DID ZAPRUDER FILM "THE ZAPRUDER FILM"?

[Josiah Thompson]

First Tom Wilson and now a clump of hair. Priceless. If you fiddle around with Photoshop a bit and change the exposures you can make JFK's right shoulder look like it may have something on it. His right shoulder is elevated and this may be a sliver of sunlight making it look like something on his right shoulder. Alternatively, this may be debris on his shoulder from the massive blow-out on the right side of his head. How could your "clump of hair" come the back of his head when both the Moorman and Zapruder film show nothing is missing? "Clump of hair?" That's a real reach.

The important point is that the Moorman photo (like the Zapruder film) shows no such blow-out to the back of his head. That is just a fact that is shown by inspection. For years you've wanted to use the Moorman photo to impeach the authenticity of the Zapruder film. Here they confirm each other and you're trying desperately to deny that. For the fifth time, I'm saying that this does not mean the Parkland witnesses are wrong. They saw the head from close-up. The back of the cranial cavity could have been shattered and its appearance changed between 1/9th of a second after the hit and its appearance at the hospital. The only thing that's clear is that you cannot use later observations to impeach what the Z film shows. Moorman's photo (taken at Z 315) shows the same thing. Sorry, but that's just a fact you can't wiggle out of. And that is what the dispute was about.

JT

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

[Josiah Thompson]

Sure thing. Whatever. This thread is not about the question Cliff Varnell raised and I have no interest in trying to answer it.

JT

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?

[Don Jeffries]

Josiah,

While Jim Fetzer is criticized for perhaps being too eager to give an opinion on every aspect of this case, I think it can be fairly stated that you are just as reluctant to voice an opinion on certain aspects. In this case, the back wound is not a minor issue; in fact, its significance cannot be overstated.

I understand that the back wound is not the primary topic of this thread, but it has already strayed (as many threads do), and I don't think it would be harmful for you to simply state if you believe the back wound was in the approximate location where the holes in JFK's coat and shirt are, which corresponds with the original location on Boswell's autopsy face sheet, Admiral Burkley's death certificate and the testimony of Sibert & O'Neill.

I don't think there is any legitimate controversy about this subject.

[John Costella]

Tink,

Re the 312-313 movement of JFK's head, what you write sounds right. (Let's ignore our difference of opinion as to whether the Z film means anything.)

There are three ways to deal with the blur.

One is to take account of it in your calculations. I think ITEK did that way back when. I did when I measured it myself. And David Wimp no doubt did too.

The second way is to try to "deblur" 313. I've got an animated GIF that shows the result of that (overlaid on 312) at

http://assassination...ro/headmove.gif

I can't remember what the measurement came out at (and it depends where you are measuring I guess), but an inch sounds right. (Anyone can look at the animation and come to their own conclusion.)

The third way of doing it, that doesn't rely on one particular implementation of deblurring (because deblurring is not unique, no matter how cleverly you try to do it) is to instead blur 312, and then overlay the two. I don't have an image of that at hand, but I do know that it gave the same result as measuring off the animation above (or off the original that that animation was created from, I should say).

If one took the Z film to be genuine, I don't think the forward movement could be ignored -- it's not a backwards movement, for example -- but that's just my gut feeling.

John

[Karl Kinaski]

deleted

Edited March 31, 2011 by Karl Kinaski

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Well, if you had taken the time to become familiar with my positions before you started criticizing them, we would probably not be in such a state of conflict here, especially since you obviously have been unaware of the necessity to locate six shooters based upon the wounds to JFK (four) and Connally (a fifth) and the three shots that missed (one of which necessitates a sixth). Since my views are not especially different from those of Richard Sprague, COMPUTERS AND AUTOMATION (May 1970), where I use Mantik's studies to extend them, or of Robert Groden, THE KILLING OF A PRESIDENT (1993), who posits the possibility of even more shots than do I, you cannot be familiar with their work and take such exception to mine, which is another reason I have faulted you. Given the medical, ballistic, and photographic and film evidence, there had to have been shooters at six locations. You generally are far more astute and though in your research, yet you come across as lazy, inattentive, and unwilling to do your homework in relation to me, which suggests that, on the contrary, you are the one so blinded by your animus toward me that you are willing to attack me without bothering to study my work.

I also do not understand why you think I take exception to SIX SECONDS (1967), which provides (what almost all of us have taken to be) many proofs of conspiracy, such as the conclusion of Robert Shaw and Charles Gregory that Connally and JFK were not hit but the same bullet (since there were no cloth fibers on the fragments taken from Connally). I also like the observation of L.J. Delsa that the shot from the front appears to have been of a larger caliber than the shot from the rear (in Part IV of your review of RECLAIMING HISTORY), for those who regard the film as authentic. Tink relates findings like these, yet in his final paragraph denies that anything in his book PROVES the existence of a conspiracy. And this was BEFORE he took back his "double hit" finding, a result that many of us have taken to be decisive evidence of a conspiracy--until you realize that the film has been edited and it becomes a complex task to reconstruct the interval between their actual times of occurrence. I think that this ought to bother you just as much as it bothers me. He wrote a powerful book, but he ultimately compromised its significance and appears to be doing more toward that end to this day.

