why did Livingson, if he believed the cerebellar extrusion must have been preceded by damage related to the neck wound, tell Lifton, in his 1992 letter published in Assassination Science, that he'd told Humes "that the neck wound would probably not have anything to do with the main cause of death--massive, disruptive, brain injury--because of the angle of the bullet trajectory..."?

Thanks, Jim. Livingston does indeed offer the scenario you describe. Have you found any other doctors to support his opinion? Because it's pretty wild. He seems to think 1) the hole on the back of the head was above the EOP, and that the cerebellum must have been forced upwards out of this hole from a force below the cerebellum, and 2) this force was most likely a fragment from the neck shot...which came seconds before the shot causing the hole (s) on the back of the head. In other words, he seems to have believed a fragment of the bullet entering Kennedy's throat had enough force to rise within the neck, destroy the tentorium, and lift the cerebellum upwards, and that a second bullet then tore through the cerebellum from behind, and then a third bullet from the front exploded it back out a hole on the back of the head.

Perhaps he thought the cerebellum had some sort of homing mechanism attached to it. That's a bad joke, I know. But I find it hard to believe any other doctor would go along with such a thing.

In considering the opinion of Dr. Livingstone, consider the fact that he had an office in the National Institute of Health (NIH), in the same building as Col. Jose Rivera, who expressed foreknowlege and details of the assassination, and just across the street from where the autopsy was performed at Bethesda.

I also find it interesting that Livingstone actually telephoned one of the autopsy doctors and gave him instructions BEFORE the autopsy began, and that he was a close personal friend and hiking buddy of Bob McNamara, a member of JFK's cabinet who played a significant role in the increase in military activity in Vietnam in the aftermath of the assassination, and later publicly regretted it.

Dr. Livingstone was also a specialist in the same medical field and same city (San Diego) as Lt. Commander Thomas Narut, who tested Navy and Marine assassins.

But when Dr. Livingstone was still alive and I asked his JFK conspiracy buff handlers if they would ask Dr. Livingstone if he knew Lt. Commander Narut or Col. Rivera, I was ridiculed and accused of character assassination, and since his death, now we will never know.

In any case, although I have no reason to believe that what he says is wrong or inaccurate, I thought it might be significant to know a few details about Dr. Livingstone and his associates before judging him or what he has to say about the medical and autopsy evidence.

Bill Kelly

jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com

Edited April 14, 2011 by William Kelly

[Robin Unger]

Jim.

My question is, if the FBI garage image below shows a different windshield to the original.

THEN WHERE DID THE "BLOOD DROPS" COME FROM THAT WE SEE ON THE WINDSHIELD

Am i expected to beleive that they kicked out the original windshield, and then replaced it with another windshield, complete with a new set of cracks and blood drops.