The Law of Unintended Consequences

[Pat Speer]

Pat,

A thought occurs - and I'm not pretending that this is anything but random speculation - that there could have been two wounds to the head; the one most believe was described by the Parkland doctors in the occipital-parietal region and the one further forward that we appear to see in the Zapruder film.

There is a huge flap of scalp and skull hanging down from this wound on the side. Jackie testified that she tried to hold the head together on the way to Parkland, so perhaps she closed this flap and the blood and matter essentialy "glued" it in place. The Parkland doctors said they took a good look at the head but never said they probed or manipulated it in any way so it is concievable that they could have been fooled by the closed flap, saw only the large hole in the rear and assumed it was the only one.

Like I say, I'm not pretending this is anything but speculation, just looking for possibilities.

Thanks, Martin, for your thoughts. The possibility you mention was something I at one time suspected. It seemed possible there were two flaps--one on the back of the head seen at Parkland--and one on the top of the head seen at Bethesda, and captured in the autopsy photos, X-Rays, and Z-film. The more I studied the witness statements, however, the more I realized this was unlikely. Dr. Clark specified that the wound he saw was missing both scalp and bone. The autopsy report specified that the wound they saw was missing both scalp and bone. This led me to abandon the flap theory... I then focused on the possibility they were describing the same wound, but were reporting it in different locations.

The statements of the Dealey Plaza witnesses, particularly William Newman, then came into focus. Here he was, 10 yards or so behind and to the right of Kennedy, looking directly at the back of his head, and he noted an explosion from the location shown in the autopsy photos, and not on the back of Kennedy's head. This led me to study the statements of Zapruder, Sitzman, Hudson, etc. From reading their statements I came to believe the bullet exploded on the side of Kennedy's head, and that there had not been a blow out on the back of Kennedy's head, after all.

The more I looked into this, moreover, the more I found evidence for a conspiracy. Most telling of all, for me, was that Medicolegal Investigation of Death, a book written by the Clark Panel's Dr. Fisher and the HSCA Panel's Dr. Spitz, specified that the absence of skin at a bullet wound location was a clear indication it was an entrance. When, at a later point, I came across the technical report on the tests performed on the material removed from the bullet nose, and realized they'd concluded it was human skin, well, that proved it for me. The fatal bullet exploded upon entrance on the side of Kennedy's head at the supposed exit, where William Newman noted its impact... and where the Zapruder film captured its impact.

Since that time, I've been in somewhat of a holding pattern. If someone could re-enact the shooting as it supposedly occurred, and re-enact Zapruder's shooting of the shooting while doing so, I believe my "theory" so to speak can be proven. There is no backspatter visible on the Z-film from the back of Kennedy's head. If backspatter were clearly visible in the re-enactment footage, it would undoubtedly suggest that in the Z-film the bullet impacted at the supposed exit location, and lead to a new understanding of the shooting. IMO.

Edited January 19, 2012 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

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.

What are you talking about? Of course, I acknowledge the statements and photos of the "Groden witnesses." I've posted their pictures in this thread. I've even offered, multiple times, to go through them with you one by one.

Let's do a quickie version. Look at the photos. You hold the wound was in the McClelland drawing/Crenshaw location, low on the back of the head at and below the level of the ear. Let's see how many of the "Groden witnesses" agree with you.

Bev Oliver--close enough. But was she really there?

Phil Willis-- on the back of the head but above the level of the ear. Big problem. He testified that he never saw the wound.

Marilyn Willis--far too high. On the top of the head above the ear. Far closer to the wound location shown in the autopsy photos than the location you're proposing.

Ed Hoffman--on the back of the head but above the level of the ear. Other pictures of him found online show him with his hand on top of his head, where Marilyn Willis placed the wound. And did he even see it?

Robert McClelland--a bit high, but close enough.

Paul Peters--a bit high, but close enough. Big problem, however. In Groden's video, and in another video found online, he places the wound several inches higher than he does in this photo.

Ken Salyer--points to his ear. A side of the head witness, not a back of the head witness.

