DID ZAPRUDER FILM "THE ZAPRUDER FILM"?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pat Speer troubles me. For him to be right, everyone else--including Clint Hill, Erwin Swartz,

Malcolm Perry, Charles Crenshaw, Pepper Jenkins, James Carrico, Charles Baxter, as well as many

others, including witnesses in Dealey Plaza at the time--have to be wrong. So what is the more

likely: that all of these witnesses were mistaken in reporting the blow-out at the back of JFK's

head, when they were there and reported their personal observations, or Pat Speer, who was not?

I am sorry, but somewhere along the way, Pat Speer lost his bearings and began to believe what

he wanted to believe instead of what the evidence supports. He is subjective and unscientific.

Bernice Moore has just posted something highly relevant here on the parallel thread in the Deep

Politics Forum, "Did Zapruder film 'the Zapruder film'?", which should make a difference to all.

But, of course, for Pat Speer, even Bill Newman will be just another witness who got it wrong!

This post is located at:

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?6822-Did-zapruder-film-quot-the-zapruder-film-quot/page4

Here is the message that has just been posted:

***************

jack this below,i have been going through some cds,and this is from a post at Rich's in the past,

i am only throwing it in here for added information, not to way lay the discussion, please continue,

i thought it may be of interest to others... best b..

5 min_ Newman intv_ wkaa tv dallas_nov_22_63

You posted this information below on Nov. 21/04..I have never

forgotten it.

Jack: Thursday afternoon in Dallas I had a chance to talk for a few minutes

again with Bill Newman and asked him some questions again: (answers

paraphrased)

JW...did you notice Zapruder on the hill behind you?

BN...before the president arrived I noticed a man up there

with a camera. At that time I thought it was O.L.Nelms, the

eccentric Dallas millionaire. But I later learned it must have

been Mr. Zapruder. I did not know Mr. Zapruder, but I was

familiar with what Nelms looked like. Afterwards I thought

to myself "I hope Mr. Nelms did not shoot him."

JW...was there a woman with him (Nelms/Zapruder)?

BN...I did not see any woman with him. He was alone.

JW...Did you notice anything which conflicted with the official story?

BN...In the Zapruder film, the president's car does not stop, but

I know for sure that IT STOPPED FOR SEVERAL SECONDS RIGHT

IN FRONT OF ME. There is no mistake about that! And all the other

cars behind had to come to a sudden stop too! Then it speeded up

and left. It was not at all like the Zapruder film.

JW...What is your most memorable memory of the day?

BN...Oh...the head shot, right in front of me. His head exploded

and went back and to the left like somebody hit him in the

right temple with a baseball bat. The shot came from behind me.

Whom do you believe? Bill Newman or Arlen Specter?" [or Pat Speer?]

Jack

*************

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

Todd

Todd,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

James

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

Edited April 1, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Bernice searched through her files and was kind enough to send me these

reports from Parkland Hospital, which offer reason after reason to believe

that JFK had an enormous blow-out at the back of his head, slightly to the

right, which was caused by a bullet that entered his right temple; and a

small entry wound in his throat. No doubt Pat Speer will have something

to say about the most minute differences in these descriptions but, taken

in their totality, the confirm the location I have been defending and dis-

confirm his repeated claims of a blow-out at the top or side of his head--

not to mention the extruding cerebellum, which could not have been exposed

by a blow-out at either the top of his head or the side of his head. If

he were not committed to a predetermined point of view--if he were just a

little more scientific and a little less subjective--he would abandon his

quixotic quest for his revision of the wounds, where I must frankly admit

I have no idea where he is coming from or what drives him to pursue this.

----- Original Message -----

From: bernice

Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 8:45 PM

Subject: Palamara on 3 Patients at Parkland

THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE: THE (EARLIEST) REPORTS

By Vincent Michael Palamara (1/1/99)

[abridged entries and excerpts from over 100 entries,

out of a total of 325, from the author's 1998 book,

"JFK: The Medical Evidence Reference" (339 pages)]

1) Dr. William Kemp Clark, Chief Neurosurgeon:

WR 516-518/ 17 H 1-3 / CE 392 [undated summary; see also 21 H 150-152

:Clark’s 11/23/63 report to Admiral Burkley with the verbatim summary .

In addition, see “Assassination Science”, pp. 416-418: this is an FBI

report dated 11/25/63 which includes the verbatim summary to Burkley

from 11/23/63]---“..in the occipital region of the skull…”; “There was a

large wound in the right occipitoparietal region…”; “Both cerebral and

cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound.”;

2) Dr. Malcolm Oliver "Mac" Perry, Attending Surgeon:

a] WR 521-522/ 17 H 6-7/ CE392: report written 11/22/63---“A large wound

of the right posterior cranium…”;

b] Parkland press conference, 11/22/63 [see “Assassination Science”, pp.

