The Law of Unintended Consequences

[Kathleen Collins]

Not sure if I understand the post... "like the shadows that appear at other places in the frame" suggests that you think the BOH shadow is consistent with the others.

What I noticed was the shadow at the back of JFK's head do not change as other similiar shadows do and in fact looks to ME like it floats over the head...

I happen to do a z317 analysis just to see how these shadows behaved... as well as a gif at high contrast to see how that area changes... that area stays VERY dark comparitively...

yet I of course view it with suspicious eyes...

and I agree with you again JT... been hearing about these glorious 35mm Hollywood frames that make it obvious... maybe saving it for the 50th?

If you watch President Kennedy's head from the side -- it looks like it's imploding. He was being shot from the back also, but they put a dark blot on the back of Kennedy's head.

I'm trying to catch up on this thread.

Someone mentioned Rich DellaRosa. Rich passed away about 2 years ago, I'm sorry to say.

Kathy C

[Greg Burnham]

Not sure if I understand the post... "like the shadows that appear at other places in the frame" suggests that you think the BOH shadow is consistent with the others.

What I noticed was the shadow at the back of JFK's head do not change as other similiar shadows do and in fact looks to ME like it floats over the head...

I happen to do a z317 analysis just to see how these shadows behaved... as well as a gif at high contrast to see how that area changes... that area stays VERY dark comparitively...

yet I of course view it with suspicious eyes...

and I agree with you again JT... been hearing about these glorious 35mm Hollywood frames that make it obvious... maybe saving it for the 50th?

If you watch President Kennedy's head from the side -- it looks like it's imploding. He was being shot from the back also, but they put a dark blot on the back of Kennedy's head.

I'm trying to catch up on this thread.

Someone mentioned Rich DellaRosa. Rich passed away about 2 years ago, I'm sorry to say.

Kathy C

Hi Kathy,

You might want to go back to the beginning of the thread. Sorry, my friend, but this is a distraction.

Craig? Tink? Speer? You've each been invited to actually VIEW THE EVIDENCE. This is evidence that you have each been commenting on WITHOUT having ever seen it for yourselves!

This is a golden opportunity. And, as a bonus, I volunteer to be there for the viewing! That way I can confirm the conclusions that any of you might reach that might differ from the conclusions of those who actually work in the industry.

I am incapable of fabricating evidence. It is not how I work. I will honestly report the results of your investigation without passion or prejudice even if it is at odds with my own previously held conclusions.

[John Costella]

As I'm not sure when I'll next be near Burbank, is it at all possible for Sydney Wilkinson et al to throw a scan or three onto a DVD and mail it across the Pacific?

There are other moves afoot to get the NARA scans, but I'd be interested to see what everyone's excited about in Burbank.

Thanks in advance,

J

I just returned home after having spent the day in Burbank. I met with Sydney Wilkinson et al to view their incredibly HUGE (3rd generation) scans. When I say huge I am referring to the amount of data contained in the images. There are several observations that are worth mentioning. There is no question as to the existence of a BLACK PATCH in Z-317. It isn't merely suggested there--it is OBVIOUSLY there. There are several other frames that display similar evidence of "patchwork" having been applied. This is not a guess. It is simply inescapable.

I invite everyone to look at the current logo that GOOGLE employed today in protest of congressional censorship of the internet. Can you tell that the letters are being obscured by a BLACK PATCH? I bet you can.

So too, in these 3rd generation extremely high quality Z-film scans it is blatantly in your face.

Sydney gave me permission to personally invite Tink to accompany me on my return trip to DELUXE Studios in the near future. See, it's important that Tink gets to actually see the evidence for himself before stepping in it. Therefore, here's an open invitation, Tink. Let me know when you want to go. Pat Speer, I also invite you to ride along. Just let me know when.

good news, Monk....

[Greg Burnham]

As I'm not sure when I'll next be near Burbank, is it at all possible for Sydney Wilkinson et al to throw a scan or three onto a DVD and mail it across the Pacific?