Not only does he equivocate over the existence of a conspiracy in his book but, as John Costella has just explained, there remains internal proof of the close proximity of the two shots, even when blurring is taken into account, as long as the film is taken to be authentic. Since he is also equivocating about the McClelland diagram and is not even willing to answer simple questions about his present opinions, including the location of the shot that hit JFK in the back, I think my real concerns about his integrity are well founded. He wants to use the Moorman and the film itself to establish the non-existence of a blow-out to the back of the head, when the evidence supporting that blow-out is rather overwhelming. He ridicules the presence of the clump of hair on the right shoulder in the Moorman because it undermines his position, which is bad enough, but to assume the authenticity of the film when that is the most contentious issue before us is no more than begging the question, which is infantile. The questions we are dealing with cannot be resolved by simply TAKING FOR GRANTED THAT THE FILM IS AUTHENTIC.

Surely you can tell that he is being coy and evasive. After 44 more years of study, the questions that I have posed ought to be effortless for him to answer. You have to see that to appreciate the situation we are in with him. I am also a bit taken aback that you would be so patient with Pat Speer about what Clint Hill has to tell us, since this new diagram (with red patches) shows a wound to the side of the head and not at the back. Like Josiah, who picks and chooses the evidence that supports his own predetermined point of view and dismisses the rest, Pat does the same. Clint's written statements have been consistent for 47 years and are not consistent with his hand placement or the diagrams Pat has now introduced. I am familiar with the tilt of the head in frame 312 and its inconsistency with the Rydberg diagram, by the way, which I feature as one of my slides in my presentation and is one more indication that you have made no serious effort to discover my actual positions. But perhaps in this case you are right and I have missed something. So tell me why moving the wound upward by 4" was an appropriate move to make, because it is still not apparent to me.

Shifting the wound, after all, was a stunning indictment of the incompetence of the original autopsy report. You suggest that coping with the discrepancy in the tilt of the head was the reason, since, "If you place it in its real position, the trajectory is a real stretch." But, given the consistent reports from the Parkland physicians of a massive blow-out to the back of the head, where cerebellar as well as cerebral tissue was extruding from the wound, what could be "a bigger stretch" than concealing that wound and pretending there was no massive blow-out to the back of the head? The HSCA photograph and diagram are so obviously fraudulent, I should think they would have appreciated the risks inherent in reopening the description of the head wound, which Lifton has so deftly lampooned and which should bother every serious student of the case. Maybe you can persuade me that I am wrong, but it seems to me that the HSCA blundered badly, which the ARRB has exposed and Horne has explained quite brilliantly in INSIDE (2009). So tell me why there were more reasons to shift the wound than there were to let it lie, because I am having a hard time appreciating what you are maintaining.

JF: 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

It makes perfect sense. But you are so blind in your animus toward Tink that you are determined not to give his book any credit.

Even when Pat has proven that the reason the Clark panel did what it did was to counter the absolutely compelling drawing comparison in SSD. (p. 111)

Pat took this one step further by superimposing the two drawings and I linked to this in my Bugliosi series, part 4.

In fact, Pat actually tracked down a quote by FIsher in which he admitted that Clark had told him he was supposed to counter the stuff in TInk's book.

See, this is JFK 101 stuff. But here goes. The Rydberg drawings made for the WC commission deliberately distorted the position of JFK's head at 313. Tink actually showed where his head was at that point. It was not anywhere near as anteflexed as Rydberg drew. If you place it in proper position, the trajectory is a real stretch.

Fisher understood this. So his panel moved the rear skull wound upwards to counter this.

And of course, the "discovery" of the 6.5 mm fragment also helped this new placement. As did the disappearance of the particle trail from down below to higher up. Although Pat and I disagree on these latter points, I give him and TInk credit for the former.

Edited March 31, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Josiah Thompson]

John,

How nice to hear from you.

First off, your GIF. At first glance, it seems to show JFK’s head moving forward an enormous distance. Both Itek and I measured this forward movement as slightly over two inches. However, if you look closer at the GIF you will note that Mrs. Kennedy and the Connallys also move forward (or to the right in the frame). I think this forward movement by everyone is illusory... the product of the blur in 313. Hence, what’s involved here is subtracting this illusory movement from the very real movement of JFK’s head. David Wimp did this with some very complicated math and came up with the figure of JFK’s head moving about an inch forward (or to the right) between 312 and 313. (No. Itek did not take the blur into account in their study; I’ll send it to you.)