419-427; silent film clip used in “Reasonable Doubt” (1988), “20/20”

(4/92), etc.]---“There was an entrance wound in the neck…It appeared to

be coming at him…The wound appeared to be an entrance wound in the front

of the throat; yes, that is correct. The exit wound, I don’t know. It

could have been the head or there could have been a second wound of the

head.” (apparently, based off this conference, the Associated Press

dispatch on 11/22/63 stated that Dr. Perry "said the entrance wound was

in the front of the head," while all the AP wires for this day stated

that JFK had a large hole in the "back" of his head.);

3) Dr. Robert Nelson McClelland, Attending Surgeon:

a] WR 526-527 / 17 H 11-12 / CE 392: report written 11/22/63---“…a

massive gunshot wound of the head with a fragment wound of the

trachea…The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from

a gunshot wound of the left temple.”;

b] “St. Louis Post-Dispatch”, 12/1/63---“This [the neck wound] did

appear to be an entrance wound.”

c] 6 H 33-34, 35, 37 / testimony---“…I could very closely examine the

head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull

had been extremely blasted…probably a third or so, at least, of the

brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar

tissue had been blasted out…”; "…there was definitely a piece of

cerebellum that extruded from the wound…"; “…the loss of cerebral and

cerebellar tissues were so great…massive head injuries with loss of

large amounts of cerebral and cerebellar tissues…”; “The initial

impression that we had was that perhaps the wound in the neck, the

anterior part of the neck, was an entrance wound and that it had perhaps

taken a trajectory off the anterior vertebral body and again into the

skull itself, exiting out the back, to produce the massive injury in the

head.”;

4) Dr. Marion Thomas “Pepper” Jenkins, Chief Anesthesiologist [deceased

11/22/94]:

WR 529-530 / 17 H 14-15 / CE 392: report addressed to Administrator

C.J. Price dated 11/22/63 (the verbatim, retyped report, this time

addressed to Dean A.J. Gill, can be found at 20 H 252-253)---“ a great

laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital),

causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation

and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the

cerebellum had protruded from the wound.”[see also p. 35 of Jesse

Curry's 1969 book entitled "JFK Assassination File"];

5) Dr. Charles James "Jim" Carrico, Resident Surgeon:

a] WR 519-520 / 17 H 4-5 / CE 392: handwritten report dated

11/22/63---“[the skull] wound had avulsed the calvarium and shredded

brain tissue present with profuse oozing…attempts to control slow oozing

from cerebral and cerebellar tissue via packs instituted….”; “small

penetrating wound of ent. neck”;

6) Dr. Ronald Coy Jones, Chief Resident Surgeon:

a] 20 H 333: handwritten report dated 11/23/63---“…severe skull and

brain injury was noted as well as a small hole in anterior midline of

neck thought to be a bullet entrance wound…air was bubbling through the

neck wound.”;

b] 6 H 53-54, 56 / testimony (3/24/64)---“…he had a large wound in the

right posterior side of the head…There was large defect in the back side

of the head as the President lay on the cart with what appeared to be

some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted

with the brain…”; “what appeared to be an exit wound in the posterior

portion of the skull…the only speculation that I could have as far as to

how this could occur with a single wound would be that it would enter

the anterior neck and possibly strike a vertebral body and then change

its course and exit in the region of the posterior portion of the

head.”; "The hole [in the throat] was very small and relatively clean

cut, as you would see in a bullet that is entering rather than exiting

from a patient.";

7) Dr. Gene Coleman Akin, Resident Anesthesiologist [a.k.a. Solomon Ben

Israel]:

6 H 65 and 67 / testimony---“The back of the right occipital parietal

portion of his head was shattered, with brain substance extruding.”; “I

assume the right occipital parietal region was the exit, so to speak, that

he had probably been hit on the other side of the head, or at least

tangentially in the back of the head…”; “this [the neck wound] must have

been an entrance wound…”;

8) Dr. Paul Conrad Peters, Urologist:

6 H 70-71 / testimony---“It was pointed out that an examination of the

brain had been done…we saw the wound of entry in the throat and noted

the large occipital wound…”;“…I noticed that there was a large defect in

the occiput…It seemed to me that in the right occipital parietal area

that there was a large defect.”;

9) Dr. Charles A. Crenshaw, Resident Surgeon:

a] “Conspiracy of Silence” (1992), p. 86 (and throughout [inc. photos of

himself])---“I walked to the President’s head to get a closer look. His

entire right cerebral hemisphere appeared to be gone. It looked like a

crater---an empty cavity…From the damage I saw, there was no doubt in my

mind that the bullet had entered his head through the front, and as it

surgically passed through his cranium, the missile obliterated part of

the temporal and all the parietal and occipital lobes before it

lacerated the cerebellum.”; [p. 79] “I also identified a small opening

about the diameter of a pencil at the midline of his throat to be an

entry bullet hole. There was no doubt in my mind about that wound.”;

b] “High Treason 2", pp. 110-115 and 549 (interviews of 7/12/80 [90?]

