DID ZAPRUDER FILM "THE ZAPRUDER FILM"?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jim,

This guy is a phony and a fraud. Here is some of the evidence that he wants us all to ignore here,

first, the FBI Sibert diagram from the autopsy, which shows the back wound lower than the throat:

It kinda makes you wonder why Gerald Ford (R-MI) would have had to have the description of the

back wound changed to "the base of the back of his neck" if Mike Williams meanderings were true:

The neck wound was not an entrance?

THen what was the track from back to front?

Better yet, if the back wound did not transit, which of course it did, how could JFK have suffered a hemo/pneumothorax?

In other words how could the upper right Pleura and upper right lung have sustained damage if not for a transiting bullet?

If the neck wound was an entrance, where did it go?

Please spare me the hog wash that a bullet impacting at a downward angle can not exit anatomically higher than it entered.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Duncan, The problem is that he doesn't look like me, as anyone who knows me can see, and that those who

were identifying the throat wound as a wound of entry were experienced and competent physicians, who had

had many gun-shot wound patients. They knew that a small, clean wound of the throat was a wound of entry,

which Malcolm Perry, M.D., who knew it "up close and personal" explained THREE TIMES during the Parkland

press conference, which I published as Appendix ( C ) to ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), where Crenshaw

also diagrammed it for me, which I published as Appendix ( A ). Bob Livingston, by the way, who was also an

expert on wound ballistics, recognized it as an entry wound from hearing a description of the wound over the

radio! Have you ever read the transcript or taken a look at Chuck's diagram? Perhaps the latter, since I have

posted it on this thread. Their only advantage over you is that they were there and knew what they were doing.

Good replies, Cliff. Doesn't Duncan know that nothing looks more like a wound of entry than a wound of entry?

Jim, It has been said that the guy in the wheelchair in the Jesse Ventura presentation looks like you.

Using your logic, does this mean that nothing looks more like a Jim Fetzer than a Jim Fetzer, and therefore, the guy in the wheelchair must be you?.....Go Figure!

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff,

Since Mantik is my best source on the X-rays (for a host of good reasons), where do you derive your views

about the hairline fracture of the transverse process and the air pocket? We know the X-rays have been

altered.

I have no reason to trust the head x-rays, true.

But what reason do I have for not trusting the neck x-ray? Why would such an anti-dramatic wound

path be faked?

What is your source that I might examine the evidence for myself? MORTAL ERROR (1992), page

107 has an X-ray that seems to support your interpretation. Is that your source?

No. The HSCA report on the neck x-ray.

Evaluation of the pre-autopsy film shows that there is some subcutaneous or interstitial

air overlying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes. There is disruption of the integrity

of the transverse process of T1, which, in comparison with its mate on the opposite side

and also with the previously taken film, mentioned above, indicates that there has been a

fracture in that area. There is some soft tissue density overlying the apex of the right

lung which may be hematoma in that region or other soft tissue swelling.

Evaluation of the post-autopsy film shows that there is subcutaneous or interstitial air

overlying C7 and T1. The same disruption of T1 right transverse process is still present.

On the film of the right side, taken post-autopsy, there are two small metallic densities

in the region of the C7 right transverse process. These densities are felt to be artifact,

partly because of their marked density, because there is a similar artifact overlying the

body of C7, and because these metallic-like densities were not present on the previous,

pre-autopsy film. Therefore, I assume that these are screen artifacts from debris present

in the cassette at the time that this film was exposed.

Do you think that one of the Secret Service agents accidentally shot JFK?

No.

Now I am even more eager to have your answers to the questions I have post. Where was he shot?

In the throat from the front, in the back at T3, and an indeterminate number of times in the head.

How many times?

3 to 5.

And from what directions?

Throat shot -- right front.

Back shot -- Dal-Tex

Head shot(s) -- right front, possible multiple directions including South Knoll, the Dal-Tex, and west corner

of the TSBD, 6th fl.

Many thanks!

Jim

You're welcome.

