Michael Crane Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 (edited) I could only find this Robin. Embalmina and reconstruction of the President’s head: -Mr. Robinson said he worked right over the President for over 3 hours, but that he was NOT the person who reconstructed the President’s head; he said that was done by John Van Hoesen. -Embalming was done before reconstruction. -The President suffered from some very slight blue discoloration under the eyes, but that the area -._-. ., around his eyes was not “black and blue” by any means; to IRobinson this was evidence that President ..-.. - -.-.- Kennedy was “instantly dead” when shot. He based this opinion on his previous observations of autopsies and cadavers during embalming. --.-_ -Robinson said that Ed Stroble (now deceased) had cut out a piece of rubber to cover the open wound --.. in the back of the head, so that the embalm~ing fluid __...., would not leak; the piece of rubber was slightly larger than the hole in the back of the head, and Robinson estimated that the rubber sheet was a circular patch about the size of a large orange (demonstrating this with a circular motion joining the index fingers and thumbs of his two hands). -He said the cranium was packed with material during reconstruction, but that he did not believe it was plaster-of-Paris; rather, he said it was either cotton or kapok material used in conjunction with a hardening compound. The Rubber sheet was used outside of this material to close the wound in the area of missing bone. The scalp was sutured together, and also onto the rubber sheet to the maximum extent possible, and the damage in the back of the head was obscured by the pillow in the casket when the body lay in repose, so that upon completion of embalming and application of restorative art, President Kennedy’s body was ready for an open casket funeral, if one had been requested. No damage to the head could be seen when Gawlefs crew had finished their work. In this condition, President Kennedy’s head was laying on the pillow in the casket, turned slightly to the right. -Robinson described in considerable detail the embalming procedures employed re: infusion of the _~ .._.. thoracic region and head with formaldehyde. -Robinson said that there was considerable pressure on the Gawlefs crew to finish their work as soon ___. as possible, and that it was coming from an Admiral. He recalled becoming upset by this, and being calmed down by Joe Hagan; he recalled responding to one query about when they would be finished by saying, “You can’t put on make-up with a barn brush!” He remembered with pride that someone else in the morgue said that the President “looked good” when they hadf&shed their work, and Robinson reiterated at this point that an open casket funeral could have been held if the Kennedy family had desired one. -When asked whether the pathologists stayed in the morgue during the embalming and reconstructive work, he said they did not http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md180.pdf Edited March 24, 2011 by Michael Crane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josiah Thompson Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Yes, the Z-film helps us understand what is going on. Starting a little after frame 300, one can see the heads of all the occupants of the lmousine begin to move forward. I'm talking here of JFK, Mrs. JFK, Connally, Mrs. Connally, Kellerman and Greer... all of them. Either their heads pivot forward or they slide forward in their seats as the limousine slows. And why did the limousine slow? Greer turned around in his seat and looked in the back seat. In doing so, he either took his foot off the accelerator or tapped the brake. The limousine loses about one third of its speed but never comes to a stop. The importance of this (as Wimp as shown) is that the forward movement of JFK's head between 312 and 313 is consistent with its forward movement earlier... about an inch. This means that the forward movement of JFK's head at this time cannot be ascribed to the impact of a bullet. I would point out that I didn't figure all this out. David Wimp is the bright guy who did. JT Not to obfuscate - but is the slowing, stopping, and speeding away of the limo - as we see it in the extant Z-film. or as we might posit them - factored into any study of JFK's head movement, Zapruder's camera jerks, etc? Can we learn anything about the motion of the limo from either JFK or Zapruder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Crane Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Just so you know.... I copied and pasted the comments.Why there contains spaces & the smiley face....I have no idea what-so-ever how they got there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Thanks Michael Quote: -Robinson said that Ed Stroble (now deceased) had cut out a piece of rubber to cover the open wound in the back of the head, so that the embalm~ing fluid would not leak; the piece of rubber was slightly larger than the hole in the back of the head, and Robinson estimated that the rubber sheet was a circular patch about the size of a large orange Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Thanks Michael Quote: -Robinson said that Ed Stroble (now deceased) had cut out a piece of rubber to cover the open wound in the back of the head, so that the embalm~ing fluid would not leak; the piece of rubber was slightly larger than the hole in the back of the head, and Robinson estimated that the rubber sheet was a circular patch about the size of a large orange Robin this is similar with added info, best b Spencer was a Petty Officer and Photographers Mate at the Naval Photographic Center. She developed JFK autopsy photos, and is perhaps the most important witness regarding the autopsy photos. She actually saw an autopsy photo showing the back of the head wound. Her deposition was taken June 1997 by the ARRB: Q: Did you see any photographs that focused principally on the head of President Kennedy? A: Right. They had one showing the back of the head with the wound at the back of the head. Q: Could you describe what you mean by the "wound at the back of the head"? A: It appeared to be a hole, inch, two inches in diameter at the back of the skull here. Q: You pointed to the back of your head. When you point back there, let's suppose that you were lying down on a pillow, where would the hole in the back of the head be in relationship to the part of the head that would be on the pillow if the body is lying flat? A: The top part of the head. Q: When you say the "top of the head," now, is that the part that would be covered by a hat that would be covering the top of the head? A: Just about where the rim would hit. Q: Are you acquainted with the term "external occipital protuberance"? A: No, I am not. Q: What I would like to do is to give you a document or a drawing, and ask you, if you would, on this document, make a mark of approximately where the wound was that you noticed. MR. GUNN: We will mark this Exhibit No.148. THE WITNESS: Probably about in there. Q: And you have put some hash marks in there and then drawn a circle around that, and the part that you have drawn, the circle that you have drawn on the diagram is labeled as being as part of the occipital bone, is that correct? A: Yes. Q: Did you see any biological tissue, such as brain matter, extruding from the hole that you saw in the back of the head? A: No. Q: Was the scalp disturbed or can you describe that more than just the hole? A: It was just a ragged hole. Q: And it was visible through the scalp, is that correct? A: Yes. Thomas Robinson Mr Robinson was a mortician employed by the Gawler Funeral home, and was part of the team that performed the embalming and cosmetic work on the President in the early morning of November 23, 1963 at Bethesda Naval Hospital. He described a three inch circular ragged wound in the rear of the Presidents head. The morticians closed this hole with a piece of heavy duty rubber. His HSCA interview in 1977 by HSCA staffer Andy Purdy was never released until 1992 by the ARRB(marked MD63). Excerpts from that interview: Purdy: Could you tell me how large the opening had been? Robinson: I would say about the size of a small orange Purdy: Could you give us an estimate of inches and the nature of the shape? Robinson: Three(inches) Purdy: And the shape? Robinson: Circular Purdy: Was it fairly smooth or ragged? Robinson: Ragged Purdy: Approximately where was this wound located? Robinson: Directly behind the back of his head Purdy: Approximately between the ears or higher up? Robinson: I would say pretty much between them. Purdy: Were you the one responsible for closing those wounds in the head? Robinson: We all worked on itThey brought a piece of heavy duty rubber, again to fill this area in the back of the head Purdy: You had to close the wound in the back of the head using the rubber? Robinson: It had to be all dried out, packed, and the rubber placed in the hair and the skin pulled back overand stitched into that piece of rubber. James Sibert Sibert was an FBI agent from the Baltimore office assigned to stay with the Presidents body from Andrews AFB through the autopsy. His 1997 ARRB deposition is critical: Q: Could you give the best description of the wounds to the head? A: Well, there was a massive woundright back in this part of the head Q: Youre touching the cowlick area of the head? A: Yes Q: And the size would be? A: It was difficult to see, because the hair was so mattedit was so bloodsoakedit was difficult to see any distinct outline of where these bones had been literally blown out of the skull Q: At the time you observed those wounds, the photographs had already been taken? A: Yes Q: Were you able to tell whether any part of the scalp was actually missing? A: Well, there was a big cavity there. I mean that you could look in to. The skull wasn'tt intact, the bones weren'tt in place Q: So both scalp and bone were missing at the back part of the head? A: Well, there was tissue of course, but there definitely was a large cavity. It was just that apparent that there was so much skull missing The "MD" medical exhibits are available here: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/contents.htm An interview with Spencer can be read in William Law's "In the Eye of History". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 DID ZAPRUDER FILM “THE ZAPRUDER FILM”? Which film is “the Zapruder film”? This may sound like a lot to swallow, so I will break it down for accessibility. One of the first results of the Zapruder Film Conference was the discovery that the films currently available to the public, including David Lifton's "Z Film" (undated), the Macmillan CD (1993), Robert Groden's "The Assassination Films" (1965), and MPI's "Image of an Assassination" (1998), differ significantly in the amount of information they provide. It we take the MPI version, which is the most complete, as the base of 100% (with a total of 411,305 pixels), the least complete is only about half of that: FRAME/...........WIDTH (pixels)...HEIGHT (pixels)...AREA (pixels)...AREA/MPI VERSION Lifton:....................620....................360................223,200.............54.3% Macmillan:..............645...................445. ...............287,025.............69.8% Groden:..................674...................451 ................303,974.............73.9% MPI (frames):..........671...................484...... ..........324,764.............78.9% Sprocket area:.........273...................317........... ......86,541............100.0% Hi Jim. Thanks for sharing your work. Does the above prove that there is more than once source film? Or is it simply highlighting different versions (different formats and generations, for example) of the same original film? Over the years I've read accounts of people who've seen different versions of Z and of altogether different films of the assassination. Does anyone know if these accounts have been listed/cataloged (who, and what they saw) anywhere? I tried searching the Forum, but didn't find anything. Greg there is some information within this earlier thread here on the forum...b http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10813&st=45.....................see post #50 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Gallup Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Thanks Michael Quote: -Robinson said that Ed Stroble (now deceased) had cut out a piece of rubber to cover the open wound in the back of the head, so that the embalm~ing fluid would not leak; the piece of rubber was slightly larger than the hole in the back of the head, and Robinson estimated that the rubber sheet was a circular patch about the size of a large orange Robin this is similar with added info, best b Spencer was a Petty Officer and Photographer’s Mate at the Naval Photographic Center. She developed JFK autopsy photos, and is perhaps the most important witness regarding the autopsy photos. She actually saw an autopsy photo showing the back of the head wound. Her deposition was taken June 1997 by the ARRB: Q: Did you see any photographs that focused principally on the head of President Kennedy? A: Right. They had one showing the back of the head with the wound at the back of the head. Q: Could you describe what you mean by the "wound at the back of the head"? A: It appeared to be a hole, inch, two inches in diameter at the back of the skull here. Q: You pointed to the back of your head. When you point back there, let's suppose that you were lying down on a pillow, where would the hole in the back of the head be in relationship to the part of the head that would be on the pillow if the body is lying flat? A: The top part of the head. Q: When you say the "top of the head," now, is that the part that would be covered by a hat that would be covering the top of the head? A: Just about where the rim would hit. Q: Are you acquainted with the term "external occipital protuberance"? A: No, I am not. Q: What I would like to do is to give you a document or a drawing, and ask you, if you would, on this document, make a mark of approximately where the wound was that you noticed. MR. GUNN: We will mark this Exhibit No.148. THE WITNESS: Probably about in there. Q: And you have put some hash marks in there and then drawn a circle around that, and the part that you have drawn, the circle that you have drawn on the diagram is labeled as being as part of the occipital bone, is that correct? A: Yes. Q: Did you see any biological tissue, such as brain matter, extruding from the hole that you saw in the back of the head? A: No. Q: Was the scalp disturbed or can you describe that more than just the hole? A: It was just a ragged hole. Q: And it was visible through the scalp, is that correct? A: Yes. Thomas Robinson Mr Robinson was a mortician employed by the Gawler Funeral home, and was part of the team that performed the embalming and cosmetic work on the President in the early morning of November 23, 1963 at Bethesda Naval Hospital. He described a three inch circular ragged wound in the rear of the President’s head. The morticians closed this hole with a piece of heavy duty rubber. His HSCA interview in 1977 by HSCA staffer Andy Purdy was never released until 1992 by the ARRB(marked MD63). Excerpts from that interview: Purdy: Could you tell me how large the opening had been…? Robinson: …I would say about the size of a small orange Purdy: Could you give us an estimate of inches and the nature of the shape? Robinson: Three(inches) Purdy: And the shape? Robinson: Circular Purdy: Was it fairly smooth or ragged? Robinson: Ragged Purdy: Approximately where was this wound located? Robinson: Directly behind the back of his head Purdy: Approximately between the ears or higher up? Robinson: I would say pretty much between them. Purdy: Were you the one responsible for closing those wounds in the head? Robinson: We all worked on it…They brought a piece of heavy duty rubber, again to fill this area in the back of the head… Purdy: You had to close the wound in the back of the head using the rubber? Robinson: It had to be all dried out, packed, and the rubber placed in the hair and the skin pulled back over…and stitched into that piece of rubber. James Sibert Sibert was an FBI agent from the Baltimore office assigned to stay with the President’s body from Andrews AFB through the autopsy. His 1997 ARRB deposition is critical: Q: Could you give the best description of the wounds to the head? A: Well, there was a massive wound…right back in this part of the head Q: You’re touching the cowlick area of the head? A: Yes Q: And the size would be? A: It was difficult to see, because the hair was so matted…it was so bloodsoaked…it was difficult to see any distinct outline of where these bones had been literally blown out of the skull Q: At the time you observed those wounds, the photographs had already been taken? A: Yes Q: Were you able to tell whether any part of the scalp was actually missing? A: Well, there was a big cavity there. I mean that you could look in to. The skull wasn't’t intact, the bones weren't’t in place Q: So both scalp and bone were missing at the back part of the head? A: Well, there was tissue of course, but there definitely was a large cavity. It was just that apparent that there was so much skull missing The "MD" medical exhibits are available here: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/contents.htm An interview with Spencer can be read in William Law's "In the Eye of History". Bernice and others, it amazes me that to this day, the first and last to see Kennedy's head, that is, the Dallas doctors and nurses(or perhaps even earlier, Clint Hill), and Tom Robinson et al. all agree to a hole about 3 inches in diameter in the back of the head, and yet some dispute such a finding. For one, these observations reinforce Dr. Cairns' original assessment of the Harper fragment as occipital, and they makes Dr. Angel look foolish because the head was reconstructed during embalming without mention of any Harper-sized gap in the parietal that needed to be attended to with a rubber dam. Best, Daniel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Josiah, It's difficult to determine your views on anything that doesn't pertain to Jim Fetzer, so I'd like to know something. From what I've read of your comments on this forum, you appear to be denying that there was a large opening in the back of JFK's head. I find that hard to accept, given all the medical testimony to the contrary. However, you also maintain that the head shot came from the right front. So, my question is- if the large exit wound that all the doctors at Parkland reported seeing wasn't really there, then where did the shot from the right front exit? I apologize if I've misconstrued your views, but would be interested in you elaborating on the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Monk, I acknowledge your point. Rich was always careful to talk about "the other film" or, perhaps better, "another film", very similar in perspective and content to the extant film--except for certain crucial differences, which appear to have been the reasons why it had to be revised. I--and others, too, no doubt--would greatly appreciate it if you could comment on the crucial differences between the film you saw and the extant film, especially with regard to issues such as those that have been raised in the evolution of this thread. Some key points would concern whether or not the limo stopped, the manner in which it stopped, if it did, what you recollect of the impacts of shots to his body, and the actions of Clint Hill to the extent to which you can recall details that make a difference here. Thanks. Jim Jim Fetzer said:The original appears to exist, but is difficult to locate. Rich DellaRosa, as it happens, had the opportunity to view it on three different occasions, as he explained in Appendix E of THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003). Jim, As a point of clarity, Rich and I both have maintained that, so far, it has not been possible to determine if the film that we (and others) saw: 1) was the unaltered "original" Zapruder film (both of us tend to believe that it was NOT) -- or 2) was a separate film taken that day from a similar location (both of us tend to believe that it WAS) -- and/or 3) was the same film that each other saw (no way of knowing for sure, but the similarities of our respective recollections are sufficient enough to accept that as highly probable); As a result, we refer to what we saw as the "other film" as opposed to a copy of the unaltered "original" Zapruder Film. The quality of the "other film" was extremely high--by quite a margin--in comparison to that of the extant Zapruder film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 (edited) I am not going to address the