and 9/21/91)---“…it was in the parietal-occipital area”; thinks the

body was tampered with at Bethesda;

c] WC references to his presence on 11/22/63: 6 H 40 (Baxter), 6 H 31-32

(McClelland), 6 H 80-81 (Salyer), 6 H 141 (Henchcliffe), 6 H 60

(Curtis)+15 H 761: index;

d] Completely overlooked WC reference to his presence on 11/24/63: 21 H

265(report by Parkland Administrator Charles Price)---“Dr. Charles

Crenshaw was in the corridor and said they had been alerted. He said,

‘You’re not going to put him [Oswald] in the same room the President was

in, are you?’ told him I surely was glad he had thought of it and by

all means, not to.”;

10) Dr. Charles Rufus Baxter, Attending Surgeon:

WR 523 / 17 H 8 / CE392---handwritten report dated 11/22/63----“…the

right temporal and occipital bones were missing and the brain was lying

on the table, with [extensive?] maceration and contusion…”;

11) Dr. Robert G. Grossman, Resident Neurosurgeon:

a] “High Treason”, pages 30, 36, 51, 53, 459 (“The Boston Globe”, June

21, 1981-notes placed in JFK Library [see also "Killing Kennedy", pp.

303-304, "Between The Signal and the Noise" by Roger Bruce Feinman

(1993) and Groden's "TKOAP", p. 181])---saw two separate head wounds: a

large defect in the parietal area above the right ear, as well as “a

large [albeit smaller than the first wound described], separate wound,

located squarely in the occiput.”; "…described a large hole squarely in

the occiput, far too large for a bullet entry wound…"; Grossman: "It was

clear to me…that the right parietal bone had been lifted up by a bullet

which had exited."; noticed the skin flap near the right temple; Dr.

Clark picked up the back of the head to demonstrate the wound;

b] 6 H 81 (Salyer)---confirms Grossman’s presence in Trauma Room One;

12) Dr. Richard Brooks Dulany, Resident Surgeon [Dulaney]:

a] 6 H 114 /testimony (3/25/64)---“…he had a large head wound—that was

the first thing I noticed.” Arlen Specter did not have him elaborate on

any details.;

http://www.informatik.uni-rostock.de/Kennedy/index.html

b] other WC references: WR 56, 529; 3 H 358, 384; 6 H 2, 11, 46, 52-53,

69, 73-74; 17 H 14; 21 H 241;

c] “High Treason”, pages 43, 46, 460,and 489 (“The Boston Globe”,

6/21/81 [see also "Killing Kennedy", page 303])---“The copy of the

autopsy photo was shown to him by the Globe and he stated that it was

not accurate. When shown the official picture, he said that there was a

“definite conflict” and “that’s not the way I remember it.”**; “Somebody

lifted up his head and showed me the back of his head. We couldn't see

much until they picked up his head. I was standing beside him. The wound

was on the back of his head. On the back side…the whole back-side was

gone..it was a big gaping wound.”; **”The tape and summary of Dulaney is

in the JFK Library, and I have since talked with him, verifying this.";

13) Dr. Adolph Hartung "Buddy" Giesecke, Jr., Anesthesiologist:

a] 20 H 5-7: 11/25/63 report re: care of Gov. Connally;

b] 6 H 74 / testimony---“..I noticed that he had a very large cranial

wound, with loss of brain substance, and it seemed most of the bleeding

was coming from the cranial wound…from the vertex to the left ear, and

from the browline to the occiput on the left-hand side of the head the

cranium was entirely missing.”;

14) Dr. Fouad A. Bashour, Chief Cardiologist:

a] WR 528 / 17 H 13 / CE392: handwritten report dated 11/22/63---very

brief report that doesn’t mention the wounds;

b] 6 H 61-62 /testimony---“…the head wound was massive…”: no details

were elicited during Bashour’s brief testimony;

http://www.informatik.uni-rostock.de/Kennedy/index.html

c] other WC references: WR 53-54, 518, 537; 3 H 360, 371; 6 H 4, 11, 20,

32, 40, 64, 145, 149; 17 H 3, 22; 20 H 5; 21 H 152;

d] January 1964 “Texas State Journal of Medicine” article “Three

Patients at Parkland”, p. 63---repeats the gist of his brief 11/22/63

report;

e] “High Treason”, p. 45 (“The Continuing Inquiry”, 10/80; see also

“Conspiracy”, p. 481)---“He was most insistent that the official picture

was not representative of the wounds, and he continually laid his hand

both on the back of Livinsgtone’s head and his own to show where the

large hole was. “Why do they cover it up?” he repeated numerous times.