Itek determined that any such measurements are only accurate to about 0.2 inches and that seems about right. I’ve compared the measurements made by me (1967), done in the Itek Study (1976) and done by David Wimp (2005). I find it interesting and encouraging that all three measurements are about the same and except for movement between 312 and 313. Here Itek and I agree but Wimp drops the figure from a trifle over two inches to one inch. The difference, of course, is that Itek and I were both oblivious to the effects of the blur in 313. But that blur is crucial. If taken into account it shows that Kennedy’s head is moving forward before 312 and any movement between 312 and 313 simply continues this movement. As Jim DeEugenio acutely pointed out, this drives Ken Rahn nuts since it makes the bogus “jet effect” and “neuromuscular response” theories irrelevant.

I’m delighted that you have an interest in this question. I’d like to send you Wimp’s study and also the Itek Study. Send me your email address and we can start an email correspondence about it. You will be able to understand the math involved a lot better than I can. Intelligent cross-examination of an idea always benefits us. Nice to hear from you.

JT

Tink,

Re the 312-313 movement of JFK's head, what you write sounds right. (Let's ignore our difference of opinion as to whether the Z film means anything.)

There are three ways to deal with the blur.

One is to take account of it in your calculations. I think ITEK did that way back when. I did when I measured it myself. And David Wimp no doubt did too.

The second way is to try to "deblur" 313. I've got an animated GIF that shows the result of that (overlaid on 312) at

http://assassination...ro/headmove.gif

I can't remember what the measurement came out at (and it depends where you are measuring I guess), but an inch sounds right. (Anyone can look at the animation and come to their own conclusion.)

The third way of doing it, that doesn't rely on one particular implementation of deblurring (because deblurring is not unique, no matter how cleverly you try to do it) is to instead blur 312, and then overlay the two. I don't have an image of that at hand, but I do know that it gave the same result as measuring off the animation above (or off the original that that animation was created from, I should say).

If one took the Z film to be genuine, I don't think the forward movement could be ignored -- it's not a backwards movement, for example -- but that's just my gut feeling.

John

[Pat Speer]

My responses in italics:

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.

My response: Well we agree on these last few points.

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

My response: What you seem unwilling to acknowledge is that Lifton rejects Gary's work, and believes, to this day, that there is NO convergence of wound descriptions. I agree with him on this point. Witnesses such as Custer and O'Connor described a wound stretching from the top of the head to the back--the wound as it appeared AFTER the scalp was peeled back and skull fell to the table--and were almost certainly not describing the wound as it first appeared. As they noted a hole stretching from where it is shown on the autopsy photos, moreover, they were not describing the wound as recalled by those at Parkland. The efforts of Aguilar to reconcile the Parkland and Bethesda witness statements, and the efforts of Groden to reconcile the Parkland and Bethesda witness statements with the Zapruder film, are not supportive of Lifton, and his thesis.

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.

My response: This is simply not true. A bullet impacting on the upper right side of Kennedy's head--whether fired from the front or behind--would send debris up in the air, which would immediately rain down on Hargis. This is what Hargis himself claimed happened. While we've been over this before, it appears you need a refresher course.

Bobby Hargis:

(8-7-68 interview with Tom Bethel and Al Oser, NARA #180-10096-10005) (When discussing how he could have been sprayed with blood, if the shot came from behind) "Well, that right there is what I've wondered about all along, but see there's ah -- you've got to take into consideration we were moving at the time, and when he got hit all that stuff went like this, and of course I run through it." (When discussing his interpretation of the direction of the shots) "Well, like I say, being that we know that the shot came from the School Book Depository, right then it was kind of hard to say what run through your mind. You know you pick up these little things. You don't know why you do it. You don't know why you do 'em, you just do 'em. It's just kind of instinct. But I had in my mind the shots you couldn't tell where they was coming, but it seemed like the motion of the President's head or his body and the splatter had hit me, it seemed like both the locations needed investigating, and that's why I investigated them. But you couldn't tell, there was -- it looked like a million windows on the Book Depository.You couldn't tell exactly if there was anyone in there with a gun." (When asked if the shots could have come from anywhere) "Uh huh. That's correct." (When asked if he saw the President's head jerk as a response to a bullet's impact) "Yes. Uh huh...To the left forward. Kind of that way...I couldn't see what part of it got hit...If he'd got hit in the rear, I'd have been able to see it. All I saw was just a splash come out on the other side." (Interview with NBC broadcast on the 1988 program That Day In November) "It sounded like a firecracker to me and I thought 'Oh Lord, let it be a firecracker. And it looked like the President was bending over, forward. And then when he raised back up is when that second shot hit him in the head." (1995 interview with Clint Bradford, reported online) " When [JFK] was shot in the head, it splashed up, and I ran into all that brain matter and all that. It came up and down, all over my uniform." (6-26-95 interview, posted on Youtube by Gil Jesus) "There was not three shots; there was only two. I only heard two...The facts was there was two shots--one that hit him in the back and one that hit him in the head. And the one that hit him in the head just busted his head wide open." (November 1998 interview with Texas Monthly) “About ten seconds after we made that left-hand turn, that first shot rang out…I remember Kennedy leaned forward to listen to what he had to say. And then when he raised back up, that second shot hit him in the head. But we figured out that he had got shot—that first bullet had gone through the upper part of his back, well through the seat, and hit Connally’s wrist and glanced off and went into his thigh.” (Interview from an 11-22-03 WBAP radio program found on Youtube) "Yeah I looked toward the President and I thought maybe John Connally was hit because he turned around to look at the President. He had a real surprised look on his face. Kennedy was bending over like he was listening to what Connally had to say. When he raised back up, that second shot hit him in the head. That's what killed him, There was only two shots fired." (11-22-03 article in the Dallas Morning News) “Hargis differs with the Warren Commission and most eyewitnesses, insisting that only two shots were fired. With the first, “a thousand million things went through my mind,” he says. After the last, “there was a plume of blood and brains and plasma. It was just like a fog, and I ran right through it.”

