DID ZAPRUDER FILM "THE ZAPRUDER FILM"?

[Josiah Thompson]

I don't think I have expressed any view on this. All I said was that (a) Fetzer's longstanding claim that these late frames show a wound in the back of the head is mistaken (as Robin pointed out, the visible wound in these frames is on the side of the head) and ( an examination of the photos of the Harper fragment in the 1970s by Dr. Angell indicated it was from the parietal region not the occiput.

JT

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.

[Josiah Thompson]

"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 wasn't aware I'd given any "revised version of the wound to the back of JFK's head." The only revision was Robin's in explaining your mistake in believing the the side of Kennedy's head was really the back of his head. Are you still insisting you made no mistake?

JT

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

[Robin Unger]

This is where i see the grey area in Zapruder.

I agree with that, Robin.

To be more precise, it's at the right side of the head, ie, at the back end of the right side of the head, and NOT on the back of the head.

Hi Duncan.

As early as frame Z-357 we can see the grey patch, and also a clearer view of the skull flap in relation to it.

Click on image to view full size:

Edited March 26, 2011 by Robin Unger

[David Andrews]

Occupants of the limo either "duck for cover" after the head shot, or are thrown forward due to sudden braking ?

I've seen it questioned as due to sudden acceleration after the stop during the head shot, meaning I suppose that the stop occurs while Connally is turning and writhing, then he flies forward as Greer hits the gas. But I wasn't there and can't judge.

Good thread.

You have it backward.

Brakes throw people forward (Newton).

Gas (acceleration) throws people backward (Newton).

Jack

Tsk! - too sleepy last night, I guess. Glad I didn't drive.

[Josiah Thompson]

Thanks Duncan and Robin. You two have really done this well. Since Professor Fetzer has simply ignored your refutation of his claim, it will be interesting to see if he ignores the refutation in the future.

JT

This is where i see the grey area in Zapruder.

I agree with that, Robin.

To be more precise, it's at the right side of the head, ie, at the back end of the right side of the head, and NOT on the back of the head.

Hi Duncan.

As early as frame Z-357 we can see the grey patch, and also a clearer view of the skull flap in relation to it.

Click on image to view full size:

[Bernice Moore]

Martin""We see the right side and also portions of the backside of Kennedy head in this frames, Robin has posted."" Martin;; AGREED; the uploading of photos continues to fail.for moi....Martin could you perhaps, if it will take for you, post the photo of the witnesses from parkland, doctors nurses etc, placing their hands where they saw the head wound, they show their hands on the Back right hand side...many thanks, take care best b

Not just the right side. I think it's very clear.......thanks best b

Edited March 26, 2011 by Bernice Moore

[David Josephs]

Occupants of the limo either "duck for cover" after the head shot, or are thrown forward due to sudden braking ?

I've seen it questioned as due to sudden acceleration after the stop during the head shot, meaning I suppose that the stop occurs while Connally is turning and writhing, then he flies forward as Greer hits the gas. But I wasn't there and can't judge.

Good thread.

You have it backward.

Brakes throw people forward (Newton).

Gas (acceleration) throws people backward (Newton).

Jack

Tsk! - too sleepy last night, I guess. Glad I didn't drive.

Hi David... may be backward but I believe you have something important... that little fall forward of the occupants of the limo always seemed out of place unless there was severe braking, even at 8mph or so.

Go to the stabilized Z film... (I have to believe that at least most of the images in the film, not those of JFK, are a representation of "X" amount of what really happened) but at the 12 second mark just as Kellerman is turning back for the 2nd time, his head goes from bright sunlight to pitch black in 1-2 frames {will post once I can again}

and then the limo accelerates away. During the limo stop you would suppose JC and wife would "duck and cover"

but the SS ?? It's shameful the way Greer cowers besides Kellerman... One would expect he's be jumping into the back seat to PROTECT someone Concentrating on the SS agents in what is left of this film.. it just makes you want to scream...and then throw up.

[Martin Hinrichs]

Martin""We see the right side and also portions of the backside of Kennedy head in this frames, Robin has posted."" Martin;; AGREED; the uploading of photos continues to fail.for moi....Martin could you perhaps, if it will take for you, post the photo of the witnesses from parkland, doctors nurses etc, placing their hands where they saw the head wound, they show their hands on the Back right hand side...many thanks, take care best b

Not just the right side. I think it's very clear.......thanks best b

Thanks Bernice.

