DID ZAPRUDER FILM "THE ZAPRUDER FILM"?

[Pat Speer]

As we've seen, the Newmans and Zapruder, standing on Kennedy's right side, all thought the bullet struck Kennedy on the right side of his head, by his right temple. But they weren't the only witnesses on the right side of Kennedy to note an impact on the side of his head.

The above is better than the below? Really?

i) Dr. Robert McClelland: "The cause of death was due to a massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple," Commission Exhibit 392. [‘Admission Note,’ written 22 Nov 1963 at 4.45 pm, reproduced in WCR572, & 17WCH11-12: cited in Lifton’s Best Evidence, p.55; and Meagher’s Accessories After the Fact, pp.159-160.]

ii) Dr. Marion Jenkins: "I don't know whether this is right or not, but I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process," 6WH48. [Cited by Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After The Fact: The Warren Commission, The Authorities, & The Report (New York: Vintage Books, 1992 reprint), p. 40.]

iii) Dr. Robert Shaw: "The third bullet struck the President on the left side of the head in the region of the left temporal region and made a large wound of exit on the right side of the head" [Letter from Dr. Shaw to Larry Ross, "Did Two Gunmen Cut Down Kennedy?", Today (British magazine), 15 February 1964, p.4]

iv) Dr. David Stewart: “This was the finding of all the physicians who were in attendance. There was a small wound in the left front of the President’s head and there was a quite massive wound of exit at the right back side of the head, and it was felt by all the physicians at the time to be a wound of entry which went in the front,” The Joe Dolan (Radio) Show, KNEW (Oakland, California), at 08:15hrs on 10 April 1967. [Harold Weisberg. Selections from Whitewash (NY: Carroll & Graf/Richard Gallen, 1994), pp.331-2.]

It was not only Parkland staff who attested to a left-temple entrance wound.

Entirely independently of them, Father Oscar Huber, upon leaving the hospital after administering the last rites, said precisely that, an observation he reaffirmed in an interview with Shirley Martin in late 1964; and eyewitness Norman Similas told the Toronto Star the same thing on the afternoon of the assassination. The left-temple entrance, as Sylvia Meagher noted in Accessories After the Fact, was in fact plotted by both Humes & Boswell at Bethesda, the former before alteration, the latter after a brief (and aborted) attempt to expand the entrance wound so as to effect a complete, neat, straight reversal of bullet bath (from front-left, rear-right, to vice-versa).

Now why would you want to omit all mention of the above, Pat?

This would be hilarious if I didn't think you were serious. McClelland would insist he only mentioned the left temple because Jenkins said something to mislead him. Jenkins would later try to deny he'd made such a mistake, and would swear till the end there was no such wound. It's fairly clear Shaw never even saw Kennedy, and that he was just mis-reporting what he'd heard from others. And David Stewart's recollections in 1967 and Father Huber's recollections in 1964 have little bearing on anything, as they never inspected the wounds and took no notes on what they saw. If I recall it correctly, Similas was proven to be a fake.

As far as your last sentence, I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you claiming Sylvia Meagher believed the body had been altered?

[Robin Unger]

What's this black circle on the right temple at the hairline. ?

( left side if looking from the front )

Edited April 5, 2011 by Robin Unger

[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 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

Bill,

I think what it all means is that Specter had hard physical evidence of 4+ shots on his hands and he had no

idea how to handle it.

Any tailor would roll his eyes if you suggested that JFK's shirt had three or four times the amount of normal slack.

Tailors don't purposely destroy jacket lines.

Frankly, I can't think of anything more obvious.

[Craig Lamson]

idea how to handle it.

Any tailor would roll his eyes if you suggested that JFK's shirt had three or four times the amount of normal slack.

Tailors don't purposely destroy jacket lines.

Frankly, I can't think of anything more obvious.

No Cliff, TAILORS MAKE CLOTHING TO THE SPECS OF THE CLIENT.

And how much fabric is needed to make a 3+ inch fold Cliff?

And since CUSTOM means MADE TO THE CLIENTS SPECS, What is "normal"?

The answers could not be more obvious, which is why your continued braying is so comical.

[Robin Unger]

Was the shirt tailor fitted to allow for the Ace bandages and Back support. ?

And how did the bandages & back support effect the ride up of the shirt

[Robin Unger]

[Cliff Varnell]

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

JT

Tink, I'm sure that this topic was one of the first JFK-related discussions you had with Vincent Salandria back in the mid-60's.

It wasn't a controversial topic then, the custom-fit of JFK's clothing. Surely the "tapered waist" of JFK's suit is not a point of contention, is it?

And aren't the implications of said "tapered waist" not obvious? His waist wouldn't have appeared tapered if there were 3 or 4 times the amount of normal slack, would it?

You cite CE-399 as "physical evidence," but you seem to dismiss the clothing evidence as a "controversy." There is nothing controversial about proper clothing fit.

CE-399 tells us nothing about the murder of JFK. Says something about the cover-up, for sure. But not the killing.