There are other moves afoot to get the NARA scans, but I'd be interested to see what everyone's excited about in Burbank.

Thanks in advance,

J

I just returned home after having spent the day in Burbank. I met with Sydney Wilkinson et al to view their incredibly HUGE (3rd generation) scans. When I say huge I am referring to the amount of data contained in the images. There are several observations that are worth mentioning. There is no question as to the existence of a BLACK PATCH in Z-317. It isn't merely suggested there--it is OBVIOUSLY there. There are several other frames that display similar evidence of "patchwork" having been applied. This is not a guess. It is simply inescapable.

I invite everyone to look at the current logo that GOOGLE employed today in protest of congressional censorship of the internet. Can you tell that the letters are being obscured by a BLACK PATCH? I bet you can.

So too, in these 3rd generation extremely high quality Z-film scans it is blatantly in your face.

Sydney gave me permission to personally invite Tink to accompany me on my return trip to DELUXE Studios in the near future. See, it's important that Tink gets to actually see the evidence for himself before stepping in it. Therefore, here's an open invitation, Tink. Let me know when you want to go. Pat Speer, I also invite you to ride along. Just let me know when.

good news, Monk....

Could've just emailed me or called me John. Whatever.

[John Costella]

What's not clear to me is whether this is even possible. From your post it sounds like it's "eyes only" at the moment.

J

As I'm not sure when I'll next be near Burbank, is it at all possible for Sydney Wilkinson et al to throw a scan or three onto a DVD and mail it across the Pacific?

There are other moves afoot to get the NARA scans, but I'd be interested to see what everyone's excited about in Burbank.

Thanks in advance,

J

I just returned home after having spent the day in Burbank. I met with Sydney Wilkinson et al to view their incredibly HUGE (3rd generation) scans. When I say huge I am referring to the amount of data contained in the images. There are several observations that are worth mentioning. There is no question as to the existence of a BLACK PATCH in Z-317. It isn't merely suggested there--it is OBVIOUSLY there. There are several other frames that display similar evidence of "patchwork" having been applied. This is not a guess. It is simply inescapable.

I invite everyone to look at the current logo that GOOGLE employed today in protest of congressional censorship of the internet. Can you tell that the letters are being obscured by a BLACK PATCH? I bet you can.

So too, in these 3rd generation extremely high quality Z-film scans it is blatantly in your face.

Sydney gave me permission to personally invite Tink to accompany me on my return trip to DELUXE Studios in the near future. See, it's important that Tink gets to actually see the evidence for himself before stepping in it. Therefore, here's an open invitation, Tink. Let me know when you want to go. Pat Speer, I also invite you to ride along. Just let me know when.

good news, Monk....

Could've just emailed me or called me John. Whatever.

[Craig Lamson]

Go ahead, Craig. Find your own way. Or, you can simply agree to collaborate with me. You will not be the first individual with whom I disagree but with whom I have still cooperatively chosen to work in the hope of discovering the truth. I am not concerned with you going there without me. However, I would prefer to see what you are doing for myself. That way, I can confirm that what you report is accurate. I would think that you would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate your prowess in front of one of your skeptics. Why not allow me to see your methodology?

I'm not interested in proving my prowess, and quite frankly I'm not going to be doing anything but listening. They can explain fully what it is they think they have and demonstrate. it.

I won't be doing any testing, just observing.

And quite frankly you are lacking the skill set to understand anyway. You have made that painfully apparent in your attempts here.

You will see the methodology, when the time is right.

Again if the offer is real my contact info is readily available.

Edited January 19, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Sounds reasonable to me Craig.

Not to me. YMMV.

[Greg Burnham]

What's not clear to me is whether this is even possible. From your post it sounds like it's "eyes only" at the moment.

J

As I'm not sure when I'll next be near Burbank, is it at all possible for Sydney Wilkinson et al to throw a scan or three onto a DVD and mail it across the Pacific?

There are other moves afoot to get the NARA scans, but I'd be interested to see what everyone's excited about in Burbank.