Charles Carrico--too high. Entirely above the ear. Subsequently endorsed the accuracy of the autopsy photos.

Richard Dulaney--far too high. The top of the head, not back of the head. At least as close to the wound location shown in the autopsy photos as it is to the wound location you're proposing.

Charles Crenshaw--close enough. No surprise.

Ronald Jones-- a bit too high and to the side to confirm your wound location.

Audrey Bell--close enough.

Theran Ward--points to his ear. A side of the head witness, not a back of the head witness.

Aubrey Rike--seems a little high. Big problem, however. He never saw the wound and is describing where he thought he felt a hole.

Frank O'Neill--too high. Entirely above the ear. O'Neill claimed, moreover, that there was a small entrance wound on the back of the head where you claim there was a large exit.

Jerrol Custer--seems okay. HUGE problem, however. The video from which this image is pulled proves Custer was describing a wound stretching across the entire top of the head, and not an exit low on the back of the head.

Paul O'Connor--seems okay. HUGE problem, however. In Groden's video he claims, as Custer, that there was a gigantic wound on the top of the head. This photo is not from that video, but apparently shows him demonstrating the rear-most part of that wound.

Floyd Riebe--a bit high, but close enough. There's a problem, however. Riebe told the ARRB that he had come to believe the wounds were as depicted in the autopsy photos.

Now, let's recap. You have presented 18 witnesses in support of a purported wound on the back of the head in the occipital region. Of this 18,

2 (Phil Willis, Aubrey Rike) never saw the wound,

2 (Jerrol Custer, Paul O'Connor) depicted a wound encompassing the entire right side of the head,

2 (Kenneth Salyer, Theran Ward) depicted a wound on the side of the head,

7 (Marilyn Willis, Ed Hoffman, Paul Peters, Charles Carrico, Richard Dulaney, Ronald Jones, and Frank O'Neill) depicted a wound too high on the head to confirm a wound in the location you propose

This leaves 5 witnesses (Beverly Oliver, Robert McClelland, Charles Crenshaw, Audrey Bell, and Floyd Riebe) whose statements and depictions may be taken as confirmation of the wound location you propose, and there is reason to doubt the veracity of each of them. There's no evidence Beverly Oliver was really there. McClelland reported that the wound was on the left temple, and soon after told a reporter he had no reason to think the fatal head shot came from the front. Crenshaw failed to record his impressions of the wound for decades after the shooting, until long after the McClelland "drawing" showing a wound in the location you propose had made the rounds. The same goes for Audrey Bell. And Riebe changed his mind when testifying before the ARRB.

In short, if you whipped out these pictures on a TV show on the 50th, and the designated lone nutter on the show had done his homework, he'd make you look foolish, and embarrass the entire research "community" in the process.

[Pat Speer]

My responses in bold.

Sorry, Pat, but its you who are advancing misleading arguments, and mis-interpreting the data.

First, let's start with this one:

QUOTING PAT SPEER: The whole "cerebellum" argument rests on the credibility of Dr. Clark, who thought conspiracy theorists "damn fools." UNQUOTE

Pure nonsense. Dr. Clark's original reports and his testimony talk of cerebellar tissue.

Also: where do you come up with this "damn fools" quote?? From some newspaper article decades later??

Here's the reality: When Dr. Clark heard I was in Dallas (this was very early January, 1983), and possessed the autopsy photographs, he telephoned me, at my hotel, and wanted to speak with me, in person, and see the photos. Pat Valentino--who witnessed the incoming call (which I have a tape of, by the way)--was astounded. We had both been expecting a call from someone else, and that's why the recorder was set up. But here was Dr. Kemp Clark himself, the man who pronounced Kennedy dead, the doctor famous for refusing to speak with any of the JFK critics, telephoning me, at my hotel, and asking me to come to his office. We both visited Dr. Clark the very next day. By that time (and to our considerable surprise) he had changed his mind. He then refused to permit me to open the envelope and view the photographs he had been so eager to see the day before. Instead, he made disparaging remarks about Arlen Specter ("the only one who got anything out of this whole deal", or something like that). Furthermore, in response to my assertions that the body had been altered, he made a reference to the fact that I'd have to speak to the Secret Service, about that. All of this is laid out in the Epilogue to the Carrol and Graf edition of Best Evidence.