“This is not the way it was!” he kept repeating, shaking his head no.”;

15) Dr. Kenneth Everett Salyer, Resident Surgeon:

6 H 81 /testimony---“…he did have some sucking wound of some type on his

neck…”;“…(JFK) had a wound of his right temporal region…I came in on the

left side of him and noticed that his major wound seemed to be in his

right temporal area, at least from the point of view that I could see

him, and other than that---nothing other than he did have a gaping scalp

wound---cranial wound.”;

16) Nurse Patricia B. "Trish" Hutton (Gustafson):

21 H 216: report of activities on 11/22/63---“Mr. Kennedy was bleeding

profusely from a wound in the back of his head…A doctor asked me to

place a pressure dressing on the head wound. This was no use, however,

because of the massive opening on the back of the head.”;

17) Chief Supervising Nurse Doris Mae Nelson [deceased 10/3/83]:

a] 21 H 155: 11/25/63 affidavit re: Record of Death;

b] 20 H 640-643 /21 H 241-244: report of activities [see also

Manchester, p. 673];

c] 6 H 145 /testimony---“…I could look and see [JFK] and tell that it

was him…mainly his head ”: Specter did not ask nor did she volunteer

info. regarding the head wound;

d] 12/82 interview with David Lifton (“BE”, p. 704)---“Doris Nelson told

me the tracheotomy was not the one she remembered: “Looks a little

large to me…[it] shouldn’t be that big…It wasn’t any 7-8 cm. [it was]

just wide enough to get the trach tube in.”; “She looked at [the

official autopsy photos of the back of the head] and shook her head from

side to side..she remembered a large wound there.”;

18) Nurse Audrey N. Bell :

a] 6 H 52 (Jones);other WC references: WR 536; 17 H 21, 841; 20 H 333;

21 H 172, 187, 246, 248; 24 H 26;

b] 12/82 interview by David Lifton (“BE”, p. 704)---“The wound she saw

was so localized at the rear that, from her position on the right hand

side, with Kennedy lying face up, she couldn’t see ANY damage…Perry

pointed to the back of the President’s head.” Re: trach photo: “Looks

like somebody has enlarged it…You don’t make trachs that big. Not if

you’ve got as much experience as Perry has.”;

19) Nurse Diana Hamilton Bowron:

19 H 167-170: 11/23/63 newspaper articles---“There was a gaping wound in

the back of his head.";

20) Dr. William Midgett, Ob-Gyn Resident:

a] 6 H 135-136 (Bowron), 21 H 213 (Lozano)---confirm Midgett’s presence

and duties;

b] “JFK-Conspiracy of Silence”(1992), p. 74---same;

c] 4/16/92 interview with Gerald Posner for “Case Closed”, 287,

310-311---“…it was more parietal than occipital---that much I could

see.”;

d] 2/8/93 interview with Wallace Milam [transcript provided to

author]---"Midgett saw one wound---in the head. He called it "right

parietal area" and said it was behind the ear. He estimated it as being

6 cm in diameter. A piece of skull was missing and there was an absence

of brain (Midgett called it "a hole" where the brain had been). Midgett

said, "The brain was all over the car.";

21) Dr. Don Teel Curtis, Resident Oral Surgeon:

a] 6 H 60 / testimony---“…I went around to the right side of [JFK] and

saw the head wound...fragments of bone and a gross injury to the cranial

contents, with copious amounts of hemorrhage.": no specific details on

orientation and the like where elicited from Curtis;

b] 9/30/98 letter to Vince Palamara---" The wound involving the right

posterior lateral surface of the skull appeared to me to be an exit

wound or a tangential entrance wound.";

22) Donna Willie:

“High Treason”, p.456 (based off article by Nicole Levicoff of the

"Jenkintown [PA] Times Chronicle")---“the President had a wound in his

throat that the Commission said was an exit wound or was made from a

tracheotomy…the entry wound is always small, and the exit wound is much

larger. I saw the entry wound in the front of the President’s neck. I

know he was shot from the front, and I couldn’t understand why that

wasn’t released.”;

23) Dr. Philip Earle Williams:

a] 21 H 215 (Nurse Bertha Lozano’s report)---“Then the president’s body

was escorted out. The crowd vanished, and then I felt so confused that I

just had to leave the desk for a few minutes. I later went to the dining

room with Pat Hutton AND A DR. WILLIAMS and had coffee and afterwards,

went home (emphasis added)”;

b] “High Treason 2”, photo section+ pp. 287, 294, 301-302, 308-312

(interviewed 4/6/91[inc. on unreleased video] and 5/10/92)---“Certainly

the President’s cerebellum was severely damaged and “swinging in the

breeze”, as it was described by Dr.Philip Williams”; “The bone in the

back of President Kennedy’s head was missing”; disputes the x-rays;