obvious absurdity of Josiah Thompson's revised version of the wound to the back of JFK's head, which others are dealing with very clearly. I only want to point out that, as Doug Horne explained in the Appendix to Vol. IV of INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), Sydney wanted an unimpeachable source film for study, where the National Archives provides a so-called "forensic copy", which she purchased, as Josiah would know if he had read Horne's masterpiece. As I explained to Mike Pincher, it appeared to me that the superficial defects--the scratches and grainy images--of the copy they obtained do not appear to matter to the issues they were studying. Anyone who bothers to read what Horne explained about their work ALREADY KNOWS that the artwork involved in painting over the blow-out at the back of the head was COMPLETELY CONSPICUOUS to these experts in film reconstruction. So I don't quite understand why Josiah Thompson should be here belittling what they HAVE ALREADY DONE. His own years and years of study of the film has never revealed anything as simple and straightforward as their discovery, which far transcends any of his work on the film. His denigration of what they have already done further demonstrates that he can no longer be regarded as an expert on the film or, for that matter, on the assassination itself. After his many rejections of his own work, which he pretends are "advances", we know far more today from this new Hollywood group--namely, that THE FILM HAS BEEN ALTERED--than we ever learned from him. And as for his alleged "mistake" about the double-hit, when David Lifton showed these frames to Richard Feynman at CalTech--where Feynman is one of the most renown physicists of our time--he (Feynman) detected the forward motion in JFK's head between frames 312 and 313, which supports the double-hit. We know now that the proximity of the hit to the back of his head reported by the Bethesda physicians and the shot that entered his right temple and blew his brains out the back of his head were separated in time by more than 1/18.3 of a second, where he fell forward after he was hit, Jackie eased him back up and was looking him right in the face when he was hit in the right temple. But none of this is discernible if you assume, as Josiah Thompson continues to insist to this day, that the film is genuine and unaltered. The time has come for this charade to end! The sketch on page 107 of "Six Seconds" simply illustrates what Dr. McClelland said. Although the Harper fragment was described as "occipit" bone by Billy Harper's uncle and this description appears in a contemporaneous FBI 302, it was a mistake. Dr. Angell straightened out all this for the House Committee. Is Professor Fetzer ignorant of this? In 1967, I made a mistake in measuring the movement of JFK's head under impact. Between 312 and 313, I measured a forward movement of just over two inches. As David Wimp's studies have pointed out, this was a mistake. What I measured was the blur introduced by Zapruder moving his camera and not the movement of JFK's head. JFK was not hit in the head by two shots between 312 and 313 but by one shot from the right front. Knowledge about historical events is based on accretion... on the addition of new facts and the abandonment of old mistakes. By clearly and distinctly pointing out an important mistake, I am furthering that project. What is Professor Fetzer doing? I'm sure that's pretty obvious too. We have been hearing about the socalled "Hollywood Seven" for over a year now. Fetzer confirmed that the 4th or 5th generation copy studied by the Wilkinsons is miserable. What a surprise! As was pointed out over a year ago a much better copy (the MPI transparencies) can be viewed at the Sixth Floor Museum. I take it that the deafening silence emerging from the the Wilkinsons and the socalled "Hollywood Seven" springs from the fact that better copies of the film don't confirm the claims Fetzer and his cohort have been making. If they come up with something, then it can be looked at. Now it's just partisan bloviation and its been going on for over a year. It shouldn't distract attention from the fact that Duncan has shown that Fetzer simply can't tell the difference between the back of the head and the side of the head. At least we're done with that piece of bloviation. And will Fetzer admit a mistake when he makes it? Not likely. He's made some huge errors... Anyone for Moorman-in-the-Street again?... and stubbornly refuses to ever admit he's wrong. That, of course, is his right and the privilege of pedestrian and insecure thinkers since the beginning of time. But not to see what Duncan has pointed out? That's a new stretch in denial. JT Considering that Josiah Thompson was the first to publish the Robert McClelland diagram (on page 107) in SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967), where he also acknowledges that the Harper fragment was a piece of occipital bone from the back of the head (on page 101), since he has already repudiated the "double-hit" study (of pages 90-95), which many of us have regarded as its most important contribution, by the time he is done disavowing his own work, there will be nothing left! I