DID ZAPRUDER FILM "THE ZAPRUDER FILM"?

[Josiah Thompson]

Sorry Cliff. But I don't need to get involved in another controversy at this time.

JT

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?

[Josiah Thompson]

Hilarious! Faced with the fact that neither the Z film nor the Moorman Polaroid show any massive blow out to the back of JFK's head, you don't take the obvious route by claiming what both you and Jack White have claimed in the past -- both the Z film and the Moorman photo were faked up. No. You cite Tom Wilson. You must be kidding. Tom Wilson and his "theory" are simply ridiculous and you should know it. If you really credit what he says then I'll leave it to others to educate you how off the wall his views are. Congratulation! You've now managed a trifecta: (1) directed energy weapon from space bringing down the Twin Towers, (2) Judyth Baker, (3) Tom Wilson.

As to your other questions... If you asked me what day it was, I wouldn't answer.

JT

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 Josiah Thompson

[Martin Hinrichs]

Dear Josiah,

i've seen the posting's you made and discover integrity and honesty.

To admit a few errors is to me a great strenght an not a flaw.

That happen not often in the JFK research.

I think it's important for you to know that some little younger reseacher notice this very well.

By the way: "Six seconds in Dallas" was for me (i'am having mostly interest's in the photographic evidence)

one of the most captivating books i've read. For the record, i've read just some 30 books.

Please go on your own way. We are following your words.

My respect and my very best to you

Martin

[Greg Burnham]

David (and Greg),

I listened to the description Blaine gave on the Video interview and jotted down his words about Hill:

" ... I've got to comment on Clint's ability that day. The vehicle was going 11 miles an hour. There were 85 feet for Clint to catch up with. He ran basically about 15 miles an hour to reach the Presidential car and he got there after thethird shot hit. …"

Seems like there are two ways you can take this: 1. The Limo and the QM were separated by 85' when Hill jumped off. This is in severe contrast with what is shown in the Z film. 2. The total distance that Hill had to run to catch the limo was 85'. If this is what Blaine meant, we can calculate distance using the information furnished. Hill running at 15 mph (22 feet per second) Limo traveling at 11 mph (16.1 fps) Doing the math (and assuming the Limo does not slow down) Hill would have been 23 feet from the rear of the Limo when he jumped off the QM; and it would take Hill 3.84 seconds to reach the Limo. At 18.3 frames per second, that equals 70 frames on the Z film

This still places the QM further behind the Limo than what we see in the Z film, but probably closer to 17 feet or so separating rear of limo to front of QM.

Have not looked yet but if we knew which Z frames Hill Jumped off the QM, and reached the limo, we could check that out with the 70 frame estimate from Blaine's figures. Greg, which scenario comes closer to your recollection of the film you saw?

Hi Richard,

I don't recall exactly the distance between the two vehicles--except to say that they were much farther apart than what we see in the extant Z-film. My best estimate is that the distance between the two appeared to be

more than twice as far as what we see depicted in the Z-film. Keep in mind, however, that such a "measurement" is completely relative to camera position and visual frames of reference. Under those conditions, I don't

think that it would be prudent to conclude that the REAL distance between the two was, in fact, more than twice the distance seen in the extant film based solely on my memory of a visual. I don't think we can determine

that from here. While it is true that a major visual discrepancy such as this is enough to impeach one or both of these films, it is not enough to determine the exact (or perhaps not even ball park) measurements. Suffice to

say, if the "other film" and my memory of it are true and accurate, respectively, then there is no question the Z-film has problems.

[Josiah Thompson]

You're a little behind the curve here, Dean. Did you really believe that I abandoned the double-hit between 312 and 313 because some guy sidled up to me at a bar and told me a story? Nope. David Wimp (not "Whimp") has produced a persuasive analysis of what blurring does to a frame of the Zapruder film. It was published on the Internet for many years starting in about 2004 or 2005 and was subject to much discussion. Wimp was invited to Jim Lesar's AARC Conference in Washington and gave a lecture on it there. He gives a couple of examples from the end of the Z film where the camera was moved horizontally and it appears to wipe out the dark width of a light post. Then he goes on to show that highly exposed areas if smudged horizontally will extend into darker areas. Since 313 is smudged horizontally as shown by the smearing of the chrome strip over the passenger compartment, he takes this to be occurring in that frame. The upshot is that the very bright strip against which I measured the movement of JFK's head is elongated, thus giving the impression that his head moved farther than I thought it did. Wimp's corrected figures show JFK's head moved about an inch forward between 312 and 313 and this is consistent with earlier forward movement of his head immediateley prior 312.