[Cliff Varnell]

The Parkland doctor's did NOT say that the neck wound was a wound of entry.

They said that it looked like an entrance wound.

We KNOW it was an entrance wound.

The back wound was too low to be associated with the throat wound, especially given the path on the neck x-ray.

Nellie Connally described JFK as grabbing his throat, and we can see him react to throat trauma in the Zap.

The only Dealey Plaza back wound witness, SSA Glenn Bennett, described the back shot as separate from the first

"firecracker" he heard.

The back wound was probed by Humes and then Finck and no transit was found.

We KNOW that JFK's back wound was too low because of the location of the bullet hole in his tucked in custom made dress shirt in the vicinity of T3. And a ton of corroborative evidence for the T3 back wound is found in the Death Certificate (signed off as "verified"), the autopsy face sheet properly filled out in pencil (signed off as "verified", also in pencil as per proper autopsy protocol), and the eyewitness statements of more than a dozen people who saw the wound.

Any thing else, Duncan?

No Cliff, I have Nothing more to add.

I wasn't aware before posting the video, that you had medical qualifications,

I don't. I cited the neck x-ray and the probing of the back wound during autopsy. Is there a problem with citing

this evidence?

and that you are more qualified than Perry to ascertain that the neck wound was a wound of entry rather than Perry's opinion that it just looked like a wound of entry which could have been a wound of exit.

We don't need the statements of the Parkland doctors to establish the throat entrance wound.

Their consensus descriptions of a wound of entry corroborate what we already know from the

bullet hole in the shirt and the neck x-ray.

Silly me.

Quite accurate corroboration of a minor point.

Edited April 8, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

How can Lamson have read my article and continued to post such rubbish? The hole was 5.5" below the

collar in his jacket and slightly below that on his shirt. There cannot have been bunching, since the holes

in the jacket and the shirt aligned with the marks on the body by Boswell and by Sibert, not to mention

that JFK's personal physician, Admiral George Burkley, had specifically located that wound at level T3:

Given we know the location of the wound, which again corresponds to the jacket and the shirt, we know

that the jacket was not bunched--a most improbable event, given that JFK wore custom-tailored shirts

and jackets, as I also explained in the article. Which also implies that this new Betzner has been faked.

While I am surely willing to grant that one of us is incompetent, as anyone with eyes can see, it ain't me:

I can't believe that Craig Lamson would be so dumb as to make a response to me WITHOUT BOTHERING

TO READ THE ARTICLE I CITED. It shows where the holes entered his jacket and his xxxx, where Boswell

and Sibert diagrammed the wound, where Admiral Burkely located it--and how the holes in the jacket

and the shirt ALIGN with the location of the wounds shown on the diagrams! In passing, I explain how

this evidence disproves the "bunching up" theory, even offering an illustration! This guy is apparently

so stupid he thinks he can make up the evidence to suit himself! I also show where the commission's

own staff located the wound to the back by using large markers to identify it. If anyone ever wanted a

crisp and clean proof of Craig Lamson's incompetent in JFK research, this one is completely stunning!

Oh I read your "article" Jim. However, despite your massive bloviation you still have not found a way to deal directly with the unimpreachable existance of the 3+ inch fold of fabric found in Betzner. It's there Jim and your silly claims will not make it go away. So you can offer direct proof (not the CONTESTED location of the entry wound on JFK's back) that there was NO fold at the time of impact or you simply lose.

Not really very hard Jim, but failure to do so will offer clean and crisp proof of your incompetence in this simple JFK research matter. But of course not many here on this forum will find your incompetence stunning at all.

Edited April 8, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Cliff,

You have told me that you believe he was shot in the throat from the right/front. Since there is a

mountain of evidence that that shot actually passed through the windshield--where it made the

sound of a firecracker and carried shards of glass to JFK's face, which Thomas Evan Robinson had

to fill with wax--given everything else I have published about this (including those chapters and

reports and studies I have cited here), why are you not being responsive to this evidence? There is

more than enough to place the matter beyond reasonable doubt. Now, if you are unfamiliar with it,

then of course that can explain why you have a theory that is inconsistent with the evidence. But I

would certainly like to know why it does not appear to have had an impact on your thinking about

the throat shot. So be so kind as to explain to me how you have come to a different result, which,

I infer, involves the appeal to an "ice bullet", which is a fascinating idea but appears unwarranted.