We have unfortunately to rely on the overwhelming witness reports from Parkland.

I'am not aware of any existant photo showing the devastating wounds of JFKs's head at Parkland.

They may never been shot or been covered.

Dr. Boswell's drawings at a real comparable skull at Bethesda-Marine-Hospital fo the NARA is maybe the best source

to see what happend to JFK's head.

It confirms the photographic evidence.

Credit to John Hunt. Great guy.

My very best to you

Martin

[Bernice Moore]

Martin""We see the right side and also portions of the backside of Kennedy head in this frames, Robin has posted."" Martin;; AGREED; the uploading of photos continues to fail.for moi....Martin could you perhaps, if it will take for you, post the photo of the witnesses from parkland, doctors nurses etc, placing their hands where they saw the head wound, they show their hands on the Back right hand side...many thanks, take care best b

Not just the right side. I think it's very clear.......thanks best b

Thanks Bernice.

We have unfortunately to rely on the overwhelming witness reports from Parkland.

I'am not aware of any existant photo showing the devastating wounds of JFKs's head at Parkland.

They may never been shot or been covered.

Dr. Boswell's drawings at a real comparable skull at Bethesda-Marine-Hospital fo the NARA is maybe the best source

to see what happend to JFK's head.

It confirms the photographic evidence.

Credit to John Hunt. Great guy.

My very best to you

Martin

thanks Martin, how come you can post photos??, i cannot neither can Jack, darn and i have zillions of space left for doing so,but all fail, anyway, thank you, there are no photos showing wounds from parkland, though there is the old story that some were taken, but never have appeared, the photo, is the very old one, posted a zillion times, showing the witnesses from parkland, placng theirs hands on the back of their heads, where the hole was that they saw, it shows small photos of all, compiled into one photo, i thought you would have it, anyway it does show them holding their hands on the back right hand side of their heads, as you posted......i will try one more time to upload a photo, but that and that's a big but.. .carry on, thanks...b;) no good, it did not upload.so ..for now...

[Martin Hinrichs]

Martin""We see the right side and also portions of the backside of Kennedy head in this frames, Robin has posted."" Martin;; AGREED; the uploading of photos continues to fail.for moi....Martin could you perhaps, if it will take for you, post the photo of the witnesses from parkland, doctors nurses etc, placing their hands where they saw the head wound, they show their hands on the Back right hand side...many thanks, take care best b

Not just the right side. I think it's very clear.......thanks best b

Thanks Bernice.

We have unfortunately to rely on the overwhelming witness reports from Parkland.

I'am not aware of any existant photo showing the devastating wounds of JFKs's head at Parkland.

They may never been shot or been covered.

Dr. Boswell's drawings at a real comparable skull at Bethesda-Marine-Hospital fo the NARA is maybe the best source

to see what happend to JFK's head.

It confirms the photographic evidence.

Credit to John Hunt. Great guy.

My very best to you

Martin

thanks Martin, how come you can post photos??, i cannot neither can Jack, darn and i have zillions of space left for doing so,but all fail, anyway, thank you, there are no photos showing wounds from parkland, though there is the old story that some were taken, but never have appeared, the photo, is the very old one, posted a zillion times, showing the witnesses from parkland, placng theirs hands on the back of their heads, where the hole was that they saw, it shows small photos of all, compiled into one photo, i thought you would have it, anyway it does show them holding their hands on the back right hand side of their heads, as you posted......i will try one more time to upload a photo, but that and that's a big but.. .carry on, thanks...b;) no good, it did not upload.so ..for now...

Bernice, i use http://photobucket.com/ or Imageshack for posting images: http://imageshack.us/

I prefer Photobucket.

I understand because of the bandwith that internal upload of images is still too complex for the hosters of a forum.

Give Photobucket a try. It's worthwhile. I can assisting you.

best to you

Martin

[Michael Crane]

Bernice,

Isn`t the picture that you are looking for on the second page of this thread?

It was posted by James Fetzer I believe.

Edited March 26, 2011 by Michael Crane

[Bernice Moore]

deleted..