I would point out that just because it appears now that JFK was not hit in the back of the head between 312 and 313 this does not mean he was never hit in the back of the head at some other time. However, that discussion is something I don't want to get into just now.

Thank you for calling my earlier theory of a double-hit between 312 and 313 "well-researched." Unfortunately, it was wrong and I am anxious to admit the mistake and point out why it was a mistake.

JT

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

[Josiah Thompson]

Thank you, Martin. You should know that I always appreciate the acuteness of your posts. Anything further on your work concerning the damage to the limo's windshield?

JT

Dear Josiah,

i've seen the posting's you made and discover integrity and honesty.

To admit a few errors is to me a great strenght an not a flaw.

That happen not often in the JFK research.

I think it's important for you to know that some little younger reseacher notice this very well.

By the way: "Six seconds in Dallas" was for me (i'am having mostly interest's in the photographic evidence)

one of the most captivating books i've read. For the record, i've read just some 30 books.

Please go on your own way. We are following your words.

My respect and my very best to you

Martin

[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

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?

I don't know why you insist on jumping to the conclusions you jump to. What you call my "reasonably expressed view" stands. Just because the Zapruder film and Moorman photo don't show a hole in the back of JFK's head does not mean there was no such hole.

JT

[Martin Hinrichs]

Thank you, Martin. You should know that I always appreciate the acuteness of your posts. Anything further on your work concerning the damage to the limo's windshield?

JT

Thank you Josiah!

The windshield...yes i do recall it.

In Altgens 6. Wasn't it?

Til today i have no logical explanation for this image irritation but i can be wrong with my guess that this

is a bullet damage. I've spend a lot of time and found no solution.

It's still in the same place as in Altgens 7 (the bullet damage) but thats not enough.

It can have another logical solution (in the background).

I don't know.

Thank you for adding me as as friend.

best to you

Martin

Edited March 30, 2011 by Martin Hinrichs

[Bernice Moore]

Thank you, Martin. You should know that I always appreciate the acuteness of your posts. Anything further on your work concerning the damage to the limo's windshield?

JT

Thank you Josiah!

The windshield...yes i do recall it.

In Altgens 6. Wasn't it?

Til today i have no logical explanation for this image irritation but i can be wrong with my guess that this

is a bullet damage. I've spend a lot of time and found no solution.

It's still in the same place as in Altgens 7 (the bullet damage) but thats not enough.

It can have another logical solution (in the background).

I don't know.

Thank you for adding me as as friend.

best to you

Martin

http://www.assassina....com/mack2.html a bit more re milicent cranor's information...compliments of the pope.. of dealey plaza.... there you go poo bear..

Edited March 30, 2011 by Bernice Moore

[Dean Hagerman]

You're a little behind the curve here, Dean. Did you really believe that I abandoned the double-hit between 312 and 313 because some guy sidled up to me at a bar and told me a story? Nope. David Wimp (not "Whimp") has produced a persuasive analysis of what blurring does to a frame of the Zapruder film. It was published on the Internet for many years starting in about 2004 or 2005 and was subject to much discussion. Wimp was invited to Jim Lesar's AARC Conference in Washington and gave a lecture on it there. He gives a couple of examples from the end of the Z film where the camera was moved horizontally and it appears to wipe out the dark width of a light post. Then he goes on to show that highly exposed areas if smudged horizontally will extend into darker areas. Since 313 is smudged horizontally as shown by the smearing of the chrome strip over the passenger compartment, he takes this to be occurring in that frame. The upshot is that the very bright strip against which I measured the movement of JFK's head is elongated, thus giving the impression that his head moved farther than I thought it did. Wimp's corrected figures show JFK's head moved about an inch forward between 312 and 313 and this is consistent with earlier forward movement of his head immediateley prior 312.

I would point out that just because it appears now that JFK was not hit in the back of the head between 312 and 313 this does not mean he was never hit in the back of the head at some other time. However, that discussion is something I don't want to get into just now.

Thank you for calling my earlier theory of a double-hit between 312 and 313 "well-researched." Unfortunately, it was wrong and I am anxious to admit the mistake and point out why it was a mistake.

