DID ZAPRUDER FILM "THE ZAPRUDER FILM"?

[Pat Speer]

This is really interesting stuff, Pat. I want to reiterate what I told you about the McClelland diagram. I gave McClelland's description to a medical illustrator who then drew it. I understand that a copy of the illustration has been posted with a note from Dr. McClelland saying that he had contact with me and that the illustration matches what he told me or drew for me. I have no recollection whatsoever of ever being in contact with Dr. McClelland ever... neither before the publication of Six Seconds nor after. Of course, my memory is not imfallible but that is what it is.

Phil Willis and Marilyn Willis were much too far back from the President to observe anything persuasive about the Presiden't head wound. Ed Hoffman? Beverly Oliver? I kind of have my doubts. I think you would do better to restrict your counts to Parkland witnesses. Even Elizabeth Loftus would point out that medical personnel practicing their craft where observations of wounds are critical are not just ordinary eyewitnesses. They should be considered much more reliable.

I hope this excellent post of yours will generate some good discussion because it is really important. Thanks for posting it.

JT

Thanks for the encouragement. I referenced the Willises, Oliver and Hoffman because they are among the 18 witnesses Groden presents in his book, which many find convincing. (The slide in which I showed these witnesses didn't take in my first attempt, but I fixed it a minute ago.) 2 of Groden's witnesses--Phil Willis and Aubrey Rike--actually never saw the wound. Phil was apparently reporting what his wife and daughters told him, and Aubrey only felt the wound through a head covering.

In sum, while these 18 witnesses undoubtedly suggest that the wound was toward the back of the head, they also suggest that it was not on the LOW back of the head, centered in the occipital bone, as claimed by so many for far too long.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

What is important about Pat Speer's post is not what he argues there, which is relatively easy to dispatch, but the response from Josiah Thompson, which is why I am replying directly to his post and not to Pat's. Given the conditions under which these observations were made, it would not be surprising that there might be relatively minor differences in the descriptions given by different observers. Yet they come from such a wide variety of sources, including witnesses in Dealey Plaza, at Parkland, and even at Bethesa, that it is difficult to imagine how they could possibly be mistaken, not in subtle details but in their general placement, which has now been dramatically confirmed by Clint Hill's report of peering down into a "fist sized" blow-out in the back of his head, as I have explained in "Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film", and which is stated baldly in THE KENNEDY DETAIL (2010), page 217: "And slumped across the seat, President Kennedy lay unmoving, a bloody, gaping, fist-sized hole clearly visible in the back of his head." These many witnesses reported the wound at approximately the same location because that is the location where they observed it!

So what drives Pat Speer? He apparently entertains the (in my view, highly implausible) theory that the blow-out was actually to the side of his head, where the skull flap appears. I have addressed this in several places, where I have discussed the reports of Bill and Gayle Newman, who were on the knoll side of the limousine. (See especially "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid".) I have no doubt that, when the frangible bullet blew open the skull flap, it was a dramatic moment, which made an indelible impression upon them. Because of their proximity to JFK, they appear to have been so overwhelmed by the blow-out of the skull flap that they did not observe the brains being blown-out to the left-rear, where they impacted Officer Hargis with such force that he thought he himself had been shot. Pat Speer, for some reason, doesn't mention that. Which means that he is violating one of the most basic principles of scientific reasoning, namely, that conclusions must be based upon all of the available, relevant evidence. His is not.

Indeed, the situation is even worse. In particular, he has never responded to my observation that physician after physician at Parkland reported cerebellar as well as cerebral tissue was extruding from the wound. That's something else he glosses over, for the obvious reason that CEREBELLUM COULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXTRUDING FROM THE SIDE OF HIS HEAD. The cerebellum is a compact part of the brain at the base of the skull. Extruding cerebellum therefore supports the possibility that the wound was somewhat lower on the back of the head, but it confirms that it was at the back of the head! I like Pat personally, even though his views about this wound, in my opinion, have no merit. I don't quite know what causes him to pursue his theory with such zeal and determination, but it is most certainly not because the evidence, in its totality, supports it. The witness reports, which now include those of Clint Hill, the blow-out of brains to the left rear, and the extruding cerebellum actually refute it. His theory of the wound cannot possibly be true.

So why is Josiah Thompson praising Pat Speer for a post in support of an indefensible theory? Well, think about it. The kinds of arguments Pat is presenting here are suppose to weaken our confidence in the conclusion, which Gary Aguilar, especially, has championed, that there was a convergence of witness reports in support of a blow-out at the back of the head. If you and I know that Officer Hargis was hit so hard by his brains and debris when they were blown out to the left rear, that Clint Hill has reported peering into a "fist sized" blow out at the back of his head, and that the Parkland physicians uniformly reported cerebellar as well as cerebral tissue extruding from the wound, it cannot be because he thinks it is true. On the other hand, it is just the kind of argument that one might like if they wanted to create uncertainty about the location of the blow-out, even though, when the evidence is taken in its totality, there is no good reason to entertain any doubt about it. There was a massive blow-out, not on the side of his head, but at the back of his head.

And of course it has been corroborated by David Mantik's studies of the X-rays, Charles Crenshaw's diagrams (for me and for the ARRB), and by the discovery that the blow-out can actually be seen in late frames of the Zapruder film. So why would Josiah Thompson want to dispute that? Why would he even imply uncertainty about the McClelland diagram published in his own book? In HISTORY WILL NOT ABSOLVE US (1996), Martin Schotz observes that the purpose of disinformation is not to convince us that Oswald was the lone assassin, but to create enough uncertainty that everything is believable and nothing is knowable. Which, I dare say, explains why he has been willing to attack my books without even reading them and to tacitly disavow even the one chapter of MURDER (2000) that he had previously endorsed, because of his belated realization that knowledge of the location of the wound to the back of his head--which we know beyond reasonable doubt, since there is no reasonable alternative--implies that the Zapruder film has been altered, which he is committed to denying as though it were the most important assignment of his life. If the wound was there, the film is fake. And for that reason, Josiah is even willing to praise the author of posts that promote an untenable theory.

This is really interesting stuff, Pat. I want to reiterate what I told you about the McClelland diagram. I gave McClelland's description to a medical illustrator who then drew it. I understand that a copy of the illustration has been posted with a note from Dr. McClelland saying that he had contact with me and that the illustration matches what he told me or drew for me. I have no recollection whatsoever of ever being in contact with Dr. McClelland ever... neither before the publication of Six Seconds nor after. Of course, my memory is not imfallible but that is what it is.

Phil Willis and Marilyn Willis were much too far back from the President to observe anything persuasive about the Presiden't head wound. Ed Hoffman? Beverly Oliver? I kind of have my doubts. I think you would do better to restrict your counts to Parkland witnesses. Even Elizabeth Loftus would point out that medical personnel practicing their craft where observations of wounds are critical are not just ordinary eyewitnesses. They should be considered much more reliable.

