DID ZAPRUDER FILM "THE ZAPRUDER FILM"?

[Pat Speer]

My response in italics.

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,

My response: You are just MAKING THIS UP! The Parkland witnesses DID NOT note a wound of entry to the right temple. They saw one hole and thought it was either the exit for bullet entering the throat, or a wound of both entrance and exit. How can you not know this?

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.

My response: Wha? You've got it backwards. The Parkland witnesses noted a wound on the right rear of the head, not left rear.

Those reports are more likely to have been caused by left/right orientation mis-descriptions.

My response: Once again you show your lack of familiarity with the evidence. McClelland was the one whose earliest report said left temple. While it makes sense to think he simply meant right temple, he claimed this mistake was caused by Jenkins, who'd led him to believe there was a wound on the left temple.

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.

[Pat Speer]

My responses in italics.

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

My response: Wrong.

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--

My response: Nonsense. YOU are the one stuck with a predetermined point of view. I have an online book filled with more info and discussion of the medical evidence than all your books combined. And yet you're so scared of learning anything that you just can't be bothered.

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.

My response: I realized I was being lied to. And didn't like it.

----- 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

My response: Ahh, yes, the earliest reports. This allows one to ignore that many of these guys would later claim they were wrong.

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.”;

My response: Clark rarely if ever spoke about the case after 1964. He never gave encouragement to those using his words to suggest the wounds had been changed or that the Zapruder film and photos had been faked. I wonder why.

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.);

My response: Perry rejected all conspiracy theories built around the medical evidence.

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.”;

My response: McClelland is pretty much the only CT among the Dallas doctors. And even he thinks the autopsy photos are legit. (He thinks scalp was pulled up to hide the hold on the back of 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"];

My response: Jenkins would later claim he'd been wrong about cerebellum and the exact location of the wound, and rejected all conspiracy theories built around the medical evidence.

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”;

My response: Carrico insisted the rear head wound was ABOVE the top of the ear, which is at odds with what most CTs would have us believe. He also came to reject all conspiracy theories built around the medical evidence.

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.";

My response: Jones would later back off all his claims and admit he didn't get much of a look at the wound.

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…”;

My response: Akin ended up changing his name and having some sort of breakdown, claiming he'd seen an entrance wound that, apparently, escaped everyone else's attention. Not sure what to make of Akin. His WC testimony is in line with what others were saying at the time.

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.”;

My response: Peters claimed the wound was at the top of the back of the head above the ear, which is at odds with what most CTs would have us believe. He would later admit he'd been wrong, and defer to the accuracy of the autopsy photos.

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?’ I told him I surely was glad he had thought of it and by

all means, not to.”;

My response: Crenshaw was never interviewed until decades after the shooting, and his descriptions changed rapidly thereafter. He may have been a heckuva nice guy, but he's just not credible.

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…”

My response: Baxter would later be dismissive of all conspiracy theories built around the medical evidence and tell the ARRB that he didn't get much of a look at the wound.

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;

My response: This is strange. Grossman comes forward many years after the shooting and claims he saw a large exit wound above the ear--the wound depicted in the autopsy photos and Zapruder film...and you're claiming him as a back of the head witness????

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.";

My response: Dulaney depicts the wound location for Groden in his video. He places it at the TOP of the back of the head, inches away from where most CTs would have us believe it was located.

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.”;

My response: Giesecke clearly got his left mixed it up with his right. But that still doesn't explain why he thought the wound across the top of the head. Heck, even Aguilar admits he's not a back of the head witness.

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.”;

My response: It's awfully convenient that comments from the 80's and 90's are included in this list when they suggest a conspiracy, even when the information is second-hand, but that direct quotes from individuals in which they admit they were wrong and/or defer to the accuracy of the autopsy photos are excised.

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.”

My response: Salyer is a side of the head witness. Even Aguilar admits he's not a back of the head witness.

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.”;

My response: In the eyes of many, believe it or not, a wound above the ear is a wound 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.”;

My response: Ms. Nelson demonstrated the wound's location for Life Magazine shortly before she died. It was above the right ear, where it is shown in the autopsy photos and Z-film.

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.”;

My response: When asked to depict the wound on anatomy drawings for the ARRB, Ms. Bell presented the wound in one location on the rear view drawing, and another location on the side view. This raises questions about her competence and credibility.

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.";

My response: Gee, that's not vague.