24) Nurse Margaret M. Hinchliffe (Hood) [Hinchcliffe; Henchcliffe]:

a] 21 H 239-240: report of activities for 11/22/63 [see also Manchester,

p. 671]---nothing specific related to the wounds;

b] 6 H 141 and 143 /testimony---“…his head was very bloody…”; “…a little

hole in the middle of his neck…About as big as the end of my little

finger…An entrance bullet hole---it looked to me like…I have never seen

an exit bullet hole---I don’t remember seeing one that looked like

that.”; “…it was just a small wound and wasn’t jagged like most of the

exit bullet wounds that I have seen.”;

c] “High Treason”, pages 45, 68-69, 454 (“The Boston Globe”, 6/21/81 [see

also "Killing The Truth", p. 702])---“Interviewed by reporters in 1981,

she drew a picture of the large wound on a model of a skull. She

sketched a gaping hole in the occipital region which extended only

slightly into the parietal area, thereby rejecting out of hand the

official picture. She also insisted the President had an “entry” wound

in his throat.”

Edited April 2, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Jack White]

Jim...I am still blocked by the forum from posting images. Will you please post the image

I sent you of my analysis of the "gaping hole" autopsy photo. Others have attempted to

explain the image, but I believe that they are all wrong. Thanks.

Jack

PS. WILL SOMEONE DETERMINE WHY I AM BLOCKED FROM POSTING IMAGES????????????

[Robin Unger]

Pat

I don't understand what you are attempting to say with your Graphic.

In photo (4) you have the scalp reflected forward over the face.

In photo (3) you have the scalp reflected right to left across the top of the skull. ?

Edited April 2, 2011 by Robin Unger

[Robin Unger]

From Allan Eaglesham's site.

Autopsy Table ( Pitzer autopsy )

The JFK back-of-the-head photograph in Figure 9 shows what may be a blood spot or a drainage hole on or in the surface of the autopsy table (black arrow). The autopsy table visible in a WBP photograph (Figure 10, left and bottom right) shows that the table surface comprised removable stainless-steel plates that had spaced drainage holes. By lining up the "spot" in Figure 9 with a drainage hole, the distance to the edge of the autopsy table is approximately the same in both photographs (Figure 10, top right vs. bottom right). A gap between the stainless-steel plates is visible in Figure 9 (white arrow). The photographs appear to be mutually consistent, and may show the same autopsy table.

[Robin Unger]

Edited:

Edited April 2, 2011 by Robin Unger

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jack, This is the only image I have received on this so far, which I posted on #292. If you

have another, sent it along and I will post it in place of this one, if I have them right. Jim

As I noted, sorting out the wounds using photographs of the inside of the cranium is extraordinarily

complicated, where I recommend that anyone with a serious interest in these questions must read

Mantik's brilliant chapter in MURDER (2000). This requires an extremely high level of competence.

Jim...I am still blocked by the forum from posting images. Will you please post the image

I sent you of my analysis of the "gaping hole" autopsy photo. Others have attempted to

explain the image, but I believe that they are all wrong. Thanks.

Jack

Edited April 2, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Did you miss my observation that the morgue at Bethesda did not have an aluminum stirrup to support the head as shown in these photographs? Plus of course the wound is all wrong and grossly discrepant from the descriptions of the witnesses at Dealey Plaza, on the vehicle (Clint Hill), and at Parkland. I don't understand what's going on with all this attention focusing on faked photographs. The medical techs confirmed this was not taken at the morgue.

From Allan Eaglesham's site.

Autopsy Table ( Pitzer autopsy )

The JFK back-of-the-head photograph in Figure 9 shows what may be a blood spot or a drainage hole on or in the surface of the autopsy table (black arrow). The autopsy table visible in a WBP photograph (Figure 10, left and bottom right) shows that the table surface comprised removable stainless-steel plates that had spaced drainage holes. By lining up the "spot" in Figure 9 with a drainage hole, the distance to the edge of the autopsy table is approximately the same in both photographs (Figure 10, top right vs. bottom right). A gap between the stainless-steel plates is visible in Figure 9 (white arrow). The photographs appear to be mutually consistent, and may show the same autopsy table.

Edited April 2, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Jack White]

Jack, This is the only image I have received on this so far, which I posted on #292. If you

have another, sent it along and I will post it in place of this one, if I have them right. Jim

As I noted, sorting out the wounds using photographs of the inside of the cranium is extraordinarily

complicated, where I recommend that anyone with a serious interest in these questions must read

Mantik's brilliant chapter in MURDER (2000). This requires an extremely high level of competence.

Jim...I am still blocked by the forum from posting images. Will you please post the image

I sent you of my analysis of the "gaping hole" autopsy photo. Others have attempted to

explain the image, but I believe that they are all wrong. Thanks.