anticipate that this is all laying the foundation for his 50th-observance conversion to the conclusion that there "really was no conspiracy, after all"! If he doesn't understand the deceit and deception perpetrated by Duncan MacRae's shoddy attempt at obfuscation, then he really should be spending his time tracking down wayward spouses to establish adultery as a cause of action in divorce cases, which appears to be more suited to the current state of his research abilities. A man I once admire is leaving a sad legacy of distortion and betrayal. Thanks Duncan. Perhaps if you're looking at a really bad copy of the Z film you might think it was the back of the head. Professor Fetzer has been claiming this for a long time. Thank you for publishing a copy of the Z film where it takes only a second or two to see clearly that it is the side of the head not the back of the head that shows red. Then there is the repeated but specious claim that we've heard over and over again for the last year... that is, the claim that the socalled "Hollywood Seven" have determined that frame 317 has some sort of patch overlaid on the back of Kennedy's head. First off, we have no idea of who the much vaunted "Hollywood Seven" are. Second, they have come up with nothing. I've heard that the copy studied by them is so bad that no conclusions could be reached and that would explain why all we have heard from the "Hollywood Seven" is a deafening silence. So instead of hearing from the "Hollywood Seven" all we hear are claims of what they supposedly found from Professor Fetzer. The rest of his post is reheated garbage. We are all in your debt, Duncan, for getting to the bottom of this. JT Edited March 25, 2011 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Since I do not know that the Hollywood group is making a DVD--though I may learn that tomorrow, when I have a conversation with Sydney--I can't imagine why this man is insinuating that I would have encouraged them to do that for "Big $$$"! This is just the kind of cheap shot that the CIA encouraged to be used against critics of THE WARREN REPORT in their document about coping with the critic's objections, which I published as an appendix to ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998). This is another sign of how far the mighty have fallen! Dismissal or not I guess we'll just have to wait and see with what they come up with. It's been over a year now that Fetzer has been claiming that the Hollywood Seven concluding something yet the Hollywood Seven concludes nothing and we don't even know who they are supposed to be. My bet is that Fetzer and friends persuaded the Wilkinsons that they should make a DVD about their theories of the Z film. Big $$$. The Wilkinsons looked into it and contacted Rollie Zavada and various real film experts in Hollywood. Their enthusiasm shriveled when they realized how bad their copy of the film was and that better copies were viewable at the 6th Floor Museum. Unless you're using the best copy of the film, you're incredibly vulnerable to challenge and impeachment. I wish the Wilkinsons luck. I've been in touch with them. My only complaint is Fetzer claiming something has happened when it hasn't. JT I would not just dismiss the Hollywood Group so cavalierly. The Hollywood Group consists of Sydney Wilkinson and her husband and others. THey both work as film editors in Sherman Oaks where they have their own office. I met them at Lancer last year. THey do not strike me as being off the wall kind of people who you can easily dismiss. And they do not agree with the more extreme theories of some of the alterationists e.g. that the whole film has been redone and we are looking at a cartoon. What they do beleive is that the back of JFK's head has been patched over. And they make some serious arguments for that. I listened to them and they showed me one of their exhibits where they actually did the very dense digital transfer of frames. I don't want to go very more deeply into this exhibit, because I don't completely understand it technically. But it is interesting. I probably will be visiting with them in April to see their whole presentation. THey are not writing a book BTW. THey are preparing a DVD. But they are trying to track down some more exhibits about what exactly was the chain of evidence for the Z film, and what exactly happened to the stuff TIme Life had and where exactly it is today. What people like Horne and Fetzer have done to Wilkinson and her husband is really unfair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Jim, The short answer is: In the film that I saw the limo came into view on Houston Street and the entire turn onto Elm was visible. There was no "splice" or point where the limo suddenly appeared on Elm out of nowhere. The limo made an extremely wide turn onto Elm and was moving very slowly at the corner. The limo "drifted" to the left of center (driver's POV) on Elm St. I don't recall if it actually made a complete lane change or if it was simply "pointed" more or less "left of center" -- My best recollection is that it was partially in the left lane and partially in the center lane by the time it reached the steps leading up the Grassy Knoll next to the so-called