Perhaps you doubt that an ice bullet could have penetrated the windshield, which may be correct.

But you should not discount the evidence of a shot through the windshield to save an ice bullet!

Jim

Cliff,

This worries me. Have you never read Douglas Weldon's chapter in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000)?

We have many witnesses to the hole in the windshield from Parkland, which was even described in his

column in The St. Louis Post-Dispatch (21 December 1963) by Richard Dudman and discussed by Bob

Livingston, M.D., in several of his contributions to ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998). The Dudman piece

may be found on page 167, Bob's on pages 165-166, among other places. The hole is even visible in

the Altgens, as I have explained in many places, including on page 149 of MURDER. (I contrast it with

the substitute presented by the Secret Service, which is shown on page 157, as well as yet another on

page 158. And did you miss my comparison of the windshields on page 436 of THE GREAT ZAPRUDER

FILM HOAX (2003)? Are you unaware of these reports and of Weldon's study or are they excluded by

the methodology you have announced of basing your work on "the historical record", as though "the

historical record" were clear and unambiguous. I am fairly taken aback by your dismissal of the studies

of the medical evidence by David W. Mantik, who is the leading expert on the medical evidence in the

world today, and your apparent ignorance of Weldon's studies. He even tracked down the official at

Ford who had been responsible for replacing the windshield. How can you be serious and neglect it?

Jim

Quote:

If the neck wound was an entrance, where did it go?

I go with dissolved. It's what the autopsists suspected the night of the autopsy.

Cliff, do you have an opinion on whether a dissolving round could (or did) go through the windshield first?

I can't see anyone aiming through the windshield. Any hole there was the result of a miss, imo.

The throat shot was a perfect hit.

Edited April 8, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

How can Lamson have read my article and continued to post such rubbish? The hole was 5.5" below the

collar in his jacket and slightly below that on his shirt. There cannot have been bunching, since the holes

in the jacket and the shirt aligned with the marks on the body by Boswell and by Sibert, not to mention

that JFK's personal physician, Admiral George Burkley, had specifically located that wound at level T3:

Ah Jim, here is FACT, There was a 3+ inch fold of fabric in the back of JFK's jacket in Betzner. The unbendable laws of light and shadow make this FACT unimpechable.

This FACT remains regardless of your continued braying. If you can't find a way to REMOVE this fold from JFK's jacket by the moment of the back shot impact you lose.

Simple as that.

So can you do that or will you continue to wave your hands wildly?

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff,

You have told me that you believe he was shot in the throat from the right/front. Since there is a

mountain of evidence that that shot actually passed through the windshield--where it made the

sound of a firecracker and carried shards of glass to JFK's face, which Thomas Evan Robinson had

to fill with wax--given everything else I have published about this (including those chapters and

reports and studies I have cited here), why are you not being responsive to this evidence?

I haven't seen any evidence that the throat shot went through the windshield.

What precludes a windshield shot taken after JFK was struck in the throat?

The first strike must have been carefully planned, and it makes no sense to me that the conspirators would

plan a shot through the windshield.

There is more than enough to place the matter beyond reasonable doubt.

I have yet to see any reason to conclude that a hole in the windshield was caused by the throat shot to the exclusion of all other shots.

Now, if you are unfamiliar with it, then of course that can explain why you have a theory that is

inconsistent with the evidence.

It's not inconsistent with the neck x-ray.

But I would certainly like to know why it does not appear to have had an impact on your thinking about

the throat shot. So be so kind as to explain to me how you have come to a different result, which,

I infer, involves the appeal to an "ice bullet", which is a fascinating idea but appears unwarranted.