Also FYI: I was the first JFK researcher--as far as I know--to actually speak with Dr. Kemp Clark, in November 1966. When I asked him if he had done any cutting on the body. He answered, very icily, "no."

So it is you, Pat Speer--and not I (or any fellow JFK researchers) --who are promulgating false and incomplete information about Dr. Kemp Clark.

Not sure how you get that. It sounds to me like my take on Clark is 100% accurate. In November 1983, not long after he contacted you, and changed his mind about looking at the photos, he told UPI "The only regret I have is that I'm constantly bothered by a bunch of damn fools who want me to make some kind of controversial statement about what I saw, what was done, or that he is still alive here on the 12th floor of Parkland Hospital or some foolish thing like that. Since these guys are making their money by writing this kind of provocative books, it annoys me, frankly." I don't mean to point fingers, but it seems evident from this that you annoyed him, David.

Here's a link: article on Clark

Let me emphasize that at no time, when I spoke with him--either in November, 1966 or in January, 1983--did he ever indicate that anything which he had originally reported, was in error. Never did he indicate or suggest any such thing. So if that's the kind of information that is the foundation for your revisionist history, I'd suggest you set it aside.

It has no validity.

Then riddle me this. If Clark was so gol darned sure he was right about seeing cerebellum, why was he so dismissive of conspiracy theorists, and why did he stand by and say nothing when his fellow doctors said they'd been mistaken, and make it clear they thought he'd been mistaken as well?

You might as well go back and inform us that, upon reinterpretion of the bible, there were really 12 commandments, not ten, and that two of them got lost before Moses came down the mountain; and oh, by the way, he confided that to this or that person and you can find reference to it in volume such and so in. . (fill in your favorite source)

I'm not much into religion, David, Are you saying that your book was divinely inspired?

What you are promoting, essentially, is your own "error theory" of the historical record.

But this isn't my theory, David. Clark's being mistaken about the cerebellum is both the "official story" and implicit in the theories of many other CTs, including Cyril Wecht and Randy Robertson.

Jim Fetzer (more accurately) calls this "special pleading" and I don't doubt he is correct. All I know is that it denies the reality that I experienced as a writer, researcher, and documentary film maker.

That's your reality. From where I sit, when a doctor says he could have been mistaken, or sits by when other doctors say he could have been mistaken, well, he could have been mistaken. (Particularly when his not being mistaken means dozens of other people lied or were mistaken.)

I went through the process of studying the record, then interviewing the doctors (by phone, in 1966-67); then again in 1982, on audio; then again in 1989 and 1990, on camera; and here you come along, decades later, with your attempt at "revisionist history" based on, more or less, a psychological theory of who made an error, and when they (supposedly) admitted it;

This is silly in the extreme. My proposing that Clark and others were mistaken about the cerebellum is "revisionist history"? I would agree that it's unfortunate in many regards, but the "official" history of the medical evidence at this point is what one finds in the report of the HSCA Pathology Panel, and the nine doctors on that panel unanimously agreed, last I checked, that no cerebellum oozed from the head wound, and that there was no blow out wound low on Kennedy's skull,.

along with a fundamentally incorrect methodology of taking the Dealey Plaza witnesses who saw an impact against the side of JFK's head, and trying to confuse matters by referring to that as an exit wound, which was "somehow" missed, or overlooked, or misinterpreted at Parkland Hospital, some five minutes later. That is just absurd.