Thanks in advance,

J

I just returned home after having spent the day in Burbank. I met with Sydney Wilkinson et al to view their incredibly HUGE (3rd generation) scans. When I say huge I am referring to the amount of data contained in the images. There are several observations that are worth mentioning. There is no question as to the existence of a BLACK PATCH in Z-317. It isn't merely suggested there--it is OBVIOUSLY there. There are several other frames that display similar evidence of "patchwork" having been applied. This is not a guess. It is simply inescapable.

I invite everyone to look at the current logo that GOOGLE employed today in protest of congressional censorship of the internet. Can you tell that the letters are being obscured by a BLACK PATCH? I bet you can.

So too, in these 3rd generation extremely high quality Z-film scans it is blatantly in your face.

Sydney gave me permission to personally invite Tink to accompany me on my return trip to DELUXE Studios in the near future. See, it's important that Tink gets to actually see the evidence for himself before stepping in it. Therefore, here's an open invitation, Tink. Let me know when you want to go. Pat Speer, I also invite you to ride along. Just let me know when.

good news, Monk....

Could've just emailed me or called me John. Whatever.

Whatever.

[Craig Lamson]

Craig,

I just got off the phone with Sydney. She said that you can even bring along "any equipment of your choosing" in order to take the measurements (or whatever it is) that you seek.

Just as a "word to the wise" : DELUXE STUDIOS is the definitive REAL DEAL. Bring what you think you need, but the airlines are charging 50 bucks just for an additional checked bag these days.

I can assure you that DELUXE has equipment that will far surpass your wildest imagination. Still, knock yourself out--

I'm not concerned about Deluxe, and I'm not interested in testing there. I'm going to listen and observe.

If Sydney wants to extend the invitation personally my contact info is here.

www.craiglamson.com

[Craig Lamson]

Craig? Tink? Speer? You've each been invited to actually VIEW THE EVIDENCE. This is evidence that you have each been commenting on WITHOUT having ever seen it for yourselves!

So you know what each of us has seen and measured? I don't think so.

Edited January 19, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Greg Burnham]

Craig? Tink? Speer? You've each been invited to actually VIEW THE EVIDENCE. This is evidence that you have each been commenting on WITHOUT having ever seen it for yourselves!

So you know what each of us has seen and measured? I don't think so.

I don't know what you have viewed. I do know that you have made critical observations concerning this evidence which you have NOT viewed. You are invited to actually conduct primary research by viewing this evidence. If you are unable to do so due to financial or personal or professional reasons, I understand and no one should hold that against you.

However, if you are capable of examining and evaluating this evidence, I encourage you to accept the invitation. If not, I will not draw any conclusions about you and/or about your reasons for declining the invitation.

[Craig Lamson]

Craig? Tink? Speer? You've each been invited to actually VIEW THE EVIDENCE. This is evidence that you have each been commenting on WITHOUT having ever seen it for yourselves!

So you know what each of us has seen and measured? I don't think so.

I don't know what you have viewed. I do know that you have made critical observations concerning this evidence which you have NOT viewed. You are invited to actually conduct primary research by viewing this evidence. If you are unable to do so due to financial or personal or professional reasons, I understand and no one should hold that against you.

However, if you are capable of examining and evaluating this evidence, I encourage you to accept the invitation. If not, I will not draw any conclusions about you and/or about your reasons for declining the invitation.

My contact information is posted and will gladly discuss this directly.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jim,

You are so right (about Dr. Kemp Clark), where Lifton is setting him straight! Not only is he dismissing the

earlier reports in favor of the later (which is a methodological blunder), but he is selective about which

demonstrations of the location of the head wound impress him and which do not. Notice he likes:

and wants to use it to discount Clint's very detailed description of the wound, which I have emphasized above,

even though it demonstrates that he observed the wound at the back of the head and low, which Speer doesn't

want to acknowledge; and he dismisses these, which he does not like and therefore discounts:

If we treat this as a statistical phenomenon, where minor differences occur as a result of slight perspectival

differences and such, by averaging their location, we would not have to endure his endless efforts to discard

one after another because of very minor variations between them. It is simply unbelievable!