I hope this excellent post of yours will generate some good discussion because it is really important. Thanks for posting it.

JT

Edited March 30, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Since I explain and justify each of those six locations in relation to the various shots, this single response confirms (1) that Jim DiEugenio had no idea what my views were and (2) that he does not understand the medical, the ballistic or the photographic and film evidence. The case against DiEugenio is indeed closed--by his own response to my post, which proves that he, Jim DiEugenio, does not understand the medical, ballistic, or photographic and film evidence!

Anyone who reads DiEugenio's review of Horne can see that he does not understand the medical, the ballistic, or the photographic or film evidence. Apparently, he does not even understand that the blow-out to the back of the head BY ITSELF proves that the Zapruder film has been altered, since you can't see it (in the crucial early frames, even though it can be seen in later frames, as I have explained).

Given the books I have edited, where my comments appear throughout, especially in the Prefaces and the Prologues, it is inconceivable to me how anyone could suggest that I have not taken a stand on the medical, the ballistic, or the photographic and film evidence. In addition, I have many articles and presentations in which I spell out exactly what I believe about the assassination, including who and why.

My presentation, which I have cited in this thread alone, multiple times, "Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK?", shows (using a diagram adapted from one previously published by Richard Sprague in COMPUTERS AND AUTOMATION in May 1970) shooters in six different locations, including the County Records Building, the Dal-Tex, the Book Depository, the grassy knoll, and the north and south ends of the Triple Underpass.

I have explained this so many times that it is inconceivable to me that any serious student of the case would not know that, as I have explained hundreds of time, JFK was shot in the throat (from in front), in the back (from behind), and in the head (from behind and from in front), while John Connally was hit one to three times from the side and there were at least three misses (Tague/chrome strip/grass opposite the knoll) = at least 8, 9, or 10 shots.

By assailing me without knowing what he is talking about Jim DiEugenio demonstates--conclusively, in my view--that he is lazy, inattentive, and doesn't do his homework. Most of what he says about my views in relation to Lifton's are correct, as I have explained, where the body was covertly moved (probably to Walter Reed), bullet fragments were removed, there were multiple casket entries and surgery to both his cranium and to his throat).

. . .

Six different locations?!

Case closed.

Edited March 30, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Josiah Thompson]

"...because of his belated realization that knowledge of the location of the wound to the back of his head--which we know beyond reasonable doubt, since there is no reasonable alternative--implies that the Zapruder film has been altered..."

Mary Moorman's photo was taken at Z315 from the left rear and much closer in than the Zapruder film. Neither the Moorman photo nor the Zapruder film shows "a massive blowout" to the back of JFK's head. If the Zapruder film was altered to not show this, then the Moorman photo was also altered to show this. This has been pointed out to you twice before on this thread and you ducked it each time. Why do you continue to duck this obvious point? Is it because the Moorman photo was copied within an hour or so of the assassination and put on the wire hence making altering of it absurd.

The fact that no avulsive injury to the back of JFK's head shows in the Moorman photo and the Zapruder film in any way means that the Parkland witnesses were wrong. They observed what they observed and their observations are to be credited. All this means is that the Moorman photo and the Zapruder film show what they show and you'll have to get used to it.

JT

What is important about Pat Speer's post is not what he argues there, which is relatively easy to dispatch, but the response from Josiah Thompson, which is why I am replying directly to his post and not to Pat's. Given the conditions under which these observations were made, it would not be surprising that there might be relatively minor differences in the descriptions given by different observers. Yet they come from such a wide variety of sources, including witnesses in Dealey Plaza, at Parkland, and even at Bethesa, that it is difficult to imagine how they could possibly be mistaken, not in subtle details but in their general placement, which has now been dramatically confirmed by Clint Hill's reports of peering down into a "fist sized" blow-out in the back of his head, as I have explained in "Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film", and which is stated baldly in THE KENNEDY DETAIL (2010), page 217: "And slumped across the seat, President Kennedy lay unmoving, a bloody, gaping, fist-sized hole clearly visible in the back of his head." These many witnesses reported the wound at approximately the same location because that is the location where they observed it!

So what drives Pat Speer? He apparently entertains the (in my view, highly implausible) theory that the blow-out was actually to the side of his head, where the skull flap appears. I have addressed this in several places, where I have discussed the reports of Bill and Gayle Newman, who were on the knoll side of the limousine. (See especially "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid".) I have no doubt that, when the frangible bullet blew open the skull flap, it was a dramatic moment, which made an indelible impression upon them. Because of their proximity to JFK, they appear to have been so overwhelmed by the blow-out of the skull flap that they did not observe the brains being blown-out to the left-rear, where they impacted Officer Hargis with such force that he thought he himself had been shot. Pat Speer, for some reason, doesn't mention that. Which means that he is violating one of the most basic principles of scientific reasoning, namely, that conclusions must be based upon all of the available, relevant evidence. His is not.

Indeed, the situation is even worse. In particular, he has never responded to my observation that physician after physician at Parkland reported cerebellar as well as cerebral tissue was extruding from the wound. That's something else he glosses over, for the obvious reason that CEREBELLUM COULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXTRUDING FROM THE SIDE OF HIS HEAD. The cerebellum is a compact part of the brain at the base of the skull. Extruding cerebellum therefore supports the possibility that the wound was somewhat lower on the back of the head, but it confirms that it was at the back of the head! I like Pat personally, even though his views about this wound, in my opinion, have no merit. I don't quite know what causes him to pursue his theory with such zeal and determination, but it is most certainly not because the evidence, in its totality, supports it. The witness reports, which now include those of Clint Hill, the blow-out of brains to the left rear, and the extruding cerebellum actually refute it. His theory of the wound cannot possibly be true.

So why is Josiah Thompson praising Pat Speer for a post in support of an indefensible theory? Well, think about it. The kinds of arguments Pat is presenting here are suppose to weaken our confidence in the conclusion, which Gary Aguilar, especially, has championed, that there was a convergence of witness reports in support of a blow-out at the back of the head. If you and I know that Officer Hargis was hit so hard by his brains and debris when they were blown out to the left rear, that Clint Hill has reported peering into a "fist sized" blow out at the back of his head, and that the Parkland physicians uniformly reported cerebellar as well as cerebral tissue extruding from the wound, it cannot be because he thinks it is true. On the other hand, it is just the kind of argument that one might like if they wanted to create uncertainty about the location of the blow-out, even though, when the evidence is taken in its totality, there is no good reason to entertain any doubt about it. There was a massive blow-out, not on the side of his head, but at the back of his head.