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.";

My response: The parietal area behind the ear is closer to the wound in the autopsy photos than the wound in the occipital bone most CTs would have us believe he was describing.

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.";

My response: he does not describe an exit wound on the back of the head. The "lateral surface" means side. He, as Salyer, is a side of the head witness.

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.”;

My response: Doesn't describe the head wound.

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;

My response: Was this what he witnessed, or what he believed based upon the reports of others?

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.”

My response: Has anyone seen this picture? I'd like to see it if anyone has a photo of it.

Edited April 3, 2011 by Pat Speer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

When I said the "blow out" was to the left/rear, I mean the debris being blown out to the left/rear,

where it impacted with Officer Bobby Hargis. I did not mean that the defect was to the left/rear.

Several of the witnesses quoted in a recent post supported the entry at the right temple. Chuck

Crenshaw even described it in a televised interview and Thomas Evan Robinson the confirmed it. I

cannot get over your obsessive attempts to revise and reinterpret the clear and consistent reports

of those who were actually there. You are subjective and unscientific in your entire approach and

go out of your way to disregard that their earlier reports are going to be the more accurate ones.

My response in italics.

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,

My response: You are just MAKING THIS UP! The Parkland witnesses DID NOT note a wound of entry to the right temple. They saw one hole and thought it was either the exit for bullet entering the throat, or a wound of both entrance and exit. How can you not know this?

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.

My response: Wha? You've got it backwards. The Parkland witnesses noted a wound on the right rear of the head, not left rear.

Those reports are more likely to have been caused by left/right orientation mis-descriptions.

My response: Once again you show your lack of familiarity with the evidence. McClelland was the one whose earliest report said left temple. While it makes sense to think he simply meant right temple, he claimed this mistake was caused by Jenkins, who'd led him to believe there was a wound on the left temple.

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.

Edited April 3, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Jack White]

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).

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).

Accusing me of lying (skewed recollections) is the last straw with Speer. This is absurd. I spent about 20 minutes (on the cited occasion) questioning

Newman. I had done the same before twice, years earlier. What he said was very clear and vivid. I made up nothing, changed nothing, only

paraphrased some of his replies. I reported what he said. I have NO views to support. Speer's changing the interpretation of what Newman said about

the origin of the shots is despicable. He has ALWAYS consistently said the shots came from behind him, and that he was "in the line of fire". All

photos of the Newman family show that directly behind them was the pergola and picket fence. He did not say anything about "a blowout of Kennedy's

ear", but instead said that is where a bullet struck (right temple). I discussed this with him on THREE OCCASIONS, years apart. He always used the

same analogy..."like a baseball bat hit him in the right temple"...never mentioning a "blowout". Speer makes up things to fit his theories. Newman

is very clear. The head shot came from the right front, directly over his head, and hit JFK in the right temple. Ask him today; that is what he will say.

I doubt that Speer has ever talked to Newman, especially three times...yet he disputes those who have. But he is willing to put words in Newman's

mouth to make him say what fits Speer's preconceived theories. Despicable acts of someone with an agenda.

Jack

Edited April 3, 2011 by Jack White

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

And am I "just MAKING THIS UP" when I observe that, when Malcolm Kilduff announced JFK's death,

he pointed to his right temple and said that it was a simple matter of a bullet right through the head?

And that, on radio and television that day, there were reports of two shots, one to the throat and one

to the head, which Chet Huntley reported as a simple matter of a bullet to the head "which entered his

right temple", attributing that finding to Admiral George Burkley, the president's personal physician?

How grossly am I suppose to permit you to misrepresent the evidence? This has gone beyond absurd.

My response in italics.

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,

My response: You are just MAKING THIS UP! The Parkland witnesses DID NOT note a wound of entry to the

right temple. They saw one hole and thought it was either the exit for bullet entering the throat, or a wound

of both entrance and exit. How can you not know this?

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.

My response: Wha? You've got it backwards. The Parkland witnesses noted a wound on the right rear of the

head, not left rear.

Those reports are more likely to have been caused by left/right orientation mis-descriptions.

My response: Once again you show your lack of familiarity with the evidence. McClelland was the one whose

earliest report said left temple. While it makes sense to think he simply meant right temple, he claimed this

mistake was caused by Jenkins, who'd led him to believe there was a wound on the left temple.

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.

[Cliff Varnell]

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.

Irrelevant.