Jim

It all depends on what you mean by a "blow out".

At Duquesne, Randy used the Z film to show things coming out the back of JFK's head, including a bone.

But I don't really want to argue this anymore. Just wanted to clarify my point.

Anyone who can say the chief of neurosurgery at a gunshot wound factory like Parkland did not know cerebellum when he saw it....well, no comment.

Edited January 19, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Pat Speer]

It all depends on what you mean by a "blow out".

At Duquesne, Randy used the Z film to show things coming out the back of JFK's head, including a bone.

But I don't really want to argue this anymore. Just wanted to clarify my point.

Anyone who can say the chief of neurosurgery at a gunshot wound factory like Parkland did not know cerebellum when he saw it....well, no comment.

You are correct in that the term "blow out" in relation to the large head wound is an irregular use of the term. A blowout fracture of the skull is usually a reference to a fracture of the eye sockets caused by intracranial pressure. In the case of Kennedy, however, those claiming there was a "blow out" on the back of the skull are, to my understanding, claiming there was a large hole with bone segments blown outward, as depicted in the McClelland drawing. Randy Robertson, to my knowledge, has never proposed there was such a hole on the back of Kennedy's head. Here is part of the statement he delivered to congress when urging them to create the review board:

It is my opinion that the photographic and radiographic

record is AUTHENTIC and that these materials have not been

altered. It is my opinion that they provide MEDICO LEGAL

EVIDENCE OF CONSPIRACY in the President's assassination. It

is also my considered opinion that to a reasonable degree of

scientific certainty, the President was killed when he was

struck in the head by two bullets instead of one as

previously reported.

So, he and I have a lot in common. He clearly believes the back of the head photo and x-rays showing no blow out wound on the back of the head are authentic and unaltered, and evidence for two head shots. He then continues:

"I draw these conclusions after a careful and meticulous

study of the autopsy related materials at the National

Archives, the autopsy report and the testimony of those

present the night of the autopsy, some of which have just

recently been released. I have discovered radiographic

evidence which confirms a low entry in the back of the head.

Previous governmental review panels have overlooked or have

not reported a transverse fracture of the right occipital

bone present on the postmortem skull radiographs. This

fracture propagates from the area where the autopsy doctors

have persistently maintained a wound of entrance was. When

the autopsy pathologists examined the photographs with the

HSCA medical review panel they unanimously pointed out the

scalp defect near the hairline as the entrance wound. This

transverse fracture of the right occipital bone lies

immediately under this scalp defect. Dr. Boswell diagrammed

this fracture pattern in the autopsy notes at the autopsy

table. The postmortem skull radiographs validate the

accuracy of Dr. Boswell's drawing.

This pattern of intersecting skull fractures leaves no doubt

that the damage to the President's skull is inconsistent

with only one bullet entry and was necessarily caused by two

separate impacts. The original autopsy team and all

subsequent reviewers of the photographic and radiographic

record failed to analyze and properly evaluate the

intersecting fracture pattern in their reports. The

principle is simple and relies on the fact that a secondary

series of propagating fractures has to stop abruptly at

their intersection with the gap created by a preexisting

primary fracture. This analysis of intersecting fracture

lines is the first correct interpretation of the evidence

which explains the discrepancy between the location of the

wound of entry by the autopsy pathologists and subsequent

review panels and allows the deduction of two separate

bullet wounds to the President's head. I have included a

diagram based upon the postmortem skull radiographs to

illustrate this principle.

The first shot which struck the President's head was fired

from behind the limousine. The photographic and

radiographic evidence, as well as eyewitness accounts,

corroborates the location of the first point of entry in the

rear of the skull described by the autopsy pathologists in

their protocol. The evidence does not support the findings

by subsequent review panels that the autopsy team erred by

four inches in locating that wound. The second shot to the

head was fired from the right front of the Presidential

motorcade as it traveled through Dealey Plaza in Dallas. It

is my opinion that this second shot from the right front

accounts for the snap of the President's head back and to

the left as seen in the Zapruder film.