And of course it has been corroborated by David Mantik's studies of the X-rays, Charles Crenshaw's diagrams (for me and for the ARRB), and by the discovery that the blow-out can actually be seen in late frames of the Zapruder film. So why would Josiah Thompson want to dispute that? Why would he even imply uncertainty about the McClelland diagram published in his own book? In HISTORY WILL NOT ABSOLVE US (1996), Martin Schotz observes that the purpose of disinformation is not to convince us that Oswald was the lone assassin, but to create enough uncertainty that everything is believable and nothing is knowable. Which, I dare say, explains why he has been willing to attack my books without even reading them and to tacitly disavow even the one chapter of MURDER (2000) that he had previously endorsed, because of his belated realization that knowledge of the location of the wound to the back of his head--which we know beyond reasonable doubt, since there is no reasonable alternative--implies that the Zapruder film has been altered, which he is committed to denying as though it were the most important assignment of his life. If the wound was there, the film is fake. And for that reason, Josiah is even willing to praise the author of posts that promote an untenable theory.

This is really interesting stuff, Pat. I want to reiterate what I told you about the McClelland diagram. I gave McClelland's description to a medical illustrator who then drew it. I understand that a copy of the illustration has been posted with a note from Dr. McClelland saying that he had contact with me and that the illustration matches what he told me or drew for me. I have no recollection whatsoever of ever being in contact with Dr. McClelland ever... neither before the publication of Six Seconds nor after. Of course, my memory is not imfallible but that is what it is.

Phil Willis and Marilyn Willis were much too far back from the President to observe anything persuasive about the Presiden't head wound. Ed Hoffman? Beverly Oliver? I kind of have my doubts. I think you would do better to restrict your counts to Parkland witnesses. Even Elizabeth Loftus would point out that medical personnel practicing their craft where observations of wounds are critical are not just ordinary eyewitnesses. They should be considered much more reliable.

I hope this excellent post of yours will generate some good discussion because it is really important. Thanks for posting it.

JT

[Josiah Thompson]

Of course, Pat. I understood when I went back in the thread and saw the photos. Thanks for the additional information about the Willises and Aubrey Rike. i wasn't aware of that.

By now it's clear that Fetzer's posts are all about Fetzer and not about the evidence. Difficult as it is, I guess the most intelligent thing to do is to ignore the insults and bombast and only address the marginal evidentiary claims he makes. Or better yet, ignore him entirely. I'll see if I can do that.

JT

This is really interesting stuff, Pat. I want to reiterate what I told you about the McClelland diagram. I gave McClelland's description to a medical illustrator who then drew it. I understand that a copy of the illustration has been posted with a note from Dr. McClelland saying that he had contact with me and that the illustration matches what he told me or drew for me. I have no recollection whatsoever of ever being in contact with Dr. McClelland ever... neither before the publication of Six Seconds nor after. Of course, my memory is not imfallible but that is what it is.

Phil Willis and Marilyn Willis were much too far back from the President to observe anything persuasive about the Presiden't head wound. Ed Hoffman? Beverly Oliver? I kind of have my doubts. I think you would do better to restrict your counts to Parkland witnesses. Even Elizabeth Loftus would point out that medical personnel practicing their craft where observations of wounds are critical are not just ordinary eyewitnesses. They should be considered much more reliable.

I hope this excellent post of yours will generate some good discussion because it is really important. Thanks for posting it.

JT

Thanks for the encouragement. I referenced the Willises, Oliver and Hoffman because they are among the 18 witnesses Groden presents in his book, which many find convincing. (The slide in which I showed these witnesses didn't take in my first attempt, but I fixed it a minute ago.) 2 of Groden's witnesses--Phil Willis and Aubrey Rike--actually never saw the wound. Phil was apparently reporting what his wife and daughters told him, and Aubrey only felt the wound through a head covering.

In sum, while these 18 witnesses undoubtedly suggest that the wound was toward the back of the head, they also suggest that it was not on the LOW back of the head, centered in the occipital bone, as claimed by so many for far too long.

[Don Jeffries]

"...because of his belated realization that knowledge of the location of the wound to the back of his head--which we know beyond reasonable doubt, since there is no reasonable alternative--implies that the Zapruder film has been altered..."

Mary Moorman's photo was taken at Z315 from the left rear and much closer in than the Zapruder film. Neither the Moorman photo nor the Zapruder film shows "a massive blowout" to the back of JFK's head. If the Zapruder film was altered to not show this, then the Moorman photo was also altered to show this. This has been pointed out to you twice before on this thread and you ducked it each time. Why do you continue to duck this obvious point? Is it because the Moorman photo was copied within an hour or so of the assassination and put on the wire hence making altering of it absurd.

The fact that no avulsive injury to the back of JFK's head shows in the Moorman photo and the Zapruder film in any way means that the Parkland witnesses were wrong. They observed what they observed and their observations are to be credited. All this means is that the Moorman photo and the Zapruder film show what they show and you'll have to get used to it.

JT

I'm having a hard time reconciling this definitive declaration that there was not a hole in the back of the head, with your earlier, reasonably expressed view that just because the Zapruder film doesn't show a massive blow out to the back of the head, that doesn't mean there wasn't one. I believe you also said you found the Parkland medical testimony, regarding this huge hole in the back of JFK's head, to be compelling.

So, within the space of a day, apparently on the strength of Pat Speer's post expressing his well known views on this issue, you are now completely certain there wasn't a hole in the back of the head?

I think Pat expresses himself well, and I respect his opinions, but is he really that impressive?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Tink, You are the master of distraction. You would rather talk about anything

else than answer several rather obvious questions. Tom Wilson has analyzed

the Moorman and found the blow-out, though not conspicuous to the naked eye,

is indeed there--and he has done so in stunning detail in A DEEPER, DARKER

TRUTH (2009). You are making such a fuss about the Moorman that I strongly

suspect that some kind of darkening of the back of the skull took place in the

time it was not in Mary's possession. Plus you can see what I take to be a

clump of JFK's hair on his right shoulder, which is indicative of a blow-out.

Since photos and films can be faked and we have witness after witness to the

blow-out at the back of his head--which can even be seen in the later frames of

the film and which Sydney Wilkinson's group of Hollywood experts has confirmed

was painted over in black in early frames--I am now convinced you are indeed

going to discount the most important evidence, including even Clint Hill's report,

for the sake to promoting uncertainty about the evidence, even when it is simply

overwhelming. Thanks for that! We need to know exactly who we are dealing with.

Since I have answered your question, I think it is time that you answered mine:

(1) How many times was JFK hit and where?

(2) What were the shooters' locations?

(3) Who were they, if you can name them?

(4) What steps were taken to cover up?

(5) Were any of the photos/films faked?

(6) Who was behind his killing and why?

(7) Several shot sequences have appeared since yours.