I strenuously disagree! Since there have been no anomalies cited in the Zapruder film frames 186 to 255, the Zap is consistent with both the other Dealey Plaza photos taken in that time frame (Betzner 3, Willis 5, Altgens 6) and

the testimony of close-in witnesses Nellie Connally, Linda Willis and Clint Hill -- all of whom describe JFK's reaction to throat trauma as seen in the Zapruder.

JFK seized up paralyzed in two seconds, consistent with CIA/DOD weapons technology.

Perhaps you doubt that an ice bullet could have penetrated the windshield, which may be correct.

But you should not discount the evidence of a shot through the windshield to save an ice bullet!

Jim

There is no need to. Both could have occurred.

Cliff,

This worries me. Have you never read Douglas Weldon's chapter in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000)?

We have many witnesses to the hole in the windshield from Parkland, which was even described in his

column in The St. Louis Post-Dispatch (21 December 1963) by Richard Dudman and discussed by Bob

Livingston, M.D., in several of his contributions to ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998). The Dudman piece

may be found on page 167, Bob's on pages 165-166, among other places. The hole is even visible in

the Altgens, as I have explained in many places, including on page 149 of MURDER. (I contrast it with

the substitute presented by the Secret Service, which is shown on page 157, as well as yet another on

page 158. And did you miss my comparison of the windshields on page 436 of THE GREAT ZAPRUDER

FILM HOAX (2003)? Are you unaware of these reports and of Weldon's study or are they excluded by

the methodology you have announced of basing your work on "the historical record", as though "the

historical record" were clear and unambiguous. I am fairly taken aback by your dismissal of the studies

of the medical evidence by David W. Mantik, who is the leading expert on the medical evidence in the

world today, and your apparent ignorance of Weldon's studies. He even tracked down the official at

Ford who had been responsible for replacing the windshield. How can you be serious and neglect it?

Jim

It's one thing to argue that there was a hole in the windshield. It's another to argue that it had to be the throat shot to the exclusion of all other possibilities.

Edited April 8, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

You cannot take an obviously faked photograph as having greater evidential weight than the multiple proofs

that I have presented. You are again demonstrating that, when it comes to JFK research, you haven't a clue!

How can Lamson have read my article and continued to post such rubbish? The hole was 5.5" below the

collar in his jacket and slightly below that on his shirt. There cannot have been bunching, since the holes

in the jacket and the shirt aligned with the marks on the body by Boswell and by Sibert, not to mention

that JFK's personal physician, Admiral George Burkley, had specifically located that wound at level T3:

Ah Jim, here is FACT, There was a 3+ inch fold of fabric in the back of JFK's jacket in Betzner. The unbendable laws of light and shadow make this FACT unimpechable.

This FACT remains regardless of your continued braying. If you can't find a way to REMOVE this fold from JFK's jacket by the moment of the back shot impact you lose.

Simple as that.

So can you do that or will you continue to wave your hands wildly?

[Cliff Varnell]

How can Lamson have read my article and continued to post such rubbish? The hole was 5.5" below the

collar in his jacket and slightly below that on his shirt. There cannot have been bunching, since the holes

in the jacket and the shirt aligned with the marks on the body by Boswell and by Sibert, not to mention

that JFK's personal physician, Admiral George Burkley, had specifically located that wound at level T3:

Ah Jim, here is FACT, There was a 3+ inch fold of fabric in the back of JFK's jacket in Betzner. The unbendable laws of light and shadow make this FACT unimpechable.

This FACT remains regardless of your continued braying. If you can't find a way to REMOVE this fold from JFK's jacket by the moment of the back shot impact you lose.

Simple as that.

So can you do that or will you continue to wave your hands wildly?

The physical evidence of the bullet hole in the shirt trumps Lamson's fever swamp imaginings.

Even if such a fold were possible with the jacket, it was impossible with the shirt. Either Lamson's Magic Fold was knocked down by the throat shot -- or Craig is simply trying to leverage his professional qualifications to sell snake oil.