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--

My response: Read it again. He believed they could not be mistaken about this "cerebellum" extruding posteriorly. He later acknowledged that bloody cerebrum could easily be mistaken for "cerebellum," which is exactly the OPPOSITE of what you claim.

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.

My response. BALDERDASH. Not one of the three doctors originally claiming to see cerebellum continued to do so once people like you started claiming it proved a conspiracy. Two of them, in fact, readily admitted they'd been mistaken. McClelland--the star witness to there being cerebellum on the table--made no mention of this originally, and instead claimed the wound was on Kennedy's left temple. Today, he is adamant that the tracheotomy incision in the autopsy photos is how Kennedy appeared at Parkland. Now, you don't remotely believe him on this, do you?

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.

My response: No, I do understand this. Very few of these people had enough faith in their own recollections to claim they proved a conspiracy, and were quite alarmed when people like you started tracking them down to tell them they did. Watch Jenkins in Groden's video. He admits he was wrong. Carrico did the same thing. End of story.

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.

My response: Wha??? The wounds in Crenshaw's ARRB drawings barely overlap. The wound in one drawing is far higher on the skull than the wound in the other. Are you really unable to see this?

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,

My response: Wha? That's ludicrous. How do you think it got all over the car? How do you think it got all over the motorcyclists? A splash of blood and brain didn't just shoot across the plaza and hit Hargis in the face. Are you kidding me?

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?

My response: Humes admitted doing a little bit of sawing so he could remove the brain. You seem unwilling to acknowledge that Robinson was on the left side of Kennedy, and did not see the large head wound during the autopsy. It was on the right side.

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.

My response: Robinson was never questioned by the Warren Commission. The earliest statements he made were to the HSCA.

Kindly tell me your theory about the wounds.

My response: My God, Jim. I've made thousands of posts on this and other forums, have four videos on youtube discussing the medical evidence, and have a webpage with far more discussion and analysis of the medical and eyewitness evidence than all your books combined. Maybe you should do some homework.

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).

My response: I'm pretty sure that Kennedy detail quote is not a direct quote from Hill, but a paraphrase of his Warren Commission testimony by Blaine's co-author.

After all, if JFK had a fist-sized hole clearly visible in the back of his head,

My response: you once again ignore that Hill has repeatedly explained where he meant by back of the head, and it was above the right ear.

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,

My response: This is not my theory. I actually devote a chapter of my webpage to disproving this theory.

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?

My response: Because Thompson and others had begun pointing out that this trajectory made little sense. Bullets fired from sharply above don't normally enter low on the back of the head and curl back upwards. The Clark Panel looked for an entrance wound higher on the head, and, to the surprise of the autopsists, "found" one.

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.

Edited March 31, 2011 by Pat Speer

[Cliff Varnell]

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?

Thank you, Don. When the evidence is so lop-sided as the case with JFK's T3 back wound there

is no actual controversy, the noisy non sequiturs of "bunch" fallacies aside.

A tucked-in custom-made dress shirt only has a fraction of an inch of slack. This is an

unchallenged fact. Normal body movements such as JFK's in the motorcade cause clothes to

move in fractions of an inch, invariably. These are iron-clad facts of clothing design and fit.

While a handful of major researchers have pressed this point in the past -- Salandria, Marrs,

Fonzi, Twyman, Groden all come to mind -- these unchallenged facts are quite unpopular in the

JFK Assassination Research Community.