Kindly explain how your sequence compares with these:

(7a) Richard Sprague, Computers and Automation (May 1970)

(7b) Robert Groden, THE KILLING OF A PRESIDENT (1993)

(7c) James H. Fetzer, "Dealey Plaza Revisited" (2008)

Give us a summary of your position. I have explained many times that we have

more than 15 indications of Secret Service complicity in setting him up for the

hit; that the CIA/Military/anti-Castro Cubans/local law enforcement took him out;

that the FBI covered it up; and that Lyndon and J. Edgar were principals, with

financing from Texas oil men. Kindly provide us with a comparable overview, too,

and spare us your song-and-dance about "the good old days". We've heard that one

before and it has grown stale. Give us the benefit of the wisdom you have acquired

during the 44 years since SIX SECONDS was published. Inquiring minds want to know.

"...because of his belated realization that knowledge of the location of the wound to the back of his head--which we know beyond reasonable doubt, since there is no reasonable alternative--implies that the Zapruder film has been altered..."

Mary Moorman's photo was taken at Z315 from the left rear and much closer in than the Zapruder film. Neither the Moorman photo nor the Zapruder film shows "a massive blowout" to the back of JFK's head. If the Zapruder film was altered to not show this, then the Moorman photo was also altered to show this. This has been pointed out to you twice before on this thread and you ducked it each time. Why do you continue to duck this obvious point? Is it because the Moorman photo was copied within an hour or so of the assassination and put on the wire hence making altering of it absurd.

The fact that no avulsive injury to the back of JFK's head shows in the Moorman photo and the Zapruder film in any way means that the Parkland witnesses were wrong. They observed what they observed and their observations are to be credited. All this means is that the Moorman photo and the Zapruder film show what they show and you'll have to get used to it.

JT

Edited March 30, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Jack White]

Reymond tried to arrange for me to view it years ago during a visit to Paris, but the owner backed out, alas.

I know of NOTHING which has been called THE REAL ZAPRUDER FILM being seen by anyone. I do know of something called ANOTHER FILM or

THE OTHER FILM being seen by different persons at different times, independently of each other. Calling it the "real Zapruder film" is a deceptive trick

to try to ridicule it.

The persons who saw THE OTHER FILM are of highest character, are good observers and have absolutely no motivation to fabricate a story like this. None

of them had heard of anyone else's story. Their stories all are consistent with each other. By my remembrance there are (were) 6 or 7 of these viewers. Two of

them saw it multiple times. Rich DellaRosa saw it two or three times under security oath conditions. Before he died, Rich told the complete story to a trusted

associate. One researcher saw it at a news network, thinking it was the Z film, which at that time had not been released. One person was shown it several

times by a former intelligence agent. At least one person saw it on a college campus. One alleged viewer said he saw it as a CIA training film, but some

persons do not trust him. All these persons are known, but I am not mentioning them by name, except for Rich, whose account of the OTHER FILM has

been published. At the time these persons saw the film, many "believed" they were seeing the Zapruder film...and only realized after seeing the extant

version that it did not jibe with what they had seen before, which was indelibly etched in their memories. One of these persons saw it at a news network.

Later, after seeing the extant version, this researcher went back to the network and asked to see the film seen earlier, and got a denial that it existed.

It is understandable that those who have not seen THE OTHER FILM might deny its existence. But ridicule of responsible researchers is reprehensible.

It is understandable to believe that such a film does not exist. It is not understandable to condemn those who have seen it. How can someone who did NOT

see the film dispute those who did?

Jack

Then what is it Jack? Is it another film that no one knows was taken? Was it by the Babushka lady? I doubt it since her film was from the opposite angle. Anyone would have known it.

I am not ridiculing anyone. Especially Mili Cranor, who I have the highest respect for--and who you choose not to mention.

I posed a truthful situation. Which I stood by and watched on Rich's forum. Person after person-not Mili-- began to say that they saw this "other film", which you do not want to say was the real Z film, but I do not know what else it can be. Until finally someone said they saw it on TV, the late night news in a fairly big Texas town.

I was kind of taken aback by this chain reaction which culminated in tens of thousands of people seeing this "other film". And yet no one had ever written a word about this event. And yet even though this film was supposed to be buried for national security cover up purposes, it was somehow not.

Now, how did it slip out so often and in so many places?

Second, if it is not the Real Z film, then what is it?

I answered that. It is NOT the "real Z film". It is ANOTHER FILM or THE OTHER FILM. They are reported to be so different they CANNOT be the same.

I purposely did not mention Mili Cranor. She was the researcher who visited the network. Few know of her Fourth Decade article.

Dan Marvin is the person who saw it at a CIA training facility. William Reymond, French journalist, was shown the film multiple times by a

retired French intelligence agent, who told him it was the HL Hunt copy of the Zapruder film...but Reymond's description matched THE OTHER FILM,

not the Z film. Rich DellaRosa's description is the most detailed, because he saw it three times UNDER CLASSIFIED CONDITIONS (when he was on

active duty). Others who saw the OTHER FILM under different conditions are, as I recall, Greg Burnham, Scott Myers, and Rick Janowitz.

All of these people described the same film, including the limo making a wide turn from Houston, and the limo coming to a stop of about 2 seconds

during the head shot. What are the odds of ALL of these people lying or being mistaken about the same details?

Jack

Jack; thanks for your clarification, but rick was not one of the six, one time on Rich's that was proposed that he did, but he appeared and clarified for all that, no, he has not seen the other film........best b...there are just the 6.and milicent saw it at CBS ..b

ps..Jack, if you would like i can send you the partial thread from rich's that took place at that time, re the names the discussion you had with rich is included and the names were clarified...best b

Thanks. I guess I misremembered on Rick, although I remember some discussion with him about it.

Jack

[Martin Hinrichs]

I have posted on many forums over the years that i consider the HSCA back of the head photo as bogus.

It doesn't align with any of the other autopsy photo's.

Sometimes it's frightening how close we both are when it goes to the photograhic evidence, Robin.

I come many many months ago independent to exact the same conclusion.

I don't know when exactly this Bogus photos appeared for the first time and i don't like to talk

about alteration but:

i don't know who this person is with the serious damage at the right front of his head.

I can't see his face.

They are contradicting strictly the photographic evidence. I'am certain of it.

best to you

Martin

[Pat Speer]

My responses in italics...