JT

Tink

Your entire book is very well researched!

I knew that as a young kid back in 87-88 when I first read SSID and I still know that to this day

And I am up to speed as you have explained to me before how David Wimp (sorry about the Whimp) changed your mind

I was just giving thanks to Jim for pushing that theory that you came up with and now do not back

It pains me that you dont back it up Tink, its fits perfectly into the shot scenario that you came up with and I believe in

Its the one thing through all my years researching the assassination that has remained unchanged, I have always and still do believe that the shot scenario that you describe in SSID is what happened

This is why I feel so strongly about it Tink

[Josiah Thompson]

Thank you, Dean, for your kind words about Six Seconds. however, a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since I wrote it and I am now trying to become conversant with all the evidence. David Wimp's study is part of that evidence and I think has forcefully showed how I made a mistake. I'm not too embarrassed about the mistake because apparently the Itek Study in 1976 made the same mistake. But if you see a mistake you ought to point it out. That's how inquiry proceeds.

JT

[Pat Speer]

My responses, once again, in italics.

Pat,

Just to highlight a few key points. Gary does not claim that the wound had the same appearance AFTER THE AUTOPSY.

My response: who said he did? Aguilar cited the statements of Bethesda witnesses as support there was a wound on the back of JFK's head not shown in the autopsy photos. This is NOT what Lifton claims. Lifton claims the wound on the back of the head supposedly seen in Parkland was NOT seen in Bethesda, at ANY time. Do you really not know this?

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.

My response: I'm well familiar with Horne's work. You are wrong to imply it is not at odds with what is claimed by Lifton, if that is what you are trying to imply.

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:

My response: My God, Jim, I enjoy winning arguments with you, but you shouldn't make it so easy. After reading your nonsense about it being impossible to confuse cerebellum with macerated cerebrum, I googled it to see if I could find some respected sources proving you wrong. One stood out immediately. It was a statement by a doctor that "It would be easy to assume cerebellum in looking at macerated cerebral tissue protruding from a bloody wound." The doctor is...ROBERT LIVINGSTON. The quote comes from...page 173 of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, YOUR book. As stated only three of the eight Parkland doctors writing early reports on the killing of the President mentioned cerebellum. Two of those three later said they were wrong. The third--from whom at least some of those later to claim they saw cerebellum undoubtedly took their cue--refused to talk with conspiracy theorists and tell them he stood by his claim.

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.

My response: I am not abusing anything except perhaps your delicate sensibilities and aversion to the truth. It was Hargis who claimed the wound was on the right side of the head, not I.

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:

My response: It's revealing that you rely on notes on a conversation with Robinson in the 90's, and ignore his statements from 16 years earlier.

http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md63/html/Image00.htm

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

My response: This is what Robinson saw at the END of the autopsy, AFTER skull reconstruction had been performed. The morticians were not hired to do a forensic reconstruction of Kennedy's skull. They were hired to make it presentable at an open casket funeral. Having a hole on top of the head would not be acceptable, so they almost certainly did some re-arranging and performed some mortician magic and voila, the hole was now on the back of the head, where it could be hidden in a pillow. This is what they do all the time. It's what they're paid for.

* smaller wound in right temple.

cresent shapped, flapped down (3")

My response: He made no mention of this to the HSCA.

* (approx 2) small shrapnel wounds in face.

packed with wax

My response: He discussed one of these with the HSCA, and said he thought it may have represented a hole from a small bullet fragment EXITING the skull. His description of the facial wound he observed is totally at odds with this wound being an entrance for a high-velocity or explosive bullet, and only the most deceptive of researchers would pretend otherwise.

* 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 response: I'm beginning to question your vision, Jim. Yes, Hill said the wound was on the back of the head, but YOU have no idea what he meant by that, do you? Most people, if hit above the ear by someone from behind, would say they were hit on the back of the head. Apparently, Hill is no different, as he, in recent years, has repeatedly explained and demonstrated where he means when he says the wound was on the back of the head. And guess what, it's above the ear, on the SIDE of the head, FAR CLOSER to the wound location in thee autopsy photos than the wound location low on the back of the head you'd like us to believe he's describing. Here it is again:

Edited March 31, 2011 by Pat Speer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Josiah Thompson can now add "intellectual cowardice" to his list of attributes. We

can set Tom Wilson's work aside, if we want, and it does not affect my point that,

on his right shoulder, you can see a clump of hair, which indicates he incurred a

blow-out to the back of his head. Only citing evidence favorable to your side is

called "special pleading". Josiah does it ALL THE TIME. Consider the following.