The bullet hole in JFK's shirt is prima facie evidence of 4 plus shots. Period. That fact

renders lots of discussions and research of secondary import. Much of the 2003 Wecht Conference

was utterly moot in light of the clothing evidence, which is why it was never mentioned there

(to the best of my knowledge).

Why should we give a fig about the acoustics evidence, the NAA, or CE399 when there is unchallenged,

prima facie evidence of 4+ shots?

Or the head wounds? I mean, there is an entry in the FBI report on the autopsy concerning pre-autopsy

surgery to the head.

That's the end of the head wounds as a topic worthy of speculation, imo. All we have is a pile of highly conflicted evidence upon which even allies cannot agree.

For instance, James Fetzer says JFK was hit the head twice -- doesn't Doug Horne

say it was three?

Who knows? We'll never know. The topic is ridiculous!

But don't let me be a bummer, let the Parlor Game play on...

Edited April 1, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

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?

Thank you, Don. When the evidence is so lop-sided as the case with JFK's T3 back wound there

is no actual controversy, the noisy non sequiturs of "bunch" fallacies aside.

A tucked-in custom-made dress shirt only has a fraction of an inch of slack. This is an

unchallenged fact. Normal body movements such as JFK's in the motorcade cause clothes to

move in fractions of an inch, invariably. These are iron-clad facts of clothing design and fit.

While a handful of major researchers have pressed this point in the past -- Salandria, Marrs,

Fonzi, Twyman, Groden all come to mind -- these unchallenged facts are quite unpopular in the

JFK Assassination Research Community.

The bullet hole in JFK's shirt is prima facie evidence of 4 plus shots. Period. That fact

renders lots of discussions and research of secondary import. Much of the 2003 Wecht Conference

was utterly moot in light of the clothing evidence, which is why it was never mentioned there

(to the best of my knowledge).

Why should we give a fig about the acoustics evidence, the NAA, or CE399 when there is unchallenged,

prima facie evidence of 4+ shots?

Or the head wounds? I mean, there is an entry in the FBI report on the autopsy concerning pre-autopsy

surgery to the head.

That's the end of the head wounds as a topic worthy of speculation, imo. All we have is a pile of highly conflicted evidence upon which even allies cannot agree.

For instance, James Fetzer says JFK was hit the head twice -- doesn't Doug Horne

say it was three?

Who knows? We'll never know. The topic is ridiculous!

But don't let me be a bummer, let the Parlor Game play on...

Sigh...the shadows don't lie. JFK's jacket had a 3+ inch fold in Betzner. THAT'S an unimpeachable fact Cliff. Get used to it. Ridiculous is to claim the 3+ inch fold was NOT THERE.

[Greg Burnham]

Keep up the good work, Cliff! I always appreciate your contributions...FWIW

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?

Thank you, Don. When the evidence is so lop-sided as the case with JFK's T3 back wound there

is no actual controversy, the noisy non sequiturs of "bunch" fallacies aside.

A tucked-in custom-made dress shirt only has a fraction of an inch of slack. This is an

unchallenged fact. Normal body movements such as JFK's in the motorcade cause clothes to

move in fractions of an inch, invariably. These are iron-clad facts of clothing design and fit.

While a handful of major researchers have pressed this point in the past -- Salandria, Marrs,

Fonzi, Twyman, Groden all come to mind -- these unchallenged facts are quite unpopular in the

JFK Assassination Research Community.

The bullet hole in JFK's shirt is prima facie evidence of 4 plus shots. Period. That fact

renders lots of discussions and research of secondary import. Much of the 2003 Wecht Conference

was utterly moot in light of the clothing evidence, which is why it was never mentioned there

(to the best of my knowledge).

Why should we give a fig about the acoustics evidence, the NAA, or CE399 when there is unchallenged,

prima facie evidence of 4+ shots?

Or the head wounds? I mean, there is an entry in the FBI report on the autopsy concerning pre-autopsy

surgery to the head.

That's the end of the head wounds as a topic worthy of speculation, imo. All we have is a pile of highly conflicted evidence upon which even allies cannot agree.

For instance, James Fetzer says JFK was hit the head twice -- doesn't Doug Horne

say it was three?

Who knows? We'll never know. The topic is ridiculous!

But don't let me be a bummer, let the Parlor Game play on...

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pat,

I am only going to respond to a few key issues. There is so much proof that his brains were blown out to the

left-rear that I find it very difficult to take your suggestion that it blew out the top or the side of his head as

a serious hypothesis. You appear to be practicing the method of selection and elimination, by selecting the

evidence that agrees with a predetermined conclusion and eliminating the rest. That violates the principle of

total evidence, which insists that serious reasoning be based on all the available relevant evidence. While we

must distinguish the authentic from the inauthentic evidence, your methodology--of looking for very small

differences when there is gross agreement--strikes me as highly subjective and unscientific. I am therefore

going to address those question that are most important and explain why I think you are seriously mistaken.