What is important about Pat Speer's post is not what he argues there, which is relatively easy to dispatch, but the response from Josiah Thompson, which is why I am replying directly to his post and not to Pat's. Given the conditions under which these observations were made, it would not be surprising that there might be relatively minor differences in the descriptions given by different observers. Yet they come from such a wide variety of sources, including witnesses in Dealey Plaza, at Parkland, and even at Bethesa, that it is difficult to imagine how they could possibly be mistaken,

My response: Hold it right there. You keep saying you stand by Lifton's Best Evidence. Well, central to Lifton's thesis is the fact that the wounds described by the Parkland witnesses are different from the wounds described by the Bethesda witnesses. This is central to his thesis. He does not support the efforts of Aguilar and Groden et al, who would like us to believe the descriptions given by the Bethesda witnesses support the descriptions of the Parkland witnesses. You can only be on one side of this issue. Did the Parkland witnesses see a different set of wounds, or not?

not in subtle details but in their general placement, which has now been dramatically confirmed by Clint Hill's report of peering down into a "fist sized" blow-out in the back of his head, as I have explained in "Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film", and which is stated baldly in THE KENNEDY DETAIL (2010), page 217: "And slumped across the seat, President Kennedy lay unmoving, a bloody, gaping, fist-sized hole clearly visible in the back of his head." These many witnesses reported the wound at approximately the same location because that is the location where they observed it!

My response: You realize, of course, that Clint Hill not only claims the shot was fired from behind, but places the wound at the TOP of the back of his head, pretty much above his ear. This is not only inches away from where you would like us to believe the wound was located, but FAR closer to the wound in the autopsy photos than the location of the wound you would like us to believe he saw. So, is he reliable or not? ?

So what drives Pat Speer? He apparently entertains the (in my view, highly implausible) theory that the blow-out was actually to the side of his head, where the skull flap appears. I have addressed this in several places, where I have discussed the reports of Bill and Gayle Newman, who were on the knoll side of the limousine. (See especially "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid".) I have no doubt that, when the frangible bullet blew open the skull flap, it was a dramatic moment, which made an indelible impression upon them. Because of their proximity to JFK, they appear to have been so overwhelmed by the blow-out of the skull flap that they did not observe the brains being blown-out to the left-rear, where they impacted Officer Hargis with such force that he thought he himself had been shot. Pat Speer, for some reason, doesn't mention that. Which means that he is violating one of the most basic principles of scientific reasoning, namely, that conclusions must be based upon all of the available, relevant evidence. His is not.

My response: This is nonsense. In our last altercation on this issue, I presented the statements of ALL the credible eyewitnesses, including Hargis, to the fatal impact, and showed not only that they ALL felt the impact was on the right top or side of Kennedy's head--which is totally damaging to the conclusions of most LNs--but that there was no explosion from the back of Kennedy's head--which is totally damaging to the conclusions of most CTs, including yourself. As I recall, Lifton claimed the post-assassination identification of a large wound in front of Kennedy's ear by both Newmans and Zapruder HOURS before Lifton's theory holds such a wound even existed was of no significance whatsoever. Which is mighty convenient. That you are acknowledging here that the Newmans saw a bone flap by Kennedy's ear--something none of the Parkland witnesses save possibly Baxter remembered--confirms yet again that you really don't support his work as much as you think you do. I mean, if you really want us to believe the recollections of the Parkland witnesses are sacrosanct, please explain why so few of these wonderful witnesses noted the bone flap in front of the ear so readily apparent to the Newmans.

Indeed, the situation is even worse. In particular, he has never responded to my observation that physician after physician at Parkland reported cerebellar as well as cerebral tissue was extruding from the wound. That's something else he glosses over, for the obvious reason that CEREBELLUM COULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXTRUDING FROM THE SIDE OF HIS HEAD. The cerebellum is a compact part of the brain at the base of the skull. Extruding cerebellum therefore supports the possibility that the wound was somewhat lower on the back of the head, but it confirms that it was at the back of the head! I like Pat personally, even though his views about this wound, in my opinion, have no merit. I don't quite know what causes him to pursue his theory with such zeal and determination, but it is most certainly not because the evidence, in its totality, supports it. The witness reports, which now include those of Clint Hill, the blow-out of brains to the left rear, and the extruding cerebellum actually refute it. His theory of the wound cannot possibly be true.

My response: I've explained about a hundred times that I accept the explanation offered by several of the doctors themselves--that macerated brain is easily mistaken for cerebellar tissue. In my last go-round with Lifton, he propped up Peters' claim he saw cerebellum as proof the wound was low on the back of the head; he completely overlooked that Peters repeatedly demonstrated where he thought the wound was, and that it was at the TOP of the back of the head, and that Peters claimed he thought he saw cerebellum while looking DOWN into the back of the skull...in other words, that it was inches away from the hole.

So why is Josiah Thompson praising Pat Speer for a post in support of an indefensible theory? Well, think about it. The kinds of arguments Pat is presenting here are suppose to weaken our confidence in the conclusion, which Gary Aguilar, especially, has championed, that there was a convergence of witness reports in support of a blow-out at the back of the head.

My response: Once again, you can't have it both ways. If you support Aguilar's "convergence of witness reports" you are not supporting Lifton's fervent belief the wounds observed at Parkland differ from those observed at Bethesda. Was the body changed or not? As far as my wanting to weaken people's confidence in the kind of stuff that will either evaporate or explode before our eyes come 2013, you betcha.

If you and I know that Officer Hargis was hit so hard by his brains and debris when they were blown out to the left rear, that Clint Hill has reported peering into a "fist sized" blow out at the back of his head,

My response: Hargis thought the brain matter exploded from the right side of Kennedy's head. He never said anything about a blow-out on the back of Kennedy's head. Hill places the wound primarily on the right side of the head above the right ear. Neither Hargis nor Hill believe the shot creating this wound was fired from the front.

and that the Parkland physicians uniformly reported cerebellar as well as cerebral tissue extruding from the wound, it cannot be because he thinks it is true.

My response: Define "uniformly." In my take, uniformly means unanimously, or near-unanimously. If you ever get around to reading the original Parkland medical reports--the ONLY reports written when memories were fresh and before stories could be swapped--you will find that only three of the seven doctors mentioned cerebellum. If you include Dr. Jones' report from the next day, that makes three of eight. Not "uniformly" in my book. Even worse, for you, is that two of these three--Carrico and Jenkins, would later claim they were wrong, and that the third, Clark, would refuse to even talk with those making hay of his ancient claim he saw cerebellum. While it's true that two more of these eight would mention cerebellum in their testimony nearly five months later, and that McClelland, to this day, claims he saw cerebellum, I don't consider their testimony and subsequent statements the end-all be-all. You see, none of them took notes. By five months later, they were repeating part of what they remembered independently, and part of what they remembered after discussing the case with others. Things get blurred. Bonnie Ray Williams originally said he heard two shots. He was but a few yards from the sniper's nest. When he testified, however, he suddenly claimed he'd heard three shots, with the last two bunched together. This is what James Jarman, who'd been crouched beside him, had claimed. It's clear from this he was making his story fit what others had told him. I believe we have reason to suspect that at least some of the Parkland witnesses suddenly claiming to see cerebellum months after the shooting were behaving in a similar manner--trying to make their story fit what others had told them.

