DID ZAPRUDER FILM "THE ZAPRUDER FILM"?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Several others have already pointed out that Tink is being silly and is even treating the skull as though it were a cube.

I have explained the resemblance between Mantik's definition of "Area P" and the blow-out as it is observed in 372-375.

The blow-out and the skull-flap are both visible in frame 374.

It bears a striking resemblance to "Area P" of Mantik's analysis.

What in God's name is that supposed to be if it is not the blow-out at the back of the head? I think it's time for Tink to

come clean, if he is now going to deny the description of the wound by virtually every relevant witness (see post #100).

"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

Edited March 27, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

But bear in mind that the massive "blob", which is not present in frames 372-375, was painted in,

just as the blow-out was painted out, which Roderick Ryan, an expert in special effects, explained

to Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997), page 160. The blow-out ("grey patch") can be seen in

frame 357 below, but the "blob" completely obfuscates the skull-flap, which is misidentified here.

The blow-out has been concealed, but the skull-flap is visible in both.

(Brains, remember, are often described as "gray matter"!) Ryan would receive an Academy Award

for his contributions to cinematography in 2000. If you go back and forth between Mantik's study

of the lateral cranial X-ray ("Area P") and the HSCA photograph and diagram, you can easily discern

those features that are real (blow-out and skull flap) from those that are not (the incredible "blob").

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 James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Mike Pincher has made the following interesting observations as his reflections about the appearance of the "gray area":

I also have to take issue with how our point about frame no 374 is articulated. I looked up Robin Unger's gif and while I do not

concur with that guy named Duncan or with Thompson that the entire area is explainable by the flap (the area is too large for

that), it seems to me that an occipital blowout as you would visually expect to see it cannot be seen either. What I do see is

that extra hair has been raised up and parted corresponding to the right occipital area, like what you'd see with an Indian

scalping a pioneer, but I otherwise see skull area where bone should be either parted or clearly removed, though that area

is arguably slightly grayer than the rest. Further, I see this same effect at 372, 373, and 375, not just 374.

My educated guess would be that the occipital blowout was colored in to attempt to look like there was bone and skin (although,

again, a case can be made that it is too gray, but there should be brain extrusion as well that is not detectable in those frames),

which, of course, is INCONSISTENT with its being opaqued out at 313. In other words, alterations were made in BOTH instances,

but contradictorily. Reminds me of the X-ray inconsistency where one inexplicably showed a blowout to the right frontal area,

which is consistent with a rear shot. Has anybody ever raised that there appears to be a tuft of hair on JFK's right shoulder? My

main point is that those 372-375 frames don't suggest to me actual removal of either skull or brain and that attempts to cover

that up were made but incompletely and in contradiction to the earlier opaquing of 313.

Maybe the area has been colorized, as Mike suggests, but what else can this be but the blow-out to the back of his head?

(4) - Frame stabilized GIF

Z-372 - Z375

All the Zoomed frames have now been " Uploaded " to my image gallery.

http://www.jfkassass...ls.php?album=93

Edited March 26, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

But bear in mind that the massive "blob", which is not present in frames 372-375, was painted in,

just as the blow-out was painted out, which Roderick Ryan, an expert in special effects, explained

to Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997), page 160.

Twyman showed Ryan a piece of crap b/w print.

When Dr. Ryan got to view the Zapruder ORIGINAL microscopically he changed his tune and stated there was no alteration to the Zapruder film.

Dr. Fetzer has a very hard time remembering this little point.

[Craig Lamson]

Mike Pincher has made the following interesting observations as his reflections about the appearance of the "gray area":

4.

My educated guess would be that the occipital blowout was colored in to attempt to look like there was bone and skin (although,

again, a case can be made that it is too gray, but there should be brain extrusion as well that is not detectable in those frames),

which, of course, is INCONSISTENT with its being opaqued out at 313. In other words, alterations were made in BOTH instances,

but contradictorily

ROFLMAO! Once again we see Alterationist gambit number 210...when the evidence gets staked up against you just claim it was altered. Not very original but really quite funny!

[Robin Unger]

Jim

I don't see this as a painted BLOB

I see it as a "fliped over" piece of skull bone hanging down, still hinged to the skull.

i also see what looks to be a tuffed of hair attached to the right side of the bone.

