DID ZAPRUDER FILM "THE ZAPRUDER FILM"?

[Martin Hinrichs]

Blood stain. ( bullit hole aligned GIF )

Place your mouse cursor on the bullit hole to align the hole in the shirt with the hole in the coat

Now, thats interesting Robin.

To place clothing, maybe shot from different directions (camera location) to an overlay in a GIF is a good idea but

it's difficult. It's maybe impossible to get it perfect. But the whole idea is great.

I would never have this idea i believe.

The difference is astonishing. I mean the blood traces/contures)

You raise (again) interesting questions.

best to you

Martin

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Cliff,

I have seen it! I knew it was faked as soon as I saw it. It shows a highly exaggerated bunching of his

jacket. I don't remember exactly where it was, but it was relatively recently. McAdams features several:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bunched3.htm

The point I have made is that, if the jacket and shirt HAD BEEN BUNCHED, the holes in them would

NOT HAVE ALIGNED with Boswell and Sibert's diagrams. But they DO ALIGN with those diagrams!

I don't understand why the surfacing of a new faked photograph should imply that I am falling for it!

If that explained why the holes in the jacket and shirt were lower than the actual wound on the body,

then they might have some probative value. But they don't show that. The wound on the body--as the

Boswell and Sibert diagrams demonstrate--were right where they should be given the shirt and jacket.

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]

Cliff,

You are being disingenuous.

No, I don't think I am.

OBVIOUSLY you haven't studied the multiples sources that I have identified.

You haven't identified anything in this thread to preclude the windshield shot occurring after the throat shot.

The next time you present evidence of such will be the first time in this thread, near as I can tell.

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.

I'm waiting.

You place great weight on the HSCA,

I place weight on their reading of the neck x-ray, a straight-forward analysis. I have yet to be given a reason to think that the neck x-ray isn't authentic.

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.

Tom Wilson also identified a hole in the windshield in Altgens. But the throat shot was circa Z190, and Altgens

was taken almost 4 seconds later. -- Again, what is to preclude the windshield shot being separate from the throat shot?

Again -- why would the conspirators aim the crucial first shot through a windshield?

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'm not faking anything. My contention is that the case doesn't require that much scientific analysis. We can establish the back wound by the principles of fine men's dress, for instance.

There is medical evidence which was not prepared according to proper autopsy protocols, and there is medical evidence which was properly prepared.

We simply disregard that which was not properly prepared, and we weigh that which was.

Simple.

It is the improperly prepared evidence -- the autopsy report, the autopsy photos, and everything to do with the head wounds -- that I do not take seriously. I think studies of the head wounds or the head x-rays or the phony high back wound are not to be taken seriously.

They are rabbit holes.

Edited April 8, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Pat Speer]

Blood stain. ( bullit hole aligned GIF )

Place your mouse cursor on the bullit hole to align the hole in the shirt with the hole in the coat

Now, thats interesting Robin.

To place clothing, maybe shot from different directions (camera location) to an overlay in a GIF is a good idea but

it's difficult. It's maybe impossible to get it perfect. But the whole idea is great.

I would never have this idea i believe.

The difference is astonishing. I mean the blood traces/contures)

You raise (again) interesting questions.

best to you

Martin

A quick thought. The blood on the shirt came primarily from the back wound. That is why so much of it drips straight down. It was already headed in this direction when Kennedy was hit in the head and fell over, and then continued on in this direction when Jackie put his head in her lap.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

This is pretty weird, Cliff. These are Warren Commission staff reconstruction photographs. The

one you didn't show just now--which I am showing here--is my favorite from the photo series, as

a photograph that is supposed to demonstrate the "magic bullet" theory which actually refutes it.

Of course, as I would like to believe everyone understands, David Mantik took a patient with the

same (or similar) neck and shoulder dimensions as JFK and plotted the official trajectory, which

enabled him to prove that the "magic bullet" theory is not even anatomically possible. See here:

Moreover, we

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

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.

[Martin Hinrichs]

Blood stain. ( bullit hole aligned GIF )

Place your mouse cursor on the bullit hole to align the hole in the shirt with the hole in the coat

Now, thats interesting Robin.

To place clothing, maybe shot from different directions (camera location) to an overlay in a GIF is a good idea but

it's difficult. It's maybe impossible to get it perfect. But the whole idea is great.

I would never have this idea i believe.

The difference is astonishing. I mean the blood traces/contures)

You raise (again) interesting questions.

best to you

Martin

A quick thought. The blood on the shirt came primarily from the back wound. That is why so much of it drips straight down. It was already headed in this direction when Kennedy was hit in the head and fell over, and then continued on in this direction when Jackie put his head in her lap.

Possible Pat.

I'am no expert in blood traces in clothes.

Was just a thought.

best to you

Martin

[Pat Speer]

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

Jim, it's obvious Cyril believes the HSCA back of the head photo is consistent with the autopsy report noting a large hole and the testimony of Dr. Humes that large chunks of skull fell to the table when the scalp was reflected. If not, he should have said so many many years ago, like when he emerged from the archives after being the first CT to inspect the photos, or when he testified before the HSCA.