You've lost me here. Newman and Zapruder et al saw an explosion from the side of Kennedy's head, and NO explosion from the back of his head. The Parkland witnesses saw no sign of an explosion on the side of the head, and thought they saw one at the back of his head. In the past, you dismissed the statements of the Dealey Plaza witnesses and said they were irrelevant. Are you now saying they saw an explosion from a small entrance wound, but failed to see the much bigger explosion from the back of the head in front of them? Are you agreeing with me that it seems unlikely the Parkland witnesses would overlook a large wound by the temple, should there have been a separate wound at that location? And, if so, would you not agree then that we should assume one of these groups of witnesses was mistaken?

And yes, I did peruse your book. Including that big picture you included of you kissing your girlfriend. Yes, it is a nice photo and perhaps you believe that personalizes your message, but it doesn't really add to the argument.

I think it's obvious to most visitors to my website that certain sections of the site--my Bugliosi blog, my coincidence blog, and my personal poems and pictures--are not part of my "book" on the Kennedy Assassination. I'm sorry about any confusion.

Re your final comment, again, quoting you, Pat Speer: "In order to prop up his [Dr. Clark's--dsl] credibility, and deny he could have made a mistake, you have to malign the integrity and/or veracity of nearly every witness to see the impact of the bullet or see the head wound afterward."

No, Pat, not at all. The record speaks for itself. It is you that has to pull and tug and what is written in plain English in order to come up with this theory of yours that President Kennedy was struck by three shots from behind, that the answer to all the evidentiary conflicts is that the Dallas doctors were wrong, and that there was no falsification of any evidence in this case.

Well, you're wrong there. If you'd actually read my "book" you'd see that I only discuss the head wounds in the final chapters, and that I spend much of the early chapters discussing possible fraud in the evidence. Here are a few examples: I suspect fibers were added to the rifle to implicate Oswald. I suspect the paper bag in the archives is not the bag removed from the building, and was, in fact, created from the paper samples removed from the building as evidence. And I suspect barium was sprinkled onto Oswald's paraffin cheek casts by someone hoping to show he'd fired a rifle.

But it is you, not the Dallas doctors, who are wrong.

Oh, come on, David. You know many of them said the wound was in a different location than you propose. And that you think they're as wrong as I do.

First day evidence is what counts.

And I would be glad to discuss that evidence any time you like. Perhaps we should start a separate thread on the first day Dealey Plaza and Parkland Hospital witness statements.

What also counts is paying attention to the data that indicates that, in this case, the body was altered between Dallas and Bethesda, which you blithely ignore.

I haven't included any of that in this posting of mine, but how in the world can you go down this peculiar path of analysis on which you have embarked, and of which you are apparently so proud, while ignoring all the obvious evidence of (a) body interception prior to Bethesda (multiple coffin entry times, different coffin, different wrappings. . etc.). . and (b)the FBI report itself which says that, by the time the body was unwrapped at Bethesda, it was "apparent" that there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull."

Remember what Prof. Fetzer said about an appropriate and valid analysis means including "all" the evidence? He's right about that principle, of course, and here is another major area of evidence that your false and totally incorrect theory must also ignore, to have any semblance of credence.

The interception evidence will not go away--it is an integral part of the record, and, ultimately, it proves your entire medical "re-interpretation" to be totally invalid.

Don't get me wrong. While I don't subscribe to your alteration theory, I do respect the tremendous work you've done and consider you an important person in history. To my mind, Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg, Josiah Thompson, Robert Groden and yourself are all heroes of a sort. You might hate each other. You might hate me. But you each played a role in bringing important evidence to light.

DSL

1/18/12 5:10 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

Edited January 19, 2012 by Pat Speer

[Ian Kingsbury]

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

I think your offer is fantastic to actually view something tangible But perhaps Tink,Pat and Craig already have their answers,But it already sounds as if others are indicating that if this is a third generation copy it will not display what is on the camera original and as none here have veiwed the original this problem will persist until the original is veiwed(another 50 years)How can Sydney or anybody be sure of what they have is from the original with so many copies on the net.Recently Gerda Dunckel discovered a difference between the MPI and an older copy the difference was obviously to show only this part and this is why it was edited.

I guess we will have to wait until Sydney produces the DVD.