Zapruder pedestal. Similar to what is seen in the extant film, JFK had been hit at least once by the time the limo emerged from behind the Stemmon's sign, elbows raised up, his torso apparently frozen, his "protection" inexplicably absent...a sitting duck. There is absolutely no question as to whether or not the limo came to a complete and FULL stop. The car stopped. Completely. No motion whatsoever. The limo remained motionless for approximately 2 seconds. I'm surprised the Queen Mary didn't rear-end it. The head shot most obviously came from the right front. A detail that is missing from the motion of JFK in the extant film has to do with the difference between: "back and to the left" --and--"up, then fall to the left". My recollection is that he was "lifted up" from his seat to a discernible degree before falling to his left. This "body motion" appeared to be much slower than the jerky, abrupt, "snap" seen in the extant film. Rich had a few items that I didn't recall and vice versa. For instance, unlike what Rich reported, I don't recall a shot from behind that caused JFK's head to move forward initially just before the fatal head shot from the front. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. I just may not have registered that for whatever reason. I also recall that several Secret Service Agents climbed out of the Queen Mary with (what appeared to be) automatic weapons drawn apparently looking to return fire. They appeared to be very disoriented. Then they climbed back in and sped off. There was a considerable gap between the time the X-100 sped off and the Queen Mary sped off. Rich did not recall the agents climbing out of the limo. ============================== I am not at liberty to discuss the circumstances under which I viewed this film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Jim, The short answer is: In the film that I saw the limo came into view on Houston Street and the entire turn onto Elm was visible. There was no "splice" or point where the limo suddenly appeared on Elm out of nowhere. The limo made an extremely wide turn onto Elm and was moving very slowly at the corner. The limo "drifted" to the left of center (driver's POV) on Elm St. I don't recall if it actually made a complete lane change or if it was simply "pointed" more or less "left of center" -- My best recollection is that it was partially in the left lane and partially in the center lane by the time it reached the steps leading up the Grassy Knoll next to the so-called Zapruder pedestal. Similar to what is seen in the extant film, JFK had been hit at least once by the time the limo emerged from behind the Stemmon's sign, elbows raised up, his torso apparently frozen, his "protection" inexplicably absent...a sitting duck. There is absolutely no question as to whether or not the limo came to a complete and FULL stop. The car stopped. Completely. No motion whatsoever. The limo remained motionless for approximately 2 seconds. I'm surprised the Queen Mary didn't rear-end it. The head shot most obviously came from the right front. A detail that is missing from the motion of JFK in the extant film has to do with the difference between: "back and to the left" --and--"up, then fall to the left". My recollection is that he was "lifted up" from his seat to a discernible degree before falling to his left. This "body motion" appeared to be much slower than the jerky, abrupt, "snap" seen in the extant film. Rich had a few items that I didn't recall and vice versa. For instance, unlike what Rich reported, I don't recall a shot from behind that caused JFK's head to move forward initially just before the fatal head shot from the front. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. I just may not have registered that for whatever reason. I also recall that several Secret Service Agents climbed out of the Queen Mary with (what appeared to be) automatic weapons drawn apparently looking to return fire. They appeared to be very disoriented. Then they climbed back in and sped off. There was a considerable gap between the time the X-100 sped off and the Queen Mary sped off. Rich did not recall the agents climbing out of the limo. ============================== I am not at liberty to discuss the circumstances under which I viewed this film. Thanks for the description of the "other" film that you viewed Greg I sure hope that one day you will discuss the circumstances under which you viewed the "other" film Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Another short answer: "Jesus wept." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Another detail that's worth mentioning: there appeared to be a much larger distance between the X-100 and the Queen Mary after the limo emerged from behind the Stemmon's sign than there had previously been immediately after the turn onto, and as they initially travelled down, Elm Street. The gap between the two vehicles increased (became wider) as they moved toward the "kill zone" -- and then decreased again just before and during the head shot. I assume that was the result of the abrupt braking by Greer which brought the X-100 to a stop thus closing the distance. FWIW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now