We know from Clint Hill, from the physicians at Parkland, from Aguilar's study,

from Mantik's research on X-rays, from frame 372-374, and from the extruding

cerebellar as well as cerebral tissue that JFK had a blow-out to the back of his

head, which BY ITSELF refutes the authenticity of the Zapruder film, which of

course is why Josiah is backing down on his endorsement of Aguilar's study.

He is even being coy about whether or not he believes there was a blow-out

to the back of the head, which Sydney Wilkinson's film restoration team has

confirmed was painted over in black--and very crudely done. Why am I not

surprised that this guy won't answer obvious questions. Ask yourself why he

is unwilling to do that? Don't allow yourself to be taken in. The guy is smooth.

After all, there IS that clump of hair on his right shoulder. And how could the

obscurity of the wound at the back of his head CARRY MORE WEIGHT than

the blow-out hitting Officer Hargis so hard that he thought he himself had

been shot? and debris covering the trunk, which nauseated Secret Service

agents when they observed it in Washington? And extruding cerebellum?

And what would my support for research on alternative theories about how the

Twin Towers were destroyed impact on the questions I have addressed to him?

He misrepresents my position, but how does attacking me on irrelevant grounds

answer these obvious questions? It's the very familiar tactic: if you don't like the

message (questions), attack the messenger. This is a classic Thompson snowjob.

Hilarious! Faced with the fact that neither the Z film nor the Moorman Polaroid show any massive blow out to the back of JFK's head, you don't take the obvious route by claiming what both you and Jack White have claimed in the past -- both the Z film and the Moorman photo were faked up. No. You cite Tom Wilson. You must be kidding. Tom Wilson and his "theory" are simply ridiculous and you should know it. If you really credit what he says then I'll leave it to others to educate you how off the wall his views are. Congratulation! You've now managed a trifecta: (1) directed energy weapon from space bringing down the Twin Towers, (2) Judyth Baker, (3) Tom Wilson.

As to your other questions... If you asked me what day it was, I wouldn't answer.

JT

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 31, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pat,

I am not David Lifton. While I regard his early realization that there was surgery to the body--especially to the head--

and that the body had been secretly off-loaded and transported (in all probability) to Walter Reed to remove bullet

fragments together with the multiple casket entries as completely brilliant, I do not agree with him on other points,

such as his belief that all the bullets were fired from in front, which I reject for reasons I have explained elsewhere,

including the shot to Tague, the hit on the chrome strip above the windshield, and the wounds to John Connally.

Gary's work on the convergence of the descriptions of the wound is a chapter in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000).

In my opinion, it is an excellent piece of work, which is complemented by David Mantik's studies of the X-rays (in

discovering "Area P"), the fact that we can actually see the wound in frames 372-375, and the discovery that the

blow-out has been painted over in black, which Sydney Wilkinson's team has confirmed. Not to mention that the

blow-out to the left-rear, which hit Hargis, could not have come from a wound to the side or the top of his head.

Read more of what Bob wrote. "Therefore, if cerebellum was extruding posteriorly--and I believe the medical

witnesses at Parkland Hospital could not have been mistaken about this--that means there had to have been

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

upwards and simultaneously to detach and extrude cerebral tissue through the wound in the back of the

President's head" (page 164). And there are many other passages by Bob that convey that same message.

The witness evidence of extruding cerebellum is impressive and definitive, no matter how you want to cut it.

You also don't seem to appreciate that these witnesses have been harassed to such an extent that many wanted

to have nothing more to do with the case. Charles Crenshaw was a notable exception. Perhaps you have missed

my note about the elongation of the description of the wound in Figure 18 of his drawing for the ARRB, which

was a perspectival phenomenon. It was the same 3-D wound on a curved surface diagrammed on 2-D surfaces.

I think you are conducting a rear-guard action on behalf of a wound at the side that makes no sense at all in

light of the multiple considerations I have adduced. No matter where Hargis may have thought it came from,

the debris was blown out to the left-rear--not to the right front, not up in the air, and not to the side. That

would have been an impossible location for cerebellum to have extruded, which (I now see) explains why you

are so obsessed with attempting to discount extruding cerebellum, which would not occur with a side wound.