Ian

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pat,

It's call "the consilence of inductions" when lines of proof from multiple directions lead to the same

conclusion. For you to be even doubting whether Beverly was there is proof that you are a chicken with

its head cut off. Not only was she there, but she has given vivid descriptions of what she saw that are

consistent with what everyone else who was there reported, which all hangs together when you factor in

their relative locations, perspectives, and the chaos of the event. We have lines of proof which confirm

the back of the head wound FROM EYEWITNESSES IN DEALEY PLAZA, DOCTORS AT PARKLAND,

STUDIES OF THE X-RAYS, AND FROM VIEWING FRAME 374. THE PRESENCE OF A BLACK PATCH

ON THE 3RD GENERATION FILM SHOWS YET ANOTHER LINE OF CONFIRMATION. DO YOU THINK

THAT BLACK PATCH SITUATED AT JUST THAT LOCATION IN THIS FILM IS JUST A COINCIDENCE?

Here is a comparison from BEST EVIDENCE (1980), which illustrates the gross differences between what

the Parkland physicians initially observed, the Bethesda autopsy report, and the HSCA reconstruction. Do

you not understand that you not only have to discount all of the evidence that confirms the wound at the

back of his head, which Clint Hill vividly described, but that you also have to "explain away" the autopsy

report from Bethesda? Cerebellum extruding from your SIDE WOUND is anatomically impossible, yet that

has not deterred you. So here is your next challenge: How in the world do you reconcile the HUGE WOUND

outlined in the official autopsy report? How are you going to reduce that to your modest side wound? Doug

Horne, INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), explains how Thomas Evan Robinson and Floyd Riebe watched as Humes

took a cranial saw and increased its size dramatically, as the diagram shows. You have read it, haven't you?

Edited January 19, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

I have noticed the pattern of blizzards of distracting posts from Lamson and others when I ask questions that you would prefer not to answer. Please answer these. I am not the only one who wants to know. Many thanks. And where do you come up with the fantastic theory that scans of the original film are going to show features that were not on the original? This is not some scratch or speck of dust, Tink. This is not a random "black patch" but a feature that appears to have been strategically placed to conceal the blow out. Explain yourself.

Tink,

You meant this for Monk, but I can answer your question. Based on the Richard Trask description of the Archives' copying process, Doug Horne estimated that Sydney had a fifth generation product. He described his reasoning (perhaps indirectly) in his chapter on the Zapruder chapter. But Sydney asked the direct question of the new Head of the Sound and Motion Picture Branch, and he told her in an e-mail reply, "Third Generation." "Third Generation" is what NARA has replied to her inquiry.

In your post #629, you maintain, "Since we've already seen that the more downstream a copy is, the more it shows patch effect, I wouldn't expect to find anything new...." Not even one or more patch effects somewhere else on the president? Why not, Josiah? Why just that one on the lower back of JFK's head? Is that because it's the only place one was "needed"? And if "patch effects" are more conspicuous in later generational copies, doesn't that make them the best source to locate them?

NIST denied that it had found any evidence of explosives at the Twin Towers but, when pressed, admitted that it had not looked for them. Aren't you in a similar position by maintaining "(I) already know!" what will be on the third generation copy WITHOUT EVEN BOTHERING TO LOOK AT IT? Why should we take you seriously when you adopt such an anti-scientific position? Do you realize there are multiple ways to confirm the existence of the "patch"? Could you identify at least three of them?

Doug Horne wrote--on page 1353 of Vol. IV of INSIDE THE ARRB (2009)--in response to Sydney's decision to form a research group to pursue this question, "I was stunned by the simplicity and power of the concept behind her research effort: only Hollywood visual effect technicians or other film professionals familiar with the optical effects techniques of the 1960s would be truly qualified to say whether or not there was evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film's image content!" I very strongly agree.