Now, the back of the head photo and the statements of the Parkland witnesses? That's a different story entirely. Even I see that!

[Cliff Varnell]

This is pretty weird, Cliff. These are Warren Commission staff reconstruction photographs. The

one you didn't show just now--which I am showing here--is my favorite from the photo series, as

a photograph that is supposed to demonstrate the "magic bullet" theory which actually refutes it.

I'm willing to stand corrected, but I think those are FBI men in the limo. Yes, the Warren Commission took part

and took photographs. It was the FBI who placed the back wound down low, making Specter look like an idiot.

Of course, as I would like to believe everyone understands, David Mantik took a patient with the

same (or similar) neck and shoulder dimensions as JFK and plotted the official trajectory, which

enabled him to prove that the "magic bullet" theory is not even anatomically possible. See here:

No expert analysis is necessary, frankly. The bullet hole in the shirt is dispositive as to the location of the back wound.

If I were to cite expert analysis I'd pick Alan Flusser, the designer/historian who describes a custom made

shirt as "almost a second skin."

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

You are really doing yourself a disservice. Admit that you haven't studied any of the evidence that I've

identified, because you obviously haven't. This is like NIST investigating 9/11, which claimed that it had

not found any evidence of controlled demolition at the World Trade Center, but later, when challenged,

had to admit that it hadn't bothered to look! If you don't take a serious look at all of the sources that I

have identified, you will have thereby discredited you. That would be a shame, since it has seemed to

me that you are far more rational in dealing with the medical and ballistic evidence than others whom I

could name, but it takes me aback that you have not studied the most important work on this question.

It's not that "we simply disagree". I have published the evidence that demonstrates you are wrong. In

fact, I have discussed it several times on this thread. The Secret Service obtained a dozen windshields,

allegedly for target practice. JFK's military aide, who normally would have been in between Kellerman

and Greer, was moved to the last vehicle along with Admiral Burkely, the president's personal physician,

so if he needed medical care, he would be poorly positioned to provide it. The hole in the windshield

and the throat wound lead back to a firing location on the south end of the Triple Underpass. Those

small "shrapnel wounds" on his face appear to have been made by shards of glass from the windshield.

Several witnesses observed the through and through hole in the windshield at Parkland. One police

officer actually stuck a pencil through it. Richard Dudman, a reporter for the St. Louis Post Dispatch,

actually wrote about it in a column that I reprinted in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), along with

Bob Livingston's reports about the Secret Service. Doug Weldon, J.D., did an extensive study of the

windshield and even tracked own the official at Ford who had replaced it and who confirmed that it

had a through and through hole in it. I have pointed out that it is visible in the Altgens and that the

Secret Service had produced a substitute. You have been taken in, Cliff. STUDY THE EVIDENCE!

Now I am forced to conclude that you REALLY ARE BEING DISINGENUOUS. Which is a great pity!

Cliff,

You are being disingenuous.

No, I don't think I am.

OBVIOUSLY you haven't studied the multiples sources that I have identified.

You haven't identified anything in this thread to preclude the windshield shot occurring after the throat shot.

The next time you present evidence of such will be the first time in this thread, near as I can tell.

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.

I'm waiting.

You place great weight on the HSCA,

I place weight on their reading of the neck x-ray, a straight-forward analysis. I have yet to be given a reason to think that the neck x-ray isn't authentic.

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.

Tom Wilson also identified a hole in the windshield in Altgens. But the throat shot was circa Z190, and Altgens

was taken five seconds later. -- Again, what is to preclude the windshield shot being separate from the throat shot?

Again -- why would the conspirators aim the crucial first shot through a windshield?

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'm not faking anything. My contention is that the case doesn't require that much scientific analysis. We can establish the back wound by the principles of fine men's dress, for instance.

There is medical evidence which was not prepared according to proper autopsy protocols, and there is medical evidence which was properly prepared.

We simply disregard that which was not properly prepared, and we weigh that which was.

Simple.

It is the improperly prepared evidence -- the autopsy report, the autopsy photos, and everything to do with the head wounds -- that I do not take seriously. I think studies of the head wounds or the head x-rays or the phony high back wound are not to be taken seriously.

They are rabbit holes.

[Pat Speer]

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.

This isn't correct, Cliff. Specter ran the show at the re-enactment. He was shown the back wound photo on the day of the re-enactment by SS agent Thomas Kelley. He tested the trajectories using the real back wound location, based on the photo and the face sheet. When he found they didn't work so great he had Kelley testify they'd used the Rydberg drawings to establish the back wound location used in the re-enactment, and Shaneyfelt claim the trajectory from the sniper's nest approximated that of the trajectory in the Rydberg drawings. He then made sure that no photos showing the back wound location used in the re-enactment were published in the 26 volumes.

His charade was exposed, however, by three people. 1) Frazier testified they'd used the face sheet to place the wound. 2) Specter admitted Kelley had shown him the photo on the day of the re-enactment. 3) Kelley confirmed this to Weisberg.

This is all covered in part 2 of my video series.