My responses in italics:

I have rearranged some of the text for clarity of exposition and to display how our various positions compare.

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.

Pat Speer: Well we agree on these last few points.

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

Pat Speer: What you seem unwilling to acknowledge is that Lifton rejects Gary's work, and believes, to this day,

that there is NO convergence of wound descriptions. I agree with him on this point. Witnesses such as Custer and

O'Connor described a wound stretching from the top of the head to the back--the wound as it appeared AFTER the

scalp was peeled back and skull fell to the table--and were almost certainly not describing the wound as it first

appeared. As they noted a hole stretching from where it is shown on the autopsy photos, moreover, they were not

describing the wound as recalled by those at Parkland. The efforts of Aguilar to reconcile the Parkland and Bethesda

witness statements, and the efforts of Groden to reconcile the Parkland and Bethesda witness statements with the

Zapruder film, are not supportive of Lifton, and his thesis.

Actually, I think you have a point. Because Tink had endorsed Aguilar's study, which provides extended evidence of

a blow out to the back of the head--and in turn impugns the integrity of the Zapruder film, whose early frames do

not show it--I may have simplified the situation in the very ways you suggest. I have watched Paul O'Connor and

James Jenkins talk about the condition of the body when it arrived in a body bag and how astonished they were at

the enormity of the wound and the absence of the brain. Given the multiple casket entries--and I may have to go

back to Horne for more on this--and given that witnesses observed Humes enlargening the wound, my best guess

at this point in time would have to be that the body came to Humes BEFORE it was brought to O'Connor during the

SECOND entry. So many games were being played at Bethesda that nothing would surprise me. I think you have a

good point, which is consistent with Humes doing the deed BEFORE the body was observed by O'Connorl I would

very much like to have David Lifton's take on this however, because you are right: something more was going on.

Pat Speer: This is simply not true. A bullet impacting on the upper right side of Kennedy's head--whether fired

from the front or behind--would send debris up in the air, which would immediately rain down on Hargis. This is

what Hargis himself claimed happened. While we've been over this before, it appears you need a refresher course.

Well, Hargis made several statements, including the following, which is consistent with what I have attributed to him:

Bobby Hargis (motorcycle policeman on the left rear fender of the Presidential limousine), November 23, 1963:

“As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned toward him, and that was when he got hit in the side of the head, spinning it around. I was splattered with blood. Then I felt something hit me. It could have been concrete or something, but I thought at first I might have been hit.” [Daily News report]

Notice that a hit to the right temple is a hit on the side of the head. But he thought at first that he might have been

shot himself. My best guess is that he was hit by the Harper fragment. If the debris had actually been blow up into

the air, however, it is most unlikely that it would have impacted with him so hard that he would have thought that he

had been hit. Notice, too, that this statement was made on 23 November 1963, the day after the shooting occurred.

We have many other witnesses to his brains having been blow out to the left rear. Erwin Swarts, an associate of Abe

Zapruder, viewed the film in what appears to have been its original state at Eastman Kodak and reported that he saw

the brains and debris blown out to the left rear. I quote him on page 27 of THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX.

On page 464, moreover, Rich DellaRosa describes the two hits to the head that JFK sustained during the limo stop,

where the second shot was from the front, "with blood and brain matter splattering to the left rear--very graphic".

Although you want to suggest that, because of his hand gestures, the statement in THE KENNEDY DETAIL (2010) I

have quoted, "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, p. 217), should not be taken seriously--even though

it has to be the single most important sentence in the book--you ignore Clint's recent statements at a book signing,

which I quoted in "Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?", that confirms a wound at the right/rear:

"As I approached the vehicle there was a third shot. It hit the President in the head, upper right rear of the right ear,

caused a gaping hole in his head, which caused brain matter, blood, and bone fragments to spew forth out over the

car, over myself. . . . His right side of his head was exposed. I could see his eyes were fixed. There was a hole in the

upper right rear portion of his head about the size of my palm. Most of the gray matter in that area had been removed,

and was scattered throughout the entire car, including on Mrs. Kennedy.”

Lest there be any doubt on this crucial point, in Clint Hill’s written statement dated 30 November 1963, published as

Commission Exhibit CE 1024, he wrote: “As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President’s

head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of

his skull with hair on it lying on the seat” [18H742]. And in his testimony to the commission on 9 March 1964, “The

right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the middle of the car. His brain was exposed.” [2H141].