Edited March 26, 2011 by Bernice Moore

[Bernice Moore]

hi michael; yes post 19 i believe, it was not there the other day when i read this thread,duh.. pleased at least you are on the bit,that is it, imo they are placing their hands on the right hand side of the back of their head, not just on the right side of the head, which would be over the ear area, thanks much, Martin, i have had a photobucket account for a few years,i have some there but not this particular photo, it would take me weeks i figure to get the tousans of photos and documents posted and uploaded, and i know my hands could not take the work involved, any longer, so i will await the program problem whatever to right itself, i do know from Rich's site, that forums do run into such, from time to time, i just do not understand why one can post a photo but another with lots of space cannot, but then i know nothing of programs, many thanks fellas, carry on, bests...b:ph34r:

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Martin,

Are you aware that Thomas Evan Robinson was in the morgue at Bethesda and observed Humes take a cranial

saw to the skull and greatly enlarge it? You might want to check out Doug Horne, INSIDE THE ARRB (2009).

The Dealey Plaza and Parkland Hospital witnesses are our best--along with Clint Hill, who in THE KENNEDY

DETAIL (2010) described peering down into a "fist-sized hole" at the back of his head, which I discussed in

"Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?" I have found the quote and add it here as follows:

THE KENNEDY DETAIL (2010) includes this sentence, stunning in simplicity but pregnant in ramifications:

And slumped across the seat, President Kennedy lay unmoving, a bloody, gaping, fist-sized hole clearly

visible in the back of his head. (THE KENNEDY DETAIL, p. 217)

After all, if JFK had a fist-sized hole clearly visible in the back of his head, it follows that (1) the eyewitnesses

were right about its location, (2) the HSCA photograph and diagram are fake, (3) the autopsy X-rays were altered,

and (4) Zapuder frames that don’t show it when they should were changed, precisely as we have found above. In

fact, Clint Hill was far from the only expert who described that wound as “fist-sized”. When I edited ASSASSINATION

SCIENCE (1998), I invited Charles Crenshaw, M.D., to contribute a chapter and asked him to diagram the wounds as

he had witnessed them at Parkland Hospital, where he was the last physician to observe them before he closed JFK’s

eyelids as he was being wrapped in sheets and placed in the casket:

Charles told me that this defect was the size of a baseball or else the size of your fist when you double it up. The

best witnesses and the best studies thus converge on the conclusion that strenuous efforts were made to conceal

the true causes of the death of JFK from the American people.

Martin""We see the right side and also portions of the backside of Kennedy head in this frames, Robin has posted."" Martin;; AGREED; the uploading of photos continues to fail.for moi....Martin could you perhaps, if it will take for you, post the photo of the witnesses from parkland, doctors nurses etc, placing their hands where they saw the head wound, they show their hands on the Back right hand side...many thanks, take care best b

Not just the right side. I think it's very clear.......thanks best b

Thanks Bernice.

We have unfortunately to rely on the overwhelming witness reports from Parkland.

I'am not aware of any existant photo showing the devastating wounds of JFKs's head at Parkland.

They may never been shot or been covered.

Dr. Boswell's drawings at a real comparable skull at Bethesda-Marine-Hospital fo the NARA is maybe the best source

to see what happend to JFK's head.

It confirms the photographic evidence.

Credit to John Hunt. Great guy.

My very best to you

Martin

Edited March 26, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

If Josiah Thompson has "not expressed any views [about the wound to the back of the head], what are they?

Did I miss the part where Josiah Thompson explained how cerebellum was extruding from the side of his head?

Gary Aguilar, M.D., MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), page 199 (the wound was to the right rear of the head)

Did I miss the part where Josiah Thompson discards the testimony of the vast majority of relevant witnesses?

Did I miss the part where Josiah Thompson explained away David Mantik's placement of the Harper fragment?

David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), page 227 (it was a piece of occipital bone)

Did I miss the part where Josiah Thompson explained away Thomas Evan Robinson's description of the wound?

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.

I don't think I have expressed any view on this. All I said was that (a) Fetzer's longstanding claim that these late frames show a wound in the back of the head is mistaken (as Robin pointed out, the visible wound in these frames is on the side of the head) and ( an examination of the photos of the Harper fragment in the 1970s by Dr. Angell indicated it was from the parietal region not the occiput.

JT

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.

Edited March 26, 2011 by James H. Fetzer