Edited April 8, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

You cannot take an obviously faked photograph as having greater evidential weight than the multiple proofs

that I have presented. You are again demonstrating that, when it comes to JFK research, you haven't a clue!

The photo wasn't faked. Lamson is bluffing.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

In #443 and #447--and more extensively in "Reasoning about Assassinations"--I have demonstrated

that the hole in the shirt and the hole in the jack align with the wound identified on Boswell's diagram

and the Sibert sketch 5.5" below the collar. That would have been impossible if the shirt had actually

been bunched. Since it is shown bunched in this new Betzner, the Betzner has to have been faked! I

am the least bit distressed that you cannot reason to such an obvious conclusion, Cliff. Moreover, we

know that the Warren Commission staff also placed the wound at that location, as these photos show:

You cannot take an obviously faked photograph as having greater evidential weight than the multiple proofs

that I have presented. You are again demonstrating that, when it comes to JFK research, you haven't a clue!

The photo wasn't faked. Lamson is bluffing.

[Cliff Varnell]

In #443 and #447--and more extensively in "Reasoning about Assassinations"--I have demonstrated

that the hole in the shirt and the hole in the jack align with the wound identified on Boswell's diagram

and the Sibert sketch 5.5" below the collar. That would have been impossible if the shirt had actually

been bunched. Since it is shown bunched in this new Betzner, the Betzner has to have been faked! I

am the least bit distressed that you cannot reason to such an obvious conclusion, Cliff.

There is no such thing as "a new Betzner." There is no such thing as a 3+" bunch in Betzner.

Lamson is making it up. Don't fall for it, Jim!

[Cliff Varnell]

Moreover, we

know that the Warren Commission staff also placed the wound at that location, as these photos show:

http://i52.tinypic.com/2uejpz8.jp

It was the FBI who put the back wound in its proper position, not the Warren Commission staff.

Hoover never bought the SBT. Hoover wanted to make Specter look like an idiot.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Cliff,

You are being disingenuous. OBVIOUSLY you haven't studied the multiples sources that I have

identified. There is no doubt that it excludes the shot to the throat as having come from any

other source! You need to study the evidence I have cited, because it is the most important.

You place great weight on the HSCA, but on page 349, you can see Commission Exhibit No. 350,

which presents the substitute windshield, while on page 355, you can see the Altgens, where the

small, white spiral nebula with a dark hole in the center where his left ear would be is its location.

You have to get serious. If Vincent Bugliosi remarked that mine were the only three "exclusively

scientific books" ever published on the assassination, you really ought to be taking the studies

that I have brought together in each of them seriously and not trying to fake as though you had.

I mentioned that I was writing to Cyril Wecht about the gross discrepancy between the HSCA

diagram and photo, which show the back of the head entirely intact, and the autopsy report,

which describes a cranium with around 2/3 of its surface area as missing, as shown here:

Now Cyril has written to me that he agrees and that he pointed out the enormous discrepancy

between the Parkland physicians reports and the Bethesda autopsy report, but that they had

simply ignored this glaring discrepancy and challenged the accuracy of the autopsy report and

the Parkland physicians' observations. With this stunning display of incompetence from the

HSCA medical panel, I can't imagine why anyone would take it seriously. I do not see the X-

ray you cite either. Tell me the pages of the HSCA FINAL REPORT (1979) so I can check them.

----- Original Message ----- From: <jfetzer@d.umn.edu>

To: "Cyril H. Wecht M.D., J.D."

Cc: <jfetzer@d.umn.edu>

Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 3:34 PM

Subject: Re: Hello

Cyril,

Sean's problems do not appear to fall into your areas of specialization.