I am reminded of the efforts to debunk that Oswald was drinking a coke at the time he was confronted in the

lunch room by Officer Baker, who wrote in his report that he was "drinking a coke". When the timeline for an

assassin on the 6th floor to make it to the lunchroom was calculated, there wasn't enough time for him to have

dropped a nickel into the machine and get a coke. But no one would have written that he was drinking a coke

(or wearing a green beret, for example), unless he actually had been. Cerebellum was extruding from the wound.

Tom Robinson, by the way, was there when Humes took the saw to JFK's cranium. What is there about all of this

that you do not understand? There was a second witness besides him. He had ample time to describe all these

wounds. In his Warren Commission testimony, he describes it as about the size of an orange and centered at

the back of his head, but that it had been enlarged (by Humes, of course). I don't see any inconsistency with

his later testimony, which was not controlled by the commission. Be more explicit about what bothers you.

Kindly tell me your theory about the wounds. Where do you think they were located? How do you think they

should be described? Because I find your arguments strained and I would like to know what drives them. I

must say that I admire your tenacity, but the weight of the evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion

that there was a major blow-out at the back of his head and slightly to the right of center, which was caused

by the shock effects of a frangible bullet that entered his right temple and blew his brains out to the left-rear.

Indeed, he talks about the bullet not having exited but having turned into many little pieces, which is exactly

what a frangible (or "exploding") bullet does. He also talks about the nasty looking throat wound, which was

an effect of altering what Charles Crenshaw had seen. And of course it is confirmed by Clint Hill's statement,

stunning in its simplicity but powerful in its ramifications: "And slumped across the seat, President Kennedy

lay unmoving, a bloody, gaping, fist-sized hole clearly visible in the back of his head" (THE KENNEDY DETAIL).

After all, if JFK had a fist-sized hole clearly visible in the back of his head, it follows that (1) the eyewitnesses

were right about its location, (2) the HSCA photograph and diagram are fake, (3) the autopsy X-rays were altered,

and (4) Zapuder frames that don’t show it when they should were changed, precisely as we have already found.

You, however, place this wound at the side and, I now believe, want to claim that this photograph is authentic:

So you believe that that odd little place toward the bottom of the photograph is where the shot entered the

back of his head, as the Bethesda physicians originally maintained, and that the wound actually blew-out to

the side of the head through the opening of the skull flap, which would have been more consistent with a

shot from behind. But why, if you were right, would the government have ever abandoned that position by

having the physicians move the entry location 4" upward to the top of the head? It doesn't make any sense.

If this is your theory, Pat, then of course it has been disproven over and over again. The blow-out to the

left-rear, Clint Hill's statement, the physicians' reports of extruding cerebellum, Mantik's X-ray studies,

Aguilar's witness research, the visible blow-out in frames 372-375, and the confirmation from the new

Hollywood group of the blow-out to the back of the head having been painted over in black have to be

wrong. I can't imagine a less defensible account of the head wounds, Pat, if this actually is your account.

My responses, once again, in italics.

Pat,

Just to highlight a few key points. Gary does not claim that the wound had the same appearance AFTER THE AUTOPSY.

My response: who said he did? Aguilar cited the statements of Bethesda witnesses as support there was a wound on the back of JFK's head not shown in the autopsy photos. This is NOT what Lifton claims. Lifton claims the wound on the back of the head supposedly seen in Parkland was NOT seen in Bethesda, at ANY time. Do you really not know this?

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.

My response: I'm well familiar with Horne's work. You are wrong to imply it is not at odds with what is claimed by Lifton, if that is what you are trying to imply.

. . .

Edited March 31, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Don Jeffries]

I don't know why you insist on jumping to the conclusions you jump to. What you call my "reasonably expressed view" stands. Just because the Zapruder film and Moorman photo don't show a hole in the back of JFK's head does not mean there was no such hole.

JT

Josiah,

I apologize for misreading what you wrote. I now see that I muat have misinterpreted your sentence, "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." I think you must have meant to say "doesn't in any way mean." I think if you re-read it yourself, you might understand how I could come to the conclusion I did.

However, I am now curious about your reply to Cliff Varnell's simple question about your views regarding the back wound to JFK. Why would you be getting involved in a "controversy" by stating an opinion about one of the true salient points in this case?