Since he has told us he made these observations before the limo had reached the pilot car drive by Chief Curry,

the film has to have been faked. Clint Hill could not have made these observations from the rear foothold as the film

represents it. Moreover, in his introductory tutorial to Zapruder film fabrication, John Costella notes that the blood

spray dissipates too quickly to be real rather than painted in. And that is most certainly the case if the bulk of his

brains had been blown upward, as you imply. Moreover, that the trunk of the limo is clear of any apparent brains

or blood, which would also have been there on your account, is further evidence that the film has been "cleaned up".

Pat Speer: Read it again. He believed they could not be mistaken about this "cerebellum" extruding posteriorly.

He later acknowledged that bloody cerebrum could easily be mistaken for "cerebellum," which is exactly the

OPPOSITE of what you claim.

Read more of what Bob wrote in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE on page 164: "Therefore, if cerebellum was extruding

posteriorly--and I believe the medical witnesses at Parkland Hospital could not have been mistaken about this--

..."; and, further down the page, "It simply cannot be true that the cerebellum could have been seen extruding from

the occipital-parietal wound--by several experienced and thoroughly competent physicians--and for the same

brain to be seen in superior and lateral photographs, and depicted in a drawing (superior view) showing the cere-

bellum as being apparently intact. A conclusion is obligatorily forced that the photographs and drawings of the

brain in the National Archives are those of some brain other than that of John Fitzgerald Kennedy." There really

is no doubt about it. Even if, under some conditions, bloody cerebrum could be mistaken for cerebellum, there

is no reason to believe that that occurred in this case. Bob was, if I may remind you, a world authority on the

human brain and he most certainly would not have drawn a conclusion of this magnitude were there any doubt.

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

Pat Speer. BALDERDASH. Not one of the three doctors originally claiming to see cerebellum continued

to do so once people like you started claiming it proved a conspiracy. Two of them, in fact, readily admitted

they'd been mistaken. McClelland--the star witness to there being cerebellum on the table--made no

mention of this originally, and instead claimed the wound was on Kennedy's left temple. Today, he is

adamant that the tracheotomy incision in the autopsy photos is how Kennedy appeared at Parkland. Now,

you don't remotely believe him on this, do you?

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

to have nothing more to do with the case. Something has happened to McClelland if his opinions about the

tracheotomy have changed to that extent. I am hesitant to speculate about it. Does he also disavow his own

diagram published in SIX SECONDS? A partial explanation, of course, is one that you youself suggest, namely,

that these physicians did not want to be cited as offering evidence of a conspiracy in the death of our 35th

president. That kind of paranoid denial can have a powerful effect on those who want to spare themselves

the obligation of defending views contrary to those of the government. They wanted to get off the hot seat.

Pat Speer: No, I do understand this. Very few of these people had enough faith in their own recollections to

claim they proved a conspiracy, and were quite alarmed when people like you started tracking them down to tell

them they did. Watch Jenkins in Groden's video. He admits he was wrong. Carrico did the same thing. End of story.

This is a nice example of your use of selection and elimination. Study the reports of cerebral and of cerebellar

tissue extruding from the wound. No matter what they might say later--that someone like you might want to

cite in an effort to revised the evidential record--those reports stand. It is analogous to Officer Baker writing

that Oswald was drinking a coke, which he was later asked to strike (because it didn't fit the official timeline).

No one would have written that he was drinking a coke (wearing a green beret, etc.) unless he had been drinking

a coke (wearing a green beret, etc.). Similarly for reports of cerebellar as well as cerebral tissue extruding from

the wound. No one would have reported that unless cerebral as well as cerebellar tissue had been extruding.

Pat Speer: Wha??? The wounds in Crenshaw's ARRB drawings barely overlap. The wound in one drawing is

far higher on the skull than the wound in the other. Are you really unable to see this?

I have previously addressed this. Perhaps you have missed my post 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 am sorry, but you simply have it wrong (again).

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. It

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.

Pat Speer: Wha? That's ludicrous. How do you think it got all over the car? How do you think it got all over

the motorcyclists? A splash of blood and brain didn't just shoot across the plaza and hit Hargis in the face.

Are you kidding me?

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?

Pat Speer: Humes admitted doing a little bit of sawing so he could remove the brain. You seem unwilling to

acknowledge that Robinson was on the left side of Kennedy, and did not see the large head wound during the

autopsy. It was on the right side.

[There was a second witness besides him. Have you read INSIDE THE ARRB? Humes did a great deal more

than "a little sawing". I am really surprised that you want to trivialize what he was doing. There was quite

a hole in the cranium and it would not have been necessary to have "done a little sawing" in order to take

out the brain. He had ample time to study these wounds. In the HSCA testimony for which you provided a

link, he describes it as about the size of an orange and centered at the back of his head, which is entirely

consistent with the Parkland reports and what Clint Hill has told us. But he added that it had been enlarged

(by Humes, of course, which he had observed personally). I don't see any inconsistency with his later report

to Joe West, which was not controlled by the commission. Both reports seem to me to be wholly consistent.