[Josiah Thompson]

"... it seems to me that an occipital blowout as you would visually expect to see it cannot be seen either. What I do see is that extra hair has been raised up and parted corresponding to the right occipital area, like what you'd see with an Indian scalping a pioneer, but I otherwise see skull area where bone should be either parted or clearly removed, though that area is arguably slightly grayer than the rest. Further, I see this same effect at 372, 373, and 375, not just 374. My educated guess would be that the occipital blowout was colored in to attempt to look like there was bone and skin (although, again, a case can be made that it is too gray, but there should be brain extrusion as well that is not detectable in those frames)..."

Fascinating! Forget the problem that the area in question is on the side of the head and not on the back of the head. What we see is not what we would expect to see, says Pincher. No matter. We'll take care of that by speculating that "the occipital blowout was colored in to attempt to look like there was bone and skin." Just fascinating!

JT

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Robin,

Go back to frames 313-317, where the "blob" seems to gush out to the right/front.

Then we can better trace the distinction between the "blob" and the skull flap. They

are not the same, where, as I observed, Roderick Ryan explained to Noel that it had

been painted in. The distinction between the "blob" and the skull flap is important.

Jim

Jim

I don't see this as a painted BLOB

I see it as a "fliped over" piece of skull bone hanging down, still hinged to the skull.

i also see what looks to be a tuffed of hair attached to the right side of the bone.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Tell us about the wound to the back of his head, Josiah. Inquiring minds want to know how far you are willing

to go as you lay the groundwork for your belated realization on the 50th observance disavowing a conspiracy.

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.

[Bernice Moore]

THE WOUNDS AT BETHESDA:

Horne report 96..Wound change Bethesda to right side head;;

Now the description of the wounds dramatically changes at Bethesda. Horne showed a page from the autopsy protocol, and read from it, (MD3 p.3)

"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull oHorne report 96..Wound change Bethesda to right side headn the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions, in this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 centimeters in greatest diameter."

Horne commented, "Now there has been a big change taken place here. In Dallas the wound is in the back of the head, pretty well localized to the occipital or occipitalparietal region. Now it's chiefly in the right side of the head extending into the temporal region and the occipital region. And Dr. Humes says it's 13 centimeters in greatest diameter."

Horne then went to an audiotape of David Lifton interviewing John Stringer in 1972. Horne read the important segment first.

Lifton: "Yeah, okay, well when you lifted him out was the main damage to the skull on the top or in the back?"

Stringer: "In the back."

Lifton: "In the back?"

Stringer: "In the back."

Lifton: "High in the back or lower in the back?

Stringer: "Oh, the occipital part, in the back there... [and then it's garbled ] ...up above the neck."

Lifton: "Yeah, in other words the main part of his head that was blasted away was in the occipital part of the skull?"

Stringer: "Yes, in the back part."

Lifton: "The back portion, okay. In other words there was no 5 inch hole in the top of his head?"

Stringer: "Oh, it was, some of it was blown off yeah, I mean towards out the top in the back yeah."

Lifton: "Top in the back, I see. But the top in the front was pretty, oh, I don't know, intact?"

Stringer: "Yeah, sure."

Because of the lack of time Horne wasn't able to read passages from the Humes and Boswell ARRB depositions about the 10 by 17 centimeters and how it represents missing bone and a lot of missing scalp. But these statements are recorded in the depositions and both men are unequivocal about what they wrote.

Horne then pointed out it is not just Humes and Boswell who report this huge area of missing bone and scalp. Dr. Pierre Finck reports to Brigadier General J. Blumberg February 1st, 1965 (MD 28), calling it a right, frontal parietal-occipital wound.

Horne exclaimed: "That's the whole right side of the head! That's not what was described in Dallas."

Horne then referred to Paul O'Connor's interview to the HSCA's Andrew Purdy:

"O'Connor described a defect as being in the region from the occipital around

the temporal and parietal regions,, a massive hole, no little hole.

Horne then read from another HSCA staff interview report, this time with James Curtis Jenkins:

"He said he saw a head wound in the middle temporal region back to the occipital. (MD 65 p.4)

Horne displayed 3 color coded skulls:

One depicting the wounds as described in Dallas, a wound in the occiput 5 by 7 centimeters as described by Dr. Carrico to the Warren Commission. Dr. Carrico was the only one to give a dimension in 1964.