The bullet hole in JFK's shirt tells us a great deal about the killing of JFK. I find your incuriosity about this puzzling.

[Cliff Varnell]

Was the shirt tailor fitted to allow for the Ace bandages and Back support. ?

And how did the bandages & back support effect the ride up of the shirt

Robin, the bandages and back support did not effect the fit of the shirt and jacket.

Ther tailors would have allowed extra material to accommodate the back brace but this would not have translated into extra slack.

The amount of slack in his shirt would not have exceeded a fraction of an inch as long as it was tucked in.

His suit style, Updated American, featured a tapered waist silhouette. His tailors would not have ruined this silhouette with 3 or 4 times the amount of normal slack.

Edited April 5, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

The amount of slack in his shirt would not have exceeded a fraction of an inch under any circumstances.

And the hits from Varnell just keep coming and coming.

Surely Cliff, you can point us to some actual measurements from both JFK, his shirts and his jackets to support this silly claim, correct? Surely you would not just be making such claims without actual facts to back them up? To do so and then claim "prima facia" evidence would make you look quite comical.

So why don't you just post those measurements so we can see the exact nature of your so called proofs?

[Robin Unger]

On the shirt, if kennedy was hit in the back of the head WHY IS THERE SO MUCH BLOOD MAINLY ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE BODY ?

If there was a fist sized hole behind the ear on the right side shouldnt there be more blood on the right shoulder area. ?

Edited April 5, 2011 by Robin Unger

[Craig Lamson]

His suit style, Updated American, featured a tapered waist silhoutte. His tailors would not have ruined this silhouette with 3 or 4 times the amount of normal slack.

Hey Cliff, Why don't you show us what 3 or 4 times the normal slack in the shirt might ACTUALLY do to the silhouette of an "updated american" style suit. Given your very long history of making this claim surely you must have some graphic proofs to back it up...right?

[Robin Unger]

Small GIF ( photo's not resized to fit exactly )

Bullit hole aligned ( place your mouse cursor on the hole )

Edited April 5, 2011 by Robin Unger

[Mike Williams]

What's this black circle on the right temple at the hairline. ?

( left side if looking from the front )

Robin,

Please do not tell me that people actually still contend this is the entrance of a bullet!

[Robin Unger]

What's this black circle on the right temple at the hairline. ?

( left side if looking from the front )

Robin,

Please do not tell me that people actually still contend this is the entrance of a bullet!

Hi Mike.

It's an anomily, i don't know what it is.

maybe it's the small shrapnel wound that Robinson mentioned.

Quote:

PURDY: Did you notice anything else unusual about the body which may not have been artificially caused, that is caused by something other than the autopsy?

ROBINSON: Probably, a little mark at the temples in the hairline. As I recall, it was so small it could be hidden by the hair. It didn't have to be covered with make-up. I thought it probably a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet that caused it.

PURDY: In other words, there was a little wound.

ROBINSON: Yes.

PURDY: Approximately where, which side of the forehead or part of the head was it on?

ROBINSON: I believe it was on the right side.

PURDY: On his right side?

ROBINSON: That's an anatomical right, yes.

PURDY: You say it was in the forehead region up near the hairline?

ROBINSON: Yes.

PURDY: Would you say it was closer to the top of the hair?

ROBINSON: Somewhere around the temples.

PURDY: Approximately what size?

ROBINSON: Very small, about a quarter of an inch.

PURDY: Quarter of an inch is all the damage. Had it been closed up by the doctors?

ROBINSON: No, he didn't have to close it. If anything, I just would have probably put a little wax in it.

Edited April 5, 2011 by Robin Unger

[Mike Williams]

What's this black circle on the right temple at the hairline. ?

( left side if looking from the front )

Robin,

Please do not tell me that people actually still contend this is the entrance of a bullet!

Hi Mike.

It's an anomily, i don't know what it is.

maybe it's the small shrapnel wound that Robinson mentioned.

Quote:

PURDY: Did you notice anything else unusual about the body which may not have been artificially caused, that is caused by something other than the autopsy?

ROBINSON: Probably, a little mark at the temples in the hairline. As I recall, it was so small it could be hidden by the hair. It didn't have to be covered with make-up. I thought it probably a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet that caused it.

PURDY: In other words, there was a little wound.

ROBINSON: Yes.

PURDY: Approximately where, which side of the forehead or part of the head was it on?

ROBINSON: I believe it was on the right side.

PURDY: On his right side?

ROBINSON: That's an anatomical right, yes.

PURDY: You say it was in the forehead region up near the hairline?

ROBINSON: Yes.

PURDY: Would you say it was closer to the top of the hair?

ROBINSON: Somewhere around the temples.

PURDY: Approximately what size?

ROBINSON: Very small, about a quarter of an inch.

PURDY: Quarter of an inch is all the damage. Had it been closed up by the doctors?

ROBINSON: No, he didn't have to close it. If anything, I just would have probably put a little wax in it.

Robin,

I tend to agree it is some sort of anomaly. I am sure that many here contend this is an entrance, which is moronic, unless JFK was shot with a deer slug.