Betzner 3 was taken a split second before JFK was shot in the throat.

According to SS Agent Glenn Bennett, the only Dealey Plaza back wound witness, the back shot occurred between the first shot (which Bennett said sounded like a firecracker) and the head shot.

Bennett on 11/23/63:

About thirty minutes after leaving Love Field about 12:25 P.M., the Motorcade entered an intersection and then proceeded down a grade. At this point the well-wishers numbered but a few; the motorcade continued down this grade enroute to the Trade Mart. At this point I heard what sounded like a fire-cracker. I immediately looked from the right/crowd/physical area/and looked towards the President who was seated in the right rear seat of his limousine open convertible. At the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another fire-cracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder. A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the President's head.

4 inches down from the right shoulder -- the bullet hole in the shirt is 4 inches below the collar, which means that Bennett got it exactly right.

The back wound occurred several seconds after Betzner, after JFK had already responded to the throat wound as seen in Zapruder.

We know that JFK's jacket was elevated no more than a fraction of an inch because the bullet hole in the jacket

is 4.125 inches below the collar, very close to the bullet hole in the shirt.

A tucked in custom-made dress shirt only has about 3/4 inch of available slack. This is an uncontested fact.

Unimpeachable.

The claim that JFK's shirt had four times the standard amount of slack is beyond ridiculous.

JFK was vigorously reacting to the throat wound for two seconds after Betzner was taken, so Lamson's bizarre interpretations of Betzner have no bearing on the location of the back wound.

Edited April 3, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pat,

I have three questions for you for which my answers are given below.

(1) In relation to these three diagrams (from Parkland, from Bethesda

and from the HSCA), which most accurately represents the head wound?

(2) Where was JFK hit? Just describe the locations and nature of the

wounds he sustained, independently of your reasons for thinking so.

(3) Who is the single best witness when it comes to understanding the

wounds in corresponding to your beliefs and why do you agree with him?

My answers:

(1) The Parkland description is the most accurate. The Bethesda has

it after Humes used his saw and the HSCA presentation is indefensible.

To this day, I cannot understand why one or another member of the HSCA

medical panel, which included Cyril Wecht, M.D., J.D., did not raise

an enormous commotion in protest of the complete transformation of the

wound from its description in the signed autopsy report (the second of

these three images) and the HSCA representation (which is the third).

(2) He was hit in the throat and incurred a small, clean oval wound.

He was hit in the back by a shot that entered about 5.5 inches below

his collar, which was a shallow wound at a downward angle that had no

point of exit. He was hit in the right temple by a shot that blew his

brains out the back of his head to the left/rear. The blow-out was a

the rear of his head, slightly to the right, and was the size of your

fist when you double it up. There was also a small entry wound to the

back of his head that entered around the EOP and was only discovered on

the basis of locating inward beveling on a small piece of bone fragment.

(3) Thomas Evan Robinson. As the mortician, he had the longest time to

examine the wounds as he prepared the body for burial. He has not only

confirmed the entry wound in the right temple, the blow-out at the back

of the head, and the wound to his back, but also testified that he had

a "nasty" throat wound. He did not observe the small, clean entry wound

because it had been completely obscured by alteration to make it look as

if it were a wound of exit. He had observed Humes take a saw to enlarge

the blow-out at the back of the head, so he knew the difference between

the wound JFK had sustained and the larger wound that Humes had created.

Your answers?

[Craig Lamson]

We know that JFK's jacket was elevated no more than a fraction of an inch because the bullet hole in the jacket

is 4.125 inches below the collar, very close to the bullet hole in the shirt.

A tucked in custom-made dress shirt only has about 3/4 inch of available slack. This is an uncontested fact.

Unimpeachable.

The claim that JFK's shirt had four times the standard amount of slack is beyond ridiculous.

JFK was vigorously reacting to the throat wound for two seconds after Betzner was taken, so Lamson's bizarre interpretations of Betzner have no bearing on the location of the back wound.

I must say you do provide great comic relief Cliff.

Actually you don't KNOW any of that Cliff. That's why your continued braying about dress shirts and clothing design is nothing but bullcrap hand waving. And now you try .. and fail...to shift gears with MORE bullcrap about timing. Pretty sad to see you reduced to this Cliff.

Of course if anyone wants to see your destruction in fine detail there are threads available in the archives that do just that.

You have been BEATEN...pounded into the ground by a very simple shadow. Simply DESTROYED because you can't understand how the SUN work.