A second skull showed the wounds as described at Bethesda. At Bethesda the wound is larger. Skull #2 was painted to show what Horne previously thought the missing bone looked like at Bethesda.

Then Doug showed skull #3. Dr. Boswell drew on a plastic skull for the ARRB an even larger hole, which does include the original wound as described by Parkland physicians. Nearly the entire top of the skull and most of the entire right side is devoid of bone and scalp. One skull showed the wounds as described in Dallas, the next as Doug thought the wounds were described at Bethesda, and the 3rd as Dr. Boswell drew it on the plastic skull, which to Doug's shock was largest of all, and far larger than anyone had previously described or drew.

Horne next had some fun at Humes and Boswell's expense showing the photographs which accompanied the JAMA articles as saying their hands were describing the size of the head wound at Bethesda.

Horne then showed a statement from Dr. Fink wherein the phrase "portion of the crater" appears, saying, in other words, there was no through and through perforation of the bone. Humes said there was in his ARRB deposition. But Finck said in 1965 there was no portion of a crater. Dr. Boswell told Purdy in 1977 that only when they reinserted a fragment of bone "that came from Dallas" could you reconstruct the entrance wound, and then the massive wound in the head was immediately above that. So, what this means is when the body is received at Bethesda there is nothing but a giant hole, and only after a small fragment was inserted could someone reconsctruct what they thought was an entrance.

Horne, "So what's going on here? Is there any evidence at all that the chain of custody [of JFK's body] was interrupted? Well, there sure is. There is a lot of evidence."

http://www.jfklancer.com/backes/horne/Backes2a.html

[Bernice Moore]

Horne then showed the frame from a film of Malcolm Kilduff pointing to his head saying "Dr. Burkley told me it was a simple matter of a bullet right through the head," and he put his finger at his right temple. We don't know if Burkley told Kilduff that there was a wound to the right temple or if Dr. Burkley made that kind of a gesture. It is certainly provocative.Horne then showed the notes of Seth Kantor as seen in Josiah Thompson's book "Six Seconds in Dallas," reading: "entered right temple." We don't know if this is an observation he made himself, or if this is a recording that someone told him, or if he writes this down after seeing Malcolm Kilduff. But this too is provocative.Horne commented that if what we are seeing is true then we don't need any "jet effect" to describe what we are seeing. This would be the result of a shot from the front and the debris trail hits the two motorcycle policemen, and litters the back of the limousine.

Shortcut to: http://www.jfklancer.com/Backes.html

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

I knew you would use Mike's speculations as a distraction. In the past, you have emphasized how the only chapter in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000) that you like is the one by Gary Aguilar, M.D. Ironically, Gary's chapter is devoted to demonstrating the consistency of the description of the massive blow-out to the back of the head. I have pointed out to you that that endorsement, which is well-founded, is inconsistent with the authenticity of the Zapruder film, which you also maintain. So how do you reconcile your endorsement of Aguilar's work on the blow-out to the back of the head with the ABSENCE of the blow-out to the back of the head in the Zapruder film? Now I have known that you were a phony for quite a while, but I think the time has come for your hypocrisy to be on display for the entire forum. So tell us, Josiah Thompson: how do you reconcile Aguilar's work with the authenticity of the Zapruder film? That should be easy for you to explain.

"... it seems to me that an occipital blowout as you would visually expect to see it cannot be seen either. What I do see is that extra hair has been raised up and parted corresponding to the right occipital area, like what you'd see with an Indian scalping a pioneer, but I otherwise see skull area where bone should be either parted or clearly removed, though that area is arguably slightly grayer than the rest. Further, I see this same effect at 372, 373, and 375, not just 374. My educated guess would be that the occipital blowout was colored in to attempt to look like there was bone and skin (although, again, a case can be made that it is too gray, but there should be brain extrusion as well that is not detectable in those frames)..."

Fascinating! Forget the problem that the area in question is on the side of the head and not on the back of the head. What we see is not what we would expect to see, says Pincher. No matter. We'll take care of that by speculating that "the occipital blowout was colored in to attempt to look like there was bone and skin." Just fascinating!