On the other hand, it is just the kind of argument that one might like if they wanted to create uncertainty about the location of the blow-out, even though, when the evidence is taken in its totality, there is no good reason to entertain any doubt about it. There was a massive blow-out, not on the side of his head, but at the back of his head.

My response: Perhaps. But WHERE on the back of his head? For decades conspiracy theorists have been assuming the wound described by these witnesses was consistent with an occipital blow-out involving the Harper fragment. This is flat-out nonsense, not remotely supported by the witnesses themselves. Your friend Mantik has concluded that, for the Harper fragment to be occipital bone, it would have to have derived from the MIDDLE of the back of the head. Well, how many of the Parkland witnesses claimed the wound was on the middle of the back of the head? Not one, that comes to mind. The case for the Harper fragment being occipital is, in other words, extremely weak, and refuted by the very witnesses used to suggest the wound was actually on the back of the head. This claim should, IMO, be abandoned, pronto.

And of course it has been corroborated by David Mantik's studies of the X-rays, Charles Crenshaw's diagrams (for me and for the ARRB),

My response: While I am sympathetic to Crenshaw, he is not the most credible of witnesses. His depictions of the wound for the ARRB are an embarrassment, as the lateral view is not remotely consistent with the posterior view.

and by the discovery that the blow-out can actually be seen in late frames of the Zapruder film. So why would Josiah Thompson want to dispute that? Why would he even imply uncertainty about the McClelland diagram published in his own book? In HISTORY WILL NOT ABSOLVE US (1996), Martin Schotz observes that the purpose of disinformation is not to convince us that Oswald was the lone assassin, but to create enough uncertainty that everything is believable and nothing is knowable. Which, I dare say, explains why he has been willing to attack my books without even reading them and to tacitly disavow even the one chapter of MURDER (2000) that he had previously endorsed, because of his belated realization that knowledge of the location of the wound to the back of his head--which we know beyond reasonable doubt, since there is no reasonable alternative--implies that the Zapruder film has been altered, which he is committed to denying as though it were the most important assignment of his life. If the wound was there, the film is fake. And for that reason, Josiah is even willing to praise the author of posts that promote an untenable theory.

My response: we actually have some common ground here. I, too, feel that a belief in the Zapruder film's legitimacy is inconsistent with a belief the back of Kennedy's head was blown out. While Robert Groden is, in my opinion, a minor hero, and while his books got me interested in the case to begin with, I have, of late, begun to realize that his books and pamphlets are quite deceptive when it comes to the head wound, and mislead his readers into thinking the Parkland witnesses saw a large wound from front to back on Kennedy's head, when they actually described a wound exactly like the wound seen in the autopsy photos, only further back on the skull.

Edited March 30, 2011 by Pat Speer

[Cliff Varnell]

Of course, Pat. I understood when I went back in the thread and saw the photos. Thanks for the additional information about the Willises and Aubrey Rike. i wasn't aware of that.

By now it's clear that Fetzer's posts are all about Fetzer and not about the evidence. Difficult as it is, I guess the most intelligent thing to do is to ignore the insults and bombast and only address the marginal evidentiary claims he makes. Or better yet, ignore him entirely. I'll see if I can do that.

JT

Jim F. did ask a question I thought interesting: Tink, do you place JFK's back wound in the vicinity of the bullet defects in the shirt and jacket, at T3?

[Bernice Moore]

Reymond tried to arrange for me to view it years ago during a visit to Paris, but the owner backed out, alas.

I know of NOTHING which has been called THE REAL ZAPRUDER FILM being seen by anyone. I do know of something called ANOTHER FILM or

THE OTHER FILM being seen by different persons at different times, independently of each other. Calling it the "real Zapruder film" is a deceptive trick

to try to ridicule it.

The persons who saw THE OTHER FILM are of highest character, are good observers and have absolutely no motivation to fabricate a story like this. None

of them had heard of anyone else's story. Their stories all are consistent with each other. By my remembrance there are (were) 6 or 7 of these viewers. Two of

them saw it multiple times. Rich DellaRosa saw it two or three times under security oath conditions. Before he died, Rich told the complete story to a trusted

associate. One researcher saw it at a news network, thinking it was the Z film, which at that time had not been released. One person was shown it several

times by a former intelligence agent. At least one person saw it on a college campus. One alleged viewer said he saw it as a CIA training film, but some

persons do not trust him. All these persons are known, but I am not mentioning them by name, except for Rich, whose account of the OTHER FILM has

been published. At the time these persons saw the film, many "believed" they were seeing the Zapruder film...and only realized after seeing the extant

version that it did not jibe with what they had seen before, which was indelibly etched in their memories. One of these persons saw it at a news network.

Later, after seeing the extant version, this researcher went back to the network and asked to see the film seen earlier, and got a denial that it existed.

It is understandable that those who have not seen THE OTHER FILM might deny its existence. But ridicule of responsible researchers is reprehensible.

It is understandable to believe that such a film does not exist. It is not understandable to condemn those who have seen it. How can someone who did NOT

see the film dispute those who did?

Jack

Then what is it Jack? Is it another film that no one knows was taken? Was it by the Babushka lady? I doubt it since her film was from the opposite angle. Anyone would have known it.

I am not ridiculing anyone. Especially Mili Cranor, who I have the highest respect for--and who you choose not to mention.

I posed a truthful situation. Which I stood by and watched on Rich's forum. Person after person-not Mili-- began to say that they saw this "other film", which you do not want to say was the real Z film, but I do not know what else it can be. Until finally someone said they saw it on TV, the late night news in a fairly big Texas town.

I was kind of taken aback by this chain reaction which culminated in tens of thousands of people seeing this "other film". And yet no one had ever written a word about this event. And yet even though this film was supposed to be buried for national security cover up purposes, it was somehow not.

Now, how did it slip out so often and in so many places?

Second, if it is not the Real Z film, then what is it?

I answered that. It is NOT the "real Z film". It is ANOTHER FILM or THE OTHER FILM. They are reported to be so different they CANNOT be the same.

I purposely did not mention Mili Cranor. She was the researcher who visited the network. Few know of her Fourth Decade article.

Dan Marvin is the person who saw it at a CIA training facility. William Reymond, French journalist, was shown the film multiple times by a

retired French intelligence agent, who told him it was the HL Hunt copy of the Zapruder film...but Reymond's description matched THE OTHER FILM,

not the Z film. Rich DellaRosa's description is the most detailed, because he saw it three times UNDER CLASSIFIED CONDITIONS (when he was on

active duty). Others who saw the OTHER FILM under different conditions are, as I recall, Greg Burnham, Scott Myers, and Rick Janowitz.