Now that's UNIMPEACHABLE...

Edited April 4, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Cliff Varnell]

We know that JFK's jacket was elevated no more than a fraction of an inch because the bullet hole in the jacket

is 4.125 inches below the collar, very close to the bullet hole in the shirt.

A tucked in custom-made dress shirt only has about 3/4 inch of available slack. This is an uncontested fact.

Unimpeachable.

The claim that JFK's shirt had four times the standard amount of slack is beyond ridiculous.

JFK was vigorously reacting to the throat wound for two seconds after Betzner was taken, so Lamson's bizarre interpretations of Betzner have no bearing on the location of the back wound.

I must say you do provide great comic relief Cliff.

Actually you don't KNOW any of that Cliff.

Sure we do. And you know it especially. How many times a week does a businessman with a custom-made

shirt enter your studio for photographs. No matter what pose he takes his shirt moves in fractions of

an inch.

It's an uncontested fact.

It's unimpeachable.

That's why your continued braying about dress shirts and clothing design is nothing but bullcrap hand waving.

It's the nature of reality. Anyone can observe how their clothing moves when they move their

arms like JFK -- fractions of an inch of clothing moves along with them.

This may be the most easily observed fact known to man.

And now you try .. and fail...to shift gears with MORE bullcrap about timing.

Your photo analyses are moot. JFK was shot in the throat with the first shot. It's right there in the

Zapruder film.

Pretty sad to see you reduced to this Cliff.

Actually, it's great to see you offer no rebuttal.

Tucked-in custom-made dress shirts only have a fraction of an inch of slack. Period. End of story.

It is an irrefutable fact of clothing fit. There are no exceptions.

Of course if anyone wants to see your destruction in fine detail there are threads available in the archives that do just that.

Where have you demonstrated any proof that JFK's shirt had 4 times the standard amount of slack?

JFK's posture changed completely after Betzner. Your fantasy jacket fold is moot.

You can produce no proof that JFK's shirt had 4 times the standard amount of slack.

This discussion is over.

Edited April 4, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

This discussion is over.

The non sequiturs from Craig Lamson are just beginning, however.

[Cliff Varnell]

You got that right Cliff.

If the past is any guide, this will go on now for pages. He will then take out the towel.

FOr the life of me I do not understand why it it so difficult to comprehend the difference between a suit jacket and the shirt inside.

Jackets can ride up or down, especially while sitting in a car.

But a custom made Italian tailored shirt?

The fact that they then match up almost perfectly tells us that when the back shot hit, the jacket was not riding up or down by very much.

Jim,

Kennedy wore a suit style called Updated American Silhouette. This style took the traditional Ivy League

sack suit and added Italian influences by slightly padding the shoulders and somewhat suppressing the waist.

A suppressed waist meant the shirt and jacket were fit closer to the body.

Here's some more background on suit styles:

http://www.filmnoirbuff.com/article/the-paul-stuart-variation-classic-american-style

JFK's shirt could not have moved more than a fraction of an inch during the motorcade.

There is no actual controversy to this.

Edited April 4, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[William Kelly]

You got that right Cliff.

If the past is any guide, this will go on now for pages. He will then take out the towel.

FOr the life of me I do not understand why it it so difficult to comprehend the difference between a suit jacket and the shirt inside.

Jackets can ride up or down, especially while sitting in a car.

But a custom made Italian tailored shirt?

The fact that they then match up almost perfectly tells us that when the back shot hit, the jacket was not riding up or down by very much.

Jim,

Kennedy wore a suit style called Updated American Silhouette. This style took the traditional Ivy League

sack suit and added Italian influences by slightly padding the shoulders and somewhat suppressing the waistline.

A suppressed waist-line meant the shirt and jacket were fit closer to the body.

Here's some more background on suit styles:

http://www.filmnoirb...-american-style

JFK's shirt could not have moved more than a fraction of an inch during the motorcade.

There is no actual controversy to this.

If you read Arlen Specter's book - he devotes quite a bit of it to JFK's shirt, not only examining it closely as a Warren Commission exhibit, but actually going to New York City to the store where JFK had purchased it.

I don't know what it all means, but Specter thought there was something there.

BK

[Craig Lamson]

You got that right Cliff.

If the past is any guide, this will go on now for pages. He will then take out the towel.