Jack

Thanks, Jim. At the time of my last message, your posting of the image had not yet appeared, or

I would not have requested it again.

What everyone is ignoring is the area at left which has been drastically lightened. It clearly shows

a bullet hole © just to the right of the EOP. Just beyond the bullet hole is a small glass specimen

jar apparently containing a few metal fragments. In my opinion, the Harper fragment came from

the area of this fist-sized hole. The view looks inside the empty cranium. The inshoot hole can

be seen in the right temporal area, and the beveled outshoot hole is seen on the yellow line from

the inshoot. To me it is very clear. I do not understand why this explanation is not obvious to all.

Jack

PS. I forgot to mention that the reflected scalp is to the top of the picture, which is labeled

TOP OF HEAD.

Edited April 2, 2011 by Jack White

[Cliff Varnell]

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.

And that's because the head wound evidence is tainted beyond redemption. He may have been hit

in the head four times for all we know.

The high likelihood of pre-autopsy surgery to the head makes the finding of fact impossible in

regards to the number of head shots.

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.

Indeed. The unchallenged T3 back wound evidence forces nutters like Vince Bugliosi to tell whopping

lies about the Dealey Plaza photo evidence. Prevarications are not arguments, no matter how many

times they are repeated, or by whom.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Cliff,

I appreciate your post, but I think you are wrong about the evidence. Read through the witness

reports I have presented--many thanks to Bernice!--and you will see that there is a consistent

pattern of reports about a large blow-out to the back of the head (about the size of your fist

when you double it up) from which cerebellar as well as cerebral tissue was extruding, a small

wound of entry to the right temple, and more subtle evidence (from a piece of beveled bone) of

a second shot to the back of his head. While one or another witness reported a shot to the left

temple, when I said I see no indications of it, I mean there is no blow-out to the right-rear as

an effect of such a shot, even though there is to the left-rear, as we all know. Those reports

are more likely to have been caused by left/right orientation mis-descriptions. David W. Mantik

and David Lifton have done a terrific job of clarifying the X-rays and the Bethesda medical techs'

reports, while the ARRB uncovered the enlargement of the blow out by Humes using a saw. What his

manipulation means is that our best evidence comes from the Parkland physicians. But, as you have

seen, their testimony as well as that of the Parkland nurses supported what I have described. That

is most of how we know what we know about the head wound, which seems to be well-established

and even supported by an unlikely source, namely, the testimony of Clint Hill, as I have reported.

When you take all of this evidence together, there really is no reasonable alternative hypothesis.

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.

And that's because the head wound evidence is tainted beyond redemption. He may have been hit

in the head four times for all we know.

The high likelihood of pre-autopsy surgery to the head makes the finding of fact impossible in

regards to the number of head shots.

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.

Indeed. The unchallenged T3 back wound evidence forces nutters like Vince Bugliosi to tell whopping

lies about the Dealey Plaza photo evidence. Prevarications are not arguments, no matter how many

times they are repeated, or by whom.

[Jack White]

Cliff,

I appreciate your post, but I think you are wrong about the evidence. Read through the witness

reports I have presented--many thanks to Bernice!--and you will see that there is a consistent

pattern of reports about a large blow-out to the back of the head (about the size of your fist

when you double it up) from which cerebellar as well as cerebral tissue was extruding, a small

wound of entry to the right temple, and more subtle evidence (from a piece of beveled bone) of

a second shot to the back of his head. While one or another witness reported a shot to the left

temple, when I said I see no indications of it, I mean there is no blow-out to the right-rear as

an effect of such a shot, even though there is to the left-rear, as we all know. Those reports

are more likely to have been caused by left/right orientation mis-descriptions. David W. Mantik

and David Lifton have done a terrific job of clarifying the X-rays and the Bethesda medical techs'

reports, while the ARRB uncovered the enlargement of the blow out by Humes using a saw. What his

manipulation means is that our best evidence comes from the Parkland physicians. But, as you have

seen, their testimony as well as that of the Parkland nurses supported what I have described. That

is most of how we know what we know about the head wound, which seems to be well-established

and even supported by an unlikely source, namely, the testimony of Clint Hill, as I have reported.

When you take all of this evidence together, there really is no reasonable alternative hypothesis.

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.

And that's because the head wound evidence is tainted beyond redemption. He may have been hit

in the head four times for all we know.

The high likelihood of pre-autopsy surgery to the head makes the finding of fact impossible in

regards to the number of head shots.

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.

Indeed. The unchallenged T3 back wound evidence forces nutters like Vince Bugliosi to tell whopping

lies about the Dealey Plaza photo evidence. Prevarications are not arguments, no matter how many

times they are repeated, or by whom.

I suggest that this is a good reference on CEREBELLUM, especially the illustrations:

Cerebellum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about the smaller region in the lower part of the brain. For the large region of the brain, see Cerebrum.