JT

Edited March 27, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Excellent work, Bernice. It is also the case that Charles Crenshaw, M.D., in a televised interview, explained that the bullet had entered his right temple. That interview can be found on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmPJVzvlP5o

At the time, Chuck thought it had traveled directly to the back of the head, where Mantik's work explains that it was a frangible (or "exploding") bullet and that it set off shock waves that blew his brains out the back of his head to the left/rear, not the projectile itself. And those who have ever watched the "You Were There" segment of NBC's coverage of the assassination on 22 November 1963 know that Chet Huntley reported that the President was killed by a bullet "right through the head", which entered his right temple, a report he attributed to Admiral George Burkley, JFK's personal physician. That wound and the wound to his throat were widely broadcast on radio and television, where Bob Livingston, M.D., for example, knew from the description of the wound to the throat he heard over the radio that it had been an entry wound, which led him to call James Humes at Bethesda, which was across the street from NIH, where he was the scientific director of two of the institutes, to advise him that the throat wound had to be carefully dissected since, "if there is evidence of a shot from behind, then there has to have been a conspiracy", which, of course, is quite ironic, since the Warren Commission would cope with the problem of two shots from in front by deftly reversing their trajectories.

Horne then showed the frame from a film of Malcolm Kilduff pointing to his head saying "Dr. Burkley told me it was a simple matter of a bullet right through the head," and he put his finger at his right temple. We don't know if Burkley told Kilduff that there was a wound to the right temple or if Dr. Burkley made that kind of a gesture. It is certainly provocative.Horne then showed the notes of Seth Kantor as seen in Josiah Thompson's book "Six Seconds in Dallas," reading: "entered right temple." We don't know if this is an observation he made himself, or if this is a recording that someone told him, or if he writes this down after seeing Malcolm Kilduff. But this too is provocative.Horne commented that if what we are seeing is true then we don't need any "jet effect" to describe what we are seeing. This would be the result of a shot from the front and the debris trail hits the two motorcycle policemen, and litters the back of the limousine.

Shortcut to: http://www.jfklancer.com/Backes.html

Edited March 27, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Bernice Moore]

http://www.jfklancer.com/HumesBos.html HEAD WOUND, scroll down, back of the head right hand side, bethesda autopsy, Boswell, Humes, Finck ETC......

.Humes, Boswell and Finck at National Archives..... The autopsy report states that a lacerated entry wound measuring 15 by

6 mm. (0.59 by 0.24 inches) is situated in the posterior scalp approximately

2.5 cm. (1 inch) laterally to the right and slightly above the external

occipital protuberance (a bony protuberance at the back of the head). In

non-technical language this indicates that a small wound was found in the

back of the head on the right side. Photographs Nos. 15, 16, 42 and 43 show

the location and size of the wound, and establish that the above autopsy

data were accurate. Due to the fractures of the underlying bone and the

elevation of the scalp by manual lifting (done to permit the wound to be

photographed) the photographs show the wound to be slightly higher than its

actually measured site.

JOHN F. KENNEDY'S FATAL WOUNDS:

THE WITNESSES AND THE INTERPRETATIONS

FROM 1963 TO THE PRESENT

by

Gary L. Aguilar, MD

San Francisco, California, August, 1994

If, as has been argued, the error rate in the determination of entrance from exit in single, perforating wounds is 37% among emergency physicians (Randall T. Clinicians' forensic interpretations of fatal gunshot wounds often miss the mark. JAMA. 1993; 269:2058- 2061), and, accepting for the sake of argument that the determining of the location of a skull defect is as troublesome as determining entrance from exit in perforating bullet wounds (it should not be, of course), the likelihood of error by 44 witnesses from two facilities is 1 divided by 2 to the 44th power, or 1 in 4,294,967,296. The likelihood that 44 of 44 erroneous witnesses would agree (excepting Giesecke and Salyer) among themselves to the same "wrong" location is considerably less than 1 divided by 2 to the 44th power. Critics of the Warren Commission's conclusions are chary to embrace such odds and are troubled that loyalists seem to be unaware of this problem.

http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm

Edited March 27, 2011 by Bernice Moore

[Greg Burnham]

A question or three for Tink:

1) Do you believe the Warren Report is essentially accurate or do you believe it is essentially flawed?

2) Are your current beliefs essentially unchanged from what they were when you wrote Six Seconds? Are they contrary? Is this a gray area?

3) Do you think that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone?

I'm not being as facetious as it might appear. I just haven't heard or read what you currently hold to be true about this subject in a vey long time.

Thanks--