FOr the life of me I do not understand why it it so difficult to comprehend the difference between a suit jacket and the shirt inside.

Jackets can ride up or down, especially while sitting in a car.

But a custom made Italian tailored shirt?

The fact that they then match up almost perfectly tells us that when the back shot hit, the jacket was not riding up or down by very much.

Jim,

Kennedy wore a suit style called Updated American Silhouette. This style took the traditional Ivy League

sack suit and added Italian influences by slightly padding the shoulders and somewhat suppressing the waistline.

A suppressed waist-line meant the shirt and jacket were fit closer to the body.

Here's some more background on suit styles:

http://www.filmnoirbuff.com/article/the-paul-stuart-variation-classic-american-style

JFK's shirt could not have moved more than a fraction of an inch during the motorcade.

There is no actual controversy to this.

Poor Cliff. What a sham he has to try and defend. His ENTIRE argument rests on the fit of a shirt. Cliffs sham fails simply because he has no proof at all how JFK's custom made shirt actually was tailored. So instead of offering direct proof he pretends that ALL custom made shirts MUST be tailored the same.

Now Cliff's problems expand. If his crazy story about how all custom fitted dress shirts must be tailored is true, and this translated to the shirt worn by JFK, he must prove... completely...that all custom fit shirts fit as he says. And of course, just like his silly claim about JFK's shirt, he can't even begin to prove this.

even more troubling for cliff...

Custom:

"made or done to order for a particular customer."

Cliff PRESUMES each and every customer will have his shirts tailored to the exact same specs, and more to the point that JFK had his CUSTOM shirts fitted as Cliff presumes.

Cliff's silly answer to this BIG problem... wave his hands wildly in a vain attempt to convince the ignorant he is correct and his unproven words are fact.

Does Cliff (or jim) know ANYTHING as fact about how JFK's shirt was riding when he was shot in the back? Of course not. That 20 MPH breeze you are feeling is coming from the both of them waving their hand as fast as they can...in the hopes the can fool someone.

And what about his jacket? The best and last decent view of the back of his jacket is Betzner. The UNBENDABLE laws of light and shadow provide unimpeachable proof that there was a 3+ inch fold in the back of JFK's jacket.

Cliff would like everyone to believe his backwound...based in large part on the clothing evidence..is prima facia evidence.

It's nothing of the sort. Cliff can't even begin to prove the position of JFK's clothing at the time of the back shot. Heck he can't even prove how JFK's shirt was tailored. He can't even prove there was a substantial change to the 3+" fold found in Betzner.

He did however get one thing right.

The discussion is over. Has been for some time now.

Cliff lost.

[Craig Lamson]

You got that right Cliff.

If the past is any guide, this will go on now for pages. He will then take out the towel.

Gotta love the towel. Did you know Cliff requested it? Little did he know it would simply destroy him. Pretty cool eh?

FOr the life of me I do not understand why it it so difficult to comprehend the difference between a suit jacket and the shirt inside.

For the life of me I don't understand how you think I've made any claims at all about the shirt? READING not a part of your skillset?

Jackets can ride up or down, especially while sitting in a car.

But a custom made Italian tailored shirt?

What about that shirt Jim? Are you claiming it could not or did not ride up or down? And what proofs do you offer to support your claim? Oh that's right you have none. Just the wild flailing of hands. Silly Jim.

The fact that they then match up almost perfectly tells us that when the back shot hit, the jacket was not riding up or down by very much.

No Jim, that's not what it tell us at all. Since you DON'T have the first clue as to the condition of the shirt, the very BEST the matching holes can tell you is that the shirt and the coat were moving or not moving in unison at the very instant of the backshot. That's it.

Everything else about the back shot is contested. No one can prove dang thing about it. Wild opinions and silly claims of "prima facia" evidence are all that exist.

Well not everything. A simple shadow and the unbending lsws of light and shadow prove in an unimpeachable fashion that there was a 3+' fold of fabric on JFK's jacket in Betzner, not that the tag team of Jim and Cliff could understand...its beyond their pay grade.

[Craig Lamson]

Actually, it's great to see you offer no rebuttal.

Tucked-in custom-made dress shirts only have a fraction of an inch of slack. Period. End of story.

It is an irrefutable fact of clothing fit. There are no exceptions.

ROFLMAO! Comic relief is really your calling Cliff. You an remove your foot from your mouth now! LOL! Your best silly statement yet!