(EDIT)

The autopsy team's denial of the obvious radiographic

evidence for a second impact point on the back of the skull

is shown in their misleading written description in their

autopsy protocol of the lead fragment distribution which has

led subsequent review panels to conclude that they erred in

their placement of the wound of entry by four inches. The

radiographic evidence for the second bullet impact to the

back of the head, at a higher location, has been obvious to

the governmental review panels. The subtle radiographic

evidence confirming the lower entrance has not been obvious

to these review panels. We are left to wonder why this

obvious evidence of a second impact was not recognized by

the original autopsy team. We may also ask why the largest

bullet fragment present on these x-rays was not recovered

the night of the autopsy. It is my belief that this fragment

was dropped out of the evidentiary chain because it was

related to the second bullet which struck President

Kennedy's head originating from the Grassy Knoll area.

It is my belief that at least some of the physicians present

that night were aware of the evidence of a second gunshot

wound to the head either through the radiographs or through

visual inspection of the wounds. Dr. George Burkley, the

President's personal physician present the night of the

autopsy, in a recently released interview with HSCA

investigators in 1977 conceded the possibility of two

gunshot wounds to the head. Ten years earlier in an oral

history interview for the John F. Kennedy Library, Dr.

Burkley was asked a simple question concerning the

assassination. Do you agree with the Warren Report on the

number of bullets that entered the Presidents body? His

reply was "I would not care to be quoted on that".

In sum, it is a medical and scientific fact that the damage

to the President's skull did not result from a single shot

but was instead caused by two separate bullets. Furthermore,

it is my opinion that at least two gunmen fired upon and

assassinated President John F. Kennedy on 11-22-63."

Note that he accepts the authenticity of the supposed 6.5 mm fragment, and assumes it to have been a fragment of a bullet fired from in front of the president. Notice also that he makes no mention of an exit wound on the back of Kennedy's head, but speaks of a second impact point on the back of the head. This is a reference to the fractures on the back of the head which the HSCA assumed marked the entrance point.

So, in short, all your huffing and puffing about MY questioning Clark's judgment regarding the cerebellum is silly. People like Robertson, long before I, were claiming Clark was mistaken and the autopsy evidence authentic AND proof of two shooters. But I suppose you have "no comment" on him as well.

And what about the Parkland doctors, such as Carrico, Jenkins, and Perry, who readily admitted they--and by extension, Clark--were mistaken about the cerebellum? No comment, I suppose.

Because for some reason you think you are better equipped to determine the kinds of mistakes doctors make than other doctors...

Go figure.

[Pat Speer]

Craig? Tink? Speer? You've each been invited to actually VIEW THE EVIDENCE. This is evidence that you have each been commenting on WITHOUT having ever seen it for yourselves!

So you know what each of us has seen and measured? I don't think so.

I don't know what you have viewed. I do know that you have made critical observations concerning this evidence which you have NOT viewed. You are invited to actually conduct primary research by viewing this evidence. If you are unable to do so due to financial or personal or professional reasons, I understand and no one should hold that against you.

However, if you are capable of examining and evaluating this evidence, I encourage you to accept the invitation. If not, I will not draw any conclusions about you and/or about your reasons for declining the invitation.

Greg, as you probably realize, I don't pretend to be an expert on the technical aspects of the Z-film. As a result, I wouldn't be able to say for sure what a blacked out segment of the film proved. But, I must admit, I am intrigued by the possibility the back of the head was blacked out. A slight possibility exits, in my mind, that, when the Clark Panel moved the entrance wound upward four inches, the government tried to cover its tracks by hiding evidence for the lower entrance. As a consequence, I would find a comparison between Thompson's image--which pre-dates the Clark Panel--Lifton's image, the MPI slides, and the frames of Sydney's film most interesting.

If Sydney wishes to invite me to an upcoming viewing of her film, I will try to attend. I can be reached at pat@patspeer.com.