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff,

I have seen it! I knew it was faked as soon as I saw it. It shows a highly exaggerated bunching of his

jacket. I don't remember exactly where it was, but it was relatively recently. McAdams features several:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bunched3.htm

You're falling for the okey-doke here, Jim. They are conning you! Take a good look at the photo on the

left in Hunt's article you linked above. The Jim Towner photo, taken on the corner of Houston and Elm. There is JFK's 1.25" jacket collar towering over the .75" fabric fold.

What you are buying into here is Gross Ease Fallacy -- the notion that casual body movements cause multiple inches

of fabric to move.

It cannot happen. Such a scenario is contrary to the nature of reality.

The point I have made is that, if t

he jacket and shirt HAD BEEN BUNCHED, the holes in them would

NOT HAVE ALIGNED with Boswell and Sibert's diagrams. But they DO ALIGN with those diagrams!

I don't understand why the surfacing of a new faked photograph should imply that I am falling for it!

What new photograph? Nothing new about Betzner...

Edited April 8, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Cliff,

You may be right that it wasn't Betzner. It was some new film that had been found in someone's closet

or some such nonsense. It showed the jacket bunched up as Lamson has described it--about 3". It was

an obvious fake. What isn't fake--to the best of my knowledge!--is this Altgens, where you can see the

through and through hole in the windshield. I have other studies in my books, but you can't be serious

when you suggest I should transfer their content to a thread like this. YOU NEED TO READ THEM!

Cliff,

I have seen it! I knew it was faked as soon as I saw it. It shows a highly exaggerated bunching of his

jacket. I don't remember exactly where it was, but it was relatively recently. McAdams features several:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bunched3.htm

You're falling for the okey-doke here, Jim. They are conning you! Take a good look at the photo on the

left in Hunt's article you linked above. The Jim Towner photo, taken on the corner of Houston and Elm. There is JFK's 1.25 inch jacket collar towering over the .75" fabric fold.

What you are buying into here is Gross Ease Fallacy -- the notion that casual body movements cause multiple inches

of fabric to move.

It cannot happen. Such a scenario is contrary to the nature of reality.

The point I have made is that, if t

he jacket and shirt HAD BEEN BUNCHED, the holes in them would

NOT HAVE ALIGNED with Boswell and Sibert's diagrams. But they DO ALIGN with those diagrams!

I don't understand why the surfacing of a new faked photograph should imply that I am falling for it!

What new photograph? Nothing new about Betzner...

Edited April 8, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[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.

This isn't correct, Cliff. Specter ran the show at the re-enactment. He was shown the back wound photo on the day of the re-enactment by SS agent Thomas Kelley.

According to Specter, correct?

He tested the trajectories using the real back wound location, based on the photo and the face sheet. When he found they didn't work so great he had Kelley testify they'd used the Rydberg drawings to establish the back wound location used in the re-enactment, and Shaneyfelt claim the trajectory from the sniper's nest approximated that of the trajectory in the Rydberg drawings. He then made sure that no photos showing the back wound location used in the re-enactment were published in the 26 volumes.

His charade was exposed, however, by three people. 1) Frazier testified they'd used the face sheet to place the wound. 2) Specter admitted Kelley had shown him the photo on the day of the re-enactment. 3) Kelley confirmed this to Weisberg.

This is all covered in part 2 of my video series.

Those were FBI men in the limo, correct? And wasn't it Frazier of the FBI who used the face sheet to place the wound?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pat,

You are making a good point. Maybe Cyril wasn't QUITE as much on top of all of this as some of

us have supposed. I know he had difficulty understanding David's studies of the X-rays, because

I was with him at his home at the time a program featuring David explaining them was broadcast.

Jim

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

Jim, it's obvious Cyril believes the HSCA back of the head photo is consistent with the autopsy report noting a large hole and the testimony of Dr. Humes that large chunks of skull fell to the table when the scalp was reflected. If not, he should have said so many many years ago, like when he emerged from the archives after being the first CT to inspect the photos, or when he testified before the HSCA.

Now, the back of the head photo and the statements of the Parkland witnesses? That's a different story entirely. Even I see that!

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

You keep showing the less important of these two photographs, where the second is the crucial one.

Pat, I just might have to watch Part 2 of your video series. Thanks for the last couple of your posts.

Moreover, we

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

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.

This isn't correct, Cliff. Specter ran the show at the re-enactment. He was shown the back wound photo on the day of the re-enactment by SS agent Thomas Kelley.

According to Specter, correct?

He tested the trajectories using the real back wound location, based on the photo and the face sheet. When he found they didn't work so great he had Kelley testify they'd used the Rydberg drawings to establish the back wound location used in the re-enactment, and Shaneyfelt claim the trajectory from the sniper's nest approximated that of the trajectory in the Rydberg drawings. He then made sure that no photos showing the back wound location used in the re-enactment were published in the 26 volumes.

His charade was exposed, however, by three people. 1) Frazier testified they'd used the face sheet to place the wound. 2) Specter admitted Kelley had shown him the photo on the day of the re-enactment. 3) Kelley confirmed this to Weisberg.

This is all covered in part 2 of my video series.

Those were FBI men in the limo, correct? And wasn't it Frazier of the FBI who used the face sheet to place the wound?