But I have a question that does. A fellow named Pat Speer has make the

(to me, quite ridiculous) argument that the HSCA photographs that show

an intact back-of-the-head but a small wound at the crown or "cowlick"

are the most accurate. I have pointed out their inconsistency with the

Dealey Plaza witnesses, the Parkland physcians' reports, and (now) the

testimony of Clint Hill (which I have discussed in two articles on my

blog, "Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?" and

"Did Zapruder film 'the Zapruder film'?" But my question for you is

this. I have also pointed out to him the gross inconsistency between

the enormous dimensions of the missing cranium as it was described in

the official autopsy report. Since the HSCA photo and diagram was so

blatantly inconsistent with the official autopsy report, why was that

discrepancy not the subject of intense discussion within the medical

panel of which you were a member? To the best of my knowledge, that

difference did not surface during its deliberations. If I am wrong

about that, I would like to know. Are you aware of any articles or

books that addresses this specifically? David Lifton, BEST EVIDENCE

(1980), of course, characterizes the differences in the wounds that

were described at Parkland, at Bethesda, and by the HSCA. But I am

unaware of any study that focuses on the gross discrepancy between

the HSCA and the official autopsy report. Can you help me out here?

Warm regards,

Jim

Cliff,

You have told me that you believe he was shot in the throat from the right/front. Since there is a

mountain of evidence that that shot actually passed through the windshield--where it made the

sound of a firecracker and carried shards of glass to JFK's face, which Thomas Evan Robinson had

to fill with wax--given everything else I have published about this (including those chapters and

reports and studies I have cited here), why are you not being responsive to this evidence?

I haven't seen any evidence that the throat shot went through the windshield.

What precludes a windshield shot taken after JFK was struck in the throat?

The first strike must have been carefully planned, and it makes no sense to me that the conspirators would

plan a shot through the windshield.

There is more than enough to place the matter beyond reasonable doubt.

I have yet to see any reason to conclude that a hole in the windshield was caused by the throat shot to the exclusion of all other shots.

Now, if you are unfamiliar with it, then of course that can explain why you have a theory that is

inconsistent with the evidence.

It's not inconsistent with the neck x-ray.

But I would certainly like to know why it does not appear to have had an impact on your thinking about

the throat shot. So be so kind as to explain to me how you have come to a different result, which,

I infer, involves the appeal to an "ice bullet", which is a fascinating idea but appears unwarranted.

I strenuously disagree! Since there have been no anomalies cited in the Zapruder film frames 186 to 255, the Zap is consistent with both the other Dealey Plaza photos taken in that time frame (Betzner 3, Willis 5, Altgens 6) and

the testimony of close-in witnesses Nellie Connally, Linda Willis and Clint Hill -- all of whom describe JFK's reaction to throat trauma as seen in the Zapruder.

JFK seized up paralyzed in two seconds, consistent with CIA/DOD weapons technology.

Perhaps you doubt that an ice bullet could have penetrated the windshield, which may be correct.

But you should not discount the evidence of a shot through the windshield to save an ice bullet!

Jim

There is no need to. Both could have occurred.

Cliff,

This worries me. Have you never read Douglas Weldon's chapter in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000)?

We have many witnesses to the hole in the windshield from Parkland, which was even described in his

column in The St. Louis Post-Dispatch (21 December 1963) by Richard Dudman and discussed by Bob

Livingston, M.D., in several of his contributions to ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998). The Dudman piece

may be found on page 167, Bob's on pages 165-166, among other places. The hole is even visible in

the Altgens, as I have explained in many places, including on page 149 of MURDER. (I contrast it with

the substitute presented by the Secret Service, which is shown on page 157, as well as yet another on

page 158. And did you miss my comparison of the windshields on page 436 of THE GREAT ZAPRUDER

FILM HOAX (2003)? Are you unaware of these reports and of Weldon's study or are they excluded by

the methodology you have announced of basing your work on "the historical record", as though "the

historical record" were clear and unambiguous. I am fairly taken aback by your dismissal of the studies

of the medical evidence by David W. Mantik, who is the leading expert on the medical evidence in the

world today, and your apparent ignorance of Weldon's studies. He even tracked down the official at

Ford who had been responsible for replacing the windshield. How can you be serious and neglect it?

Jim

It's one thing to argue that there was a hole in the windshield. It's another to argue that it had to be the throat shot to the exclusion of all other possibilities.