Brain: Cerebellum

A human brain, with the cerebellum colored in purple

Drawing of the human brain, showing cerebellum and pons

Part of Metencephalon

Artery SCA, AICA, PICA

Vein superior, inferior

NeuroLex ID birnlex_1489

The cerebellum (Latin for little brain) is a region of the brain that plays an important role in motor control. It is also involved in some cognitive functions such as attention and language, and probably in some emotional functions such as regulating fear and pleasure responses.[1] Its movement-related functions are the most clearly understood, however. The cerebellum does not initiate movement, but it contributes to coordination, precision, and accurate timing. It receives input from sensory systems and from other parts of the brain and spinal cord, and integrates these inputs to fine tune motor activity.[2] Because of this fine-tuning function, damage to the cerebellum does not cause paralysis, but instead produces disorders in fine movement, equilibrium, posture, and motor learning.[2]

In terms of anatomy, the cerebellum has the appearance of a separate structure attached to the bottom of the brain, tucked underneath the cerebral hemispheres. The surface of the cerebellum is covered with finely spaced parallel grooves, in striking contrast to the broad irregular convolutions of the cerebral cortex. These parallel grooves conceal the fact that the cerebellum is actually a continuous thin layer of neural tissue (the cerebellar cortex), tightly folded in the style of an accordion. Within this thin layer are several types of neurons with a highly regular arrangement, the most important being Purkinje cells and granule cells. This complex neural network gives rise to a massive signal-processing capability, but almost the entirety of its output is directed to a set of small deep cerebellar nuclei lying in the interior of the cerebellum.

In addition to its direct role in motor control, the cerebellum also is necessary for several types of motor learning, the most notable one being learning to adjust to changes in sensorimotor relationships. Several theoretical models have been developed to explain sensorimotor calibration in terms of synaptic plasticity within the cerebellum. Most of them derive from early models formulated by David Marr and James Albus, which were motivated by the observation that each cerebellar Purkinje cell receives two dramatically different types of input: On one hand, thousands of inputs from parallel fibers, each individually very weak; on the other hand, input from one single climbing fiber, which is, however, so strong that a single climbing fiber action potential will reliably cause a target Purkinje cell to fire a burst of action potentials. The basic concept of the Marr-Albus theory is that the climbing fiber serves as a "teaching signal", which induces a long-lasting change in the strength of synchronously activated parallel fiber inputs. Observations of long-term depression in parallel fiber inputs have provided support for theories of this type, but their validity remains controversial.

[Pat Speer]

My responses in italics.

Pat Speer troubles me.

My response: Oy vey. Yep, it's ME that's troublesome, and not the fact that you've bought into and have been repeating a bunch of nonsense for years and years and years.

For him to be right, everyone else--including Clint Hill, Erwin Swartz,

Malcolm Perry, Charles Crenshaw, Pepper Jenkins, James Carrico, Charles Baxter, as well as many

others, including witnesses in Dealey Plaza at the time--have to be wrong. So what is the more

likely: that all of these witnesses were mistaken in reporting the blow-out at the back of JFK's

head, when they were there and reported their personal observations, or Pat Speer, who was not?

My response: What nonsense! This is not about me vs. THEM. I know little of Swartz, but none of these men outside Crenshaw were conspiracy theorists. i.e. none of them believed the shots came from the front. Now, this would suggest to a reasonable person that they were not quite sure where the large head wound was on the skull. In fact, Perry, Jenkins, Carrico, and Baxter would come to acknowledge they were wrong, and Hill would engage in a national book tour in which he insisted both that the fatal shot hit above the ear, and that no shot came from the front. So, the question is not who am I to say these men were wrong, but who are YOU to pick their early statements and turn them into a religion, and ignore everything else they had to say?

I am sorry, but somewhere along the way, Pat Speer lost his bearings and began to believe what

he wanted to believe instead of what the evidence supports. He is subjective and unscientific.

My response: Hogwash. Hogwash. Hogwash. It's obvious from this you know nothing of me and have never read anything I've written beyond what I've posted in the threads that you've started. I started out a conspiracy theorist, was briefly swayed by Posner, sought to find out more, and became a conspiracy theorist again. Because I READ thousands of pages and hundreds of articles on forensic pathology, autopsy photography, and the radiology of gunshot wounds. This gave me a NEW perspective on the case, one based in large part on SCIENCE, and not on the crap in most conspiracy books.

Bernice Moore has just posted something highly relevant here on the parallel thread in the Deep

Politics Forum, "Did Zapruder film 'the Zapruder film'?", which should make a difference to all.

But, of course, for Pat Speer, even Bill Newman will be just another witness who got it wrong!

This post is located at:

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?6822-Did-zapruder-film-quot-the-zapruder-film-quot/page4

Here is the message that has just been posted:

***************

jack this below,i have been going through some cds,and this is from a post at Rich's in the past,

i am only throwing it in here for added information, not to way lay the discussion, please continue,

i thought it may be of interest to others... best b..