Pat Speer: Robinson was never questioned by the Warren Commission. The earliest statements he made

were to the HSCA.

Well, that doesn't mean that anything he reported was false. These wounds, which he had ample time to

study, make excellent sense in relation to the other witness reports. Remember, the Harvard study that

David and I cited in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998) explained that, when witnesses are observing events

that are salient to them, they are 98% accurate and 98% complete in their recollections. I think that this

is an excellent example, especially because he had all the time in the world to study these wounds and

was, in fact, in the best possible position to observe them "up close and personal". For you to discount

his descriptions is highly irrational and suggests you have your own theory, which is not to be falsified by

exceptional reports like this, which we have every reason to regard as being both accurate and complete:

The throat wound, as he remarked, was very nasty, even though it had been a simple, clean puncture

wound at Parkland. I have already posted Charles Crenshaw's diagrams of the wound both before and

after the tracheostomy. I would like to think that you are not going to deny that Crenshaw was in the

position to observe this wound. He, like these other witnesses, had the advantage over you that they

were there--and they were not trying to revise the evidence to fit an hypothesis. 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, than pushing it to the side.

Edited April 1, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Just as a point of clarification, while I conclude he was hit twice in the head, I do not rule out that he

MIGHT have been hit a third time. But I don't see any evidence for it. On the other hand, the point

of "Reasoning about Assassinations" was to demonstrate that, once we have established where the

bullet entered his back--about 5.5 inched below the collar and to the right of the spinal column--

we know that the shot to his throat and the wounds in Connally have to be accounted for on the

basis of separate shots and separate shooters, which means, as you have implied, the existence of

conspiracy in the death of JFK is established simply by locating the shot that hit him in the back.

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?

Thank you, Don. When the evidence is so lop-sided as the case with JFK's T3 back wound there

is no actual controversy, the noisy non sequiturs of "bunch" fallacies aside.

A tucked-in custom-made dress shirt only has a fraction of an inch of slack. This is an

unchallenged fact. Normal body movements such as JFK's in the motorcade cause clothes to

move in fractions of an inch, invariably. These are iron-clad facts of clothing design and fit.

While a handful of major researchers have pressed this point in the past -- Salandria, Marrs,

Fonzi, Twyman, Groden all come to mind -- these unchallenged facts are quite unpopular in the

JFK Assassination Research Community.

The bullet hole in JFK's shirt is prima facie evidence of 4 plus shots. Period. That fact

renders lots of discussions and research of secondary import. Much of the 2003 Wecht Conference

was utterly moot in light of the clothing evidence, which is why it was never mentioned there

(to the best of my knowledge).

Why should we give a fig about the acoustics evidence, the NAA, or CE399 when there is unchallenged,

prima facie evidence of 4+ shots?

Or the head wounds? I mean, there is an entry in the FBI report on the autopsy concerning pre-autopsy

surgery to the head.

That's the end of the head wounds as a topic worthy of speculation, imo. All we have is a pile of highly conflicted evidence upon which even allies cannot agree.

For instance, James Fetzer says JFK was hit the head twice -- doesn't Doug Horne

say it was three?

Who knows? We'll never know. The topic is ridiculous!

But don't let me be a bummer, let the Parlor Game play on...

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the payoff paragraph form Pat's site about the Clark Panel and Thompson's book:

That this was not a coincidence was confirmed, however, by Clark panel ring-leader Russell S. Fisher when he told the Maryland State Medical Journal in March 1977 that Attorney General Ramsey Clark had seen the proofs of Six Seconds in Dallas, which included a comparison of Warren Commission Exhibit 388 and Zapruder frame 312, and that the Clark panel report was released "partly to refute some of the junk" in the book. Apparently, their way of "refuting" Thompson's comparison of CE-388 and Z-312 was by confirming he was right and by declaring instead that their esteemed colleagues, Humes, Boswell and Finck were badly mistaken as to the actual location and measurements of the entrance wound on the back of Kennedy's skull, and were off by almost 4 inches! Even more amazing, Fisher told the Maryland State Medical Journal that this was only a “minor error.” What the??? One ponders what Fisher would consider a "major error" in such circumstances...

This is real important for more than one reason.

But it proves that Washington was literally at war with the critics. For not only was Fisher tasked with countering Thompson, but the release of the report was held up for about ten months so that it coincided with the beginning of the trial of Clay Shaw.

Then, as many believe, FIsher did what he was tasked with. He solved the problem posed by TInk's book by moving the rear skull wound up by four inches.

BTW, Fisher was quite reliable. As Jim Hougan later discovered, he also covered up the murder of CIA officer John Paisley.

[Pat Speer]

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

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

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

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

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

2 points.

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

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

Edited April 1, 2011 by Pat Speer