All of these people described the same film, including the limo making a wide turn from Houston, and the limo coming to a stop of about 2 seconds

during the head shot. What are the odds of ALL of these people lying or being mistaken about the same details?

Jack

Jack; thanks for your clarification, but rick was not one of the six, one time on Rich's that was proposed that he did, but he appeared and clarified for all that, no, he has not seen the other film........best b...there are just the 6.and milicent saw it at CBS ..b

ps..Jack, if you would like i can send you the partial thread from rich's that took place at that time, re the names the discussion you had with rich is included and the names were clarified...best b

Thanks. I guess I misremembered on Rick, although I remember some discussion with him about it.

Jack

HI JACK; i misremember often, no problem, i searched mary's for the fourth decade article said to have milicent's information but it only leads me back to a quote posted here on the E.F so no link for that, though i will have another go...it was not as i recalled either, see my mis. ..it was NBC apparently not cbs...according to this...thanks have a good day, best b..

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKzapruderF.htm9) Milicent Cranor claimed that she saw an unusual version of the Zapruder Film at the NBC archives in 1992. She studied this repeatedly in slow motion on high quality equipment.

Kennedy was hit in the right temple while Moorman and Jean Hill were visible in the background. JFK's head rotated slightly counterclockwise (i.e., left) - just a tic. A flap of skin or bone swung out on a vertical hinge. The hinge became horizontal and the flap became part of what looked like a giant clam. I never saw the famous "blob" nor did I see clouds of gore. I only saw thin translucent lines intersecting the head that scientists (in fluid dynamics) tell me are most likely condensation lines left in the wake of a bullet. One line suggested the shot came from Zapruder's immediate left. About 1/2 second later JFK went flat across Jackie's lap, not forward but leftward, away from the viewer. JFK then came back up to about where he was before. His head made two nearly imperceptible jerks, a tip to the left, a tip to the right. Then he bucked backward - but there was no head snap. He moved all of a piece, as if given a shove in the sternum.

p.s a mention here should be made that Zapruder stated a shot came from behind him, but he said from to his right...? B..

[Dean Hagerman]

Jim

The double head hit on JFK is very important (not just to me because it is the center piece of conspiracy for my theory including Alteration)

Im am always happy to see you backing up the work that Tink has abandoned because of what one person (David Whimp I think?) told him

The double head hit proves conspiracy, Tink proved that in SSID

It bothers me to no end that he doesnt back up his well researched theory

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Dean,

You are right. He has not only "not backed it up" but has actually abandoned it. You want to bear in mind that the two hits were not as closely spaced as his original study indicated, which is because frames have been removed and the slight forward motion of frame 312 was then contiguous with frames 313-316, which have been extensively edited to create the impression of brains being blown out to the right-front, even though his body moves violently to the left-rear. After Greer brought the limo to a halt, he was hit in the back of his head by a shot that appears to have been fired from the Dal-Tex. He fell forward; then Jackie eased him back up and was looking him right in the face as he was hit in the right temple by a frangible (or "exploding" bullet). He may have jumped slightly, as Monk describes, and then fell to his left toward Jackie. None of the witnesses described the violent back-and-to-the-left motion that is so conspicuous in the film. A few seconds after stopping--once JFK was dead!--Greer accelerated the limo to Parkland.

Jim

Jim

The double head hit on JFK is very important (not just to me because it is the center piece of conspiracy for my theory including Alteration)

Im am always happy to see you backing up the work that Tink has abandoned because of what one person (David Whimp I think?) told him

The double head hit proves conspiracy, Tink proved that in SSID

It bothers me to no end that he doesnt back up his well researched theory

Edited March 30, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pat,

Just to highlight a few key points. Gary does not claim that the wound had the same appearance AFTER THE AUTOPSY. We now know Humes took a saw to the cranium and enlarged it, as Doug Horne, INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), has explained. So don't be silly in claiming that I "can't have it both ways". If we were talking about the description of the wound AT THE SAME TIME, you might have a point; but I am talking about its appearance BEFORE HUME'S ALTERED IT versus AFTER. Check out Horne's work if you have missed this crucial point.

David Lifton was comparing the descriptions of the wound based upon witnesses at Parkland versus the description of the wound at Bethesda, in particular, as it is found in the signed autopsy report, which I published as Appendix (F) to ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), in case you missed it. I can't believe that you persist in arguments like this, which display either simple ignorance or willing distortion. Even if this is just a mental lapse on your part, it is inexcusable. There is no inconsistency here but an accurate recounting of those differences.

The wound cannot have been at the top of the head. As Robert B. Livingston, M.D., remarked, these experienced and competent physicians, one after another, reported cerebellar as well as cerebral tissue extruding from the wound. Their appearance is so different that even a first year student could not confound them, where cerebellum has a reddish, granular, hamburger-like consistency, while cerebral tissue has a more maggoty and grayish consistency. So you are completely off base about confusing them: two kinds of tissue were observed:

It is stunning that you would insist that Officer Hargis could have been hit by brains and debris blown out the top of his head with such force that he thought he himself had been hit. That's quite a stretch--but then, your abuse of the witness reports is an enormous stretch already, so why should I be surprised. You also seem to discount Thomas Evan Robinson's description of the wound as he prepared JFK for burial, where he had witnessed Hume's alteration of the cranium and knew the wounds that were present on the body prior to alteration:

Please pay attention to his descriptions of the wounds:

* large gaping hole in back of head

patched by stretching piece of rubber

over it. Thinks skull full of Plaster of Paris

* smaller wound in right temple.

cresent shapped, flapped down (3")

* (approx 2) small shrapnel wounds in face.

packed with wax

* wound in back (5 to six inches) below shoulder

to the right of back bone.

* Adrenalin gland and brain removed.

* other organs removed and then put back

* no swelling or other discoloration to face.

(died instantly)

He describes the skull flap that fascinates you in his second point, "crescent shap, flapped down (3")", following his mention of the "smaller wound in right temple" because it was physically adjacent to it. Notice, however, that that is a completely different defect than the "large gaping hole in back of head". Shall I repeat: "in back of head"! We know from the witnesses, including Clint Hill, that it was in the back of the head, not the top and not to the side. QED

My responses in italics...