5 min_ Newman intv_ wkaa tv dallas_nov_22_63

You posted this information below on Nov. 21/04..I have never

forgotten it.

Jack: Thursday afternoon in Dallas I had a chance to talk for a few minutes

again with Bill Newman and asked him some questions again: (answers

paraphrased)

JW...did you notice Zapruder on the hill behind you?

BN...before the president arrived I noticed a man up there

with a camera. At that time I thought it was O.L.Nelms, the

eccentric Dallas millionaire. But I later learned it must have

been Mr. Zapruder. I did not know Mr. Zapruder, but I was

familiar with what Nelms looked like. Afterwards I thought

to myself "I hope Mr. Nelms did not shoot him."

JW...was there a woman with him (Nelms/Zapruder)?

BN...I did not see any woman with him. He was alone.

JW...Did you notice anything which conflicted with the official story?

BN...In the Zapruder film, the president's car does not stop, but

I know for sure that IT STOPPED FOR SEVERAL SECONDS RIGHT

IN FRONT OF ME. There is no mistake about that! And all the other

cars behind had to come to a sudden stop too! Then it speeded up

and left. It was not at all like the Zapruder film.

JW...What is your most memorable memory of the day?

BN...Oh...the head shot, right in front of me. His head exploded

and went back and to the left like somebody hit him in the

right temple with a baseball bat. The shot came from behind me.

Whom do you believe? Bill Newman or Arlen Specter?" [or Pat Speer?]

Jack

*************

My response: What crud. You can bet dollars to donuts these are not exact quotes from Bill Newman, but Jack's quite possibly skewed recollections of what Newman said. I've read a number of statements by Newman, and have viewed a number of interviews. And he has NEVER said the Zapruder film is at odds with what he saw, at least ON THE RECORD. If you think he has, please find it. If you think he will, please track him down and get him to put something in writing. It is also beyond offensive that here you are suddenly claiming Newman as a highly credible witness supporting YOUR views, when 1) he has always claimed the sound he heard came from behind him at the time of the head shot and not from the fence to his right (which I have come to believe as well and which you NO DOUBT claim is nonsense) and 2) he saw NO blow-out on the back of JFK's head at the moment of the fatal impact, and instead noted a blow-out by Kennedy's ear (which supports the accuracy of the Zapruder film, and which you no doubt claim is nonsense).

[Pat Speer]

Pat

I don't understand what you are attempting to say with your Graphic.

In photo (4) you have the scalp reflected forward over the face.

In photo (3) you have the scalp reflected right to left across the top of the skull. ?

I tried to explain it in the caption. A number of people think the drainage hole proves the photo was taken from above Kennedy, looking down on his forehead. I believed the photo showed the back of Kennedy's head. I realized at a certain point that this could be tested by trying to replicate the SHAPE of the drainage hole, which would indicate the angle of the camera to the table. Sure enough, the drainage hole could not be replicated when looking down into the skull in its "official" orientation, but could be replicated when viewing the skull from behind. This is demonstrated more clearly in part 4 of my video series, available on my website and on youtube.

[Pat Speer]

Jack, This is the only image I have received on this so far, which I posted on #292. If you

have another, sent it along and I will post it in place of this one, if I have them right. Jim

As I noted, sorting out the wounds using photographs of the inside of the cranium is extraordinarily

complicated, where I recommend that anyone with a serious interest in these questions must read

Mantik's brilliant chapter in MURDER (2000). This requires an extremely high level of competence.

Jim...I am still blocked by the forum from posting images. Will you please post the image

I sent you of my analysis of the "gaping hole" autopsy photo. Others have attempted to

explain the image, but I believe that they are all wrong. Thanks.

Jack

Thanks, Jim. At the time of my last message, your posting of the image had not yet appeared, or

I would not have requested it again.

What everyone is ignoring is the area at left which has been drastically lightened. It clearly shows

a bullet hole © just to the right of the EOP. Just beyond the bullet hole is a small glass specimen

jar apparently containing a few metal fragments. In my opinion, the Harper fragment came from

the area of this fist-sized hole. The view looks inside the empty cranium. The inshoot hole can

be seen in the right temporal area, and the beveled outshoot hole is seen on the yellow line from

the inshoot. To me it is very clear. I do not understand why this explanation is not obvious to all.

Jack

PS. I forgot to mention that the reflected scalp is to the top of the picture, which is labeled

TOP OF HEAD.

Jack, the problem I have with your graphic is that the words across the top of the full photo are incorrect. Above the left side of the photo you have the word LEFT. Just below this, however, in the dark area, is the bullet hole you admit is to the right of the EOP. This bullet hole can't be both on the left side of the head and to the right of the EOP. Correct?