What is important about Pat Speer's post is not what he argues there, which is relatively easy to dispatch, but the response from Josiah Thompson, which is why I am replying directly to his post and not to Pat's. Given the conditions under which these observations were made, it would not be surprising that there might be relatively minor differences in the descriptions given by different observers. Yet they come from such a wide variety of sources, including witnesses in Dealey Plaza, at Parkland, and even at Bethesa, that it is difficult to imagine how they could possibly be mistaken,

My response: Hold it right there. You keep saying you stand by Lifton's Best Evidence. Well, central to Lifton's thesis is the fact that the wounds described by the Parkland witnesses are different from the wounds described by the Bethesda witnesses. This is central to his thesis. He does not support the efforts of Aguilar and Groden et al, who would like us to believe the descriptions given by the Bethesda witnesses support the descriptions of the Parkland witnesses. You can only be on one side of this issue. Did the Parkland witnesses see a different set of wounds, or not?

not in subtle details but in their general placement, which has now been dramatically confirmed by Clint Hill's report of peering down into a "fist sized" blow-out in the back of his head, as I have explained in "Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film", and which is stated baldly in THE KENNEDY DETAIL (2010), page 217: "And slumped across the seat, President Kennedy lay unmoving, a bloody, gaping, fist-sized hole clearly visible in the back of his head." These many witnesses reported the wound at approximately the same location because that is the location where they observed it!

My response: You realize, of course, that Clint Hill not only claims the shot was fired from behind, but places the wound at the TOP of the back of his head, pretty much above his ear. This is not only inches away from where you would like us to believe the wound was located, but FAR closer to the wound in the autopsy photos than the location of the wound you would like us to believe he saw. So, is he reliable or not? ?

So what drives Pat Speer? He apparently entertains the (in my view, highly implausible) theory that the blow-out was actually to the side of his head, where the skull flap appears. I have addressed this in several places, where I have discussed the reports of Bill and Gayle Newman, who were on the knoll side of the limousine. (See especially "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid".) I have no doubt that, when the frangible bullet blew open the skull flap, it was a dramatic moment, which made an indelible impression upon them. Because of their proximity to JFK, they appear to have been so overwhelmed by the blow-out of the skull flap that they did not observe the brains being blown-out to the left-rear, where they impacted Officer Hargis with such force that he thought he himself had been shot. Pat Speer, for some reason, doesn't mention that. Which means that he is violating one of the most basic principles of scientific reasoning, namely, that conclusions must be based upon all of the available, relevant evidence. His is not.

My response: This is nonsense. In our last altercation on this issue, I presented the statements of ALL the credible eyewitnesses, including Hargis, to the fatal impact, and showed not only that they ALL felt the impact was on the right top or side of Kennedy's head--which is totally damaging to the conclusions of most LNs--but that there was no explosion from the back of Kennedy's head--which is totally damaging to the conclusions of most CTs, including yourself. As I recall, Lifton claimed the post-assassination identification of a large wound in front of Kennedy's ear by both Newmans and Zapruder HOURS before Lifton's theory holds such a wound even existed was of no significance whatsoever. Which is mighty convenient. That you are acknowledging here that the Newmans saw a bone flap by Kennedy's ear--something none of the Parkland witnesses save possibly Baxter remembered--confirms yet again that you really don't support his work as much as you think you do. I mean, if you really want us to believe the recollections of the Parkland witnesses are sacrosanct, please explain why so few of these wonderful witnesses noted the bone flap in front of the ear so readily apparent to the Newmans.

Indeed, the situation is even worse. In particular, he has never responded to my observation that physician after physician at Parkland reported cerebellar as well as cerebral tissue was extruding from the wound. That's something else he glosses over, for the obvious reason that CEREBELLUM COULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXTRUDING FROM THE SIDE OF HIS HEAD. The cerebellum is a compact part of the brain at the base of the skull. Extruding cerebellum therefore supports the possibility that the wound was somewhat lower on the back of the head, but it confirms that it was at the back of the head! I like Pat personally, even though his views about this wound, in my opinion, have no merit. I don't quite know what causes him to pursue his theory with such zeal and determination, but it is most certainly not because the evidence, in its totality, supports it. The witness reports, which now include those of Clint Hill, the blow-out of brains to the left rear, and the extruding cerebellum actually refute it. His theory of the wound cannot possibly be true.

My response: I've explained about a hundred times that I accept the explanation offered by several of the doctors themselves--that macerated brain is easily mistaken for cerebellar tissue. In my last go-round with Lifton, he propped up Peters' claim he saw cerebellum as proof the wound was low on the back of the head; he completely overlooked that Peters repeatedly demonstrated where he thought the wound was, and that it was at the TOP of the back of the head, and that Peters claimed he thought he saw cerebellum while looking DOWN into th back of the skull...in other words, that it was inches away from the hole.

So why is Josiah Thompson praising Pat Speer for a post in support of an indefensible theory? Well, think about it. The kinds of arguments Pat is presenting here are suppose to weaken our confidence in the conclusion, which Gary Aguilar, especially, has championed, that there was a convergence of witness reports in support of a blow-out at the back of the head.

My response: Once again, you can't have it both ways. If you support Aguilar's "convergence of witness reports" you are not supporting Lifton's fervent belief the wounds observed at Parkland differ from those observed at Bethesda. Was the body changed or not? As far as my wanting to weaken people's confidence in the kind of stuff that will either evaporate or explode before our eyes come 2013, you betcha.

If you and I know that Officer Hargis was hit so hard by his brains and debris when they were blown out to the left rear, that Clint Hill has reported peering into a "fist sized" blow out at the back of his head,

My response: Hargis thought the brain matter exploded from the right side of Kennedy's head. He never said anything about a blow-out on the back of Kennedy's head. Hill places the wound primarily on the right side of the head above the right ear. Neither Hargis nor Hill believe the shot creating this wound was fired from the front.

and that the Parkland physicians uniformly reported cerebellar as well as cerebral tissue extruding from the wound, it cannot be because he thinks it is true.

My response: Define "uniformly." In my take, uniformly means unanimously, or near-unanimously. If you ever get around to reading the original Parkland medical reports--the ONLY reports written when memories were fresh and before stories could be swapped--you will find that only three of the seven doctors mentioned cerebellum. If you include Dr. Jones' report from the next day, that makes three of eight. Not "uniformly" in my book. Even worse, for you, is that two of these three--Carrico and Jenkins, would later claim they were wrong, and that the third, Clark, would refuse to even talk with those making hay of his ancient claim he saw cerebellum. While it's true that two more of these eight would mention cerebellum in their testimony nearly five months later, and that McClelland, to this day, claims he saw cerebellum, I don't consider their testimony and subsequent statements the end-all be-all. You see, none of them took notes. By five months later, they were repeating part of what they remembered independently, and part of what they remembered after discussing the case with others. Things get blurred. Bonnie Ray Williams originally said he heard two shots. He was but a few yards from the sniper's nest. When he testified, however, he suddenly claimed he'd heard three shots, with the last two bunched together. This is what James Jarman, who'd been crouched beside him, had claimed. It's clear from this he was making his story fit what others had told him. I believe we have reason to suspect that at least some of the Parkland witnesses suddenly claiming to see cerebellum months after the shooting were behaving in a similar manner--trying to make their story fit what others had told them.

. . .

Edited March 30, 2011 by James H. Fetzer