And he writes (as I have explained to Scally), "While Rollie Zavada was a film chemist and a Kodak product manager (and was eminently qualified to study film density and edge print), he had no practical experience with the creation of motion picture special effects, and I therefore viewed him as unqualified to make a final determination as to whether or not the Zapruder film was an altered film." ARRB's senior management agreed. Why do you and Scally adopt such a very different stance?

Jim

It's nice of you to offer the invitation. One benefit would be that you and I would get a chance to meet after all these years taking shots at each other. But no I don't want to spend the time and the money. Why? Well, it's pretty clear what I'd find there... exactly what you have said I'll find there, frame 317 with some patch effects. Since we've already seen that the more downstream a copy is, the more it shows patch effect, I wouldn't expect to find anything new.

I am curious though. You spent a fair amount of time with Sydney Wilkinson. What did she say about the claim from Block that her copy is really a third generation copy and not a 5th generation copy as Doug Horne wrote a couple of years ago? Given what we know of how the Archives copies were generated I'm trying to figure this out. Can you help me?

JT

This is bizarre beyond belief. Having acknowledged that the McClelland diagram is "the clearest description of the Kennedy head wound" (p. 107) in his own book, knowing that the Moorman was taken a fraction of a second after JFK was hit in the head (at approximately 12:30 PM/CT) and that he was taken immediately to Parkland Hospital and pronounced dead (at 1 PM/CT), we know that the observations that I have reported and that Jim DiEugenio has reinforced were made within 30 minutes of the Polaroid. So if the blow-out is not present, then the photo has to have been "patched", just as the film has been "patched" and just as the X-rays were "patched". And now Josiah Thompson has linked arms with Pat Speer in one of the most bizarre performances of the year!

Plus we have had special effects experts (like Roderick Ryan) confirm that the "blob" was painted in (but according to Pat Speer, that is the real brains gushing out to the right/front) and Hollywood film restoration experts certify that the black "patch" on frame 317 was "crudely painted in" (but Josiah Thompson assures us it is NOT on the MIP slides in the museum), and we have had further expert confirmation from Patrick and the Director that indeed the black "patch" is an artifact that was added to the film (but no, according to Josiah Thompson, they are wrong), and we have one physician after another who reported that cerebellar as well as cerebral tissue was extruding from the wound (but according to Pat Speer, the wound was on the side of his head, so they are wrong, too).

This has to be one of the most revealing threads in the history of JFK research, where two members are willing to ignore the evidence and persist in maintaining positions that have been refuted again and again. Even when it is OBVIOUS that Chaney motored forward before the limo reached the TUP, that JFK has his brains blown out to the left/rear, that one witness after another reports that his brains were blown out the back of his head, which is confirmed by the Parkland physicians and the X-ray studies of David Mantik, where you can ACTUALLY SEE the blow out in frame 374--NO, THAT'S ALL WRONG, WE MUST BELIEVE WHAT PAT AND TINK ARE TELLING US AND NOT OUR LYING EYES! This is the most completely irrational exhibition of the method of tenacity that the world has ever seen. This is completely stunning. I am reminded of something about lunatics and asylums . . .

I took what Dr. McClelland reported and gave it to a medical illustrator who drew the illustration. This is what Pat told you earlier and this is what happened. In 1967, this was the clearest description from Parkland medical personnel of the wound in the back of the head. How could the Moorman photo be authentic if it does not show a massive blow out like this? Easy, JFK's head was to take another shot and then be bounced around both in the limousine and during its extraction before it found itself on a gurney for Dr. McClelland to see it. There was underlying damage to the cranium in the back intensified and exacerbated by a second shot crashing into the back of the skull. All that happened later.

Because it does not appear in the Moorman photo and does not appear in the Zapruder film and was not apparent to a single witness in Dealey Plaza... all these facts point to one result. It wasn't there in the milliseconds immediately after Z 313 and because it was not there there was nothing to fix with a patch in Z 317. That's why better copies of the film show no patch and why your pal, John Costella, can find in David Lifton's copy of Z 317 no doctoring. The "patch" is visible only in bad oopies.

I've said this three times now. All you do is claim over and over again that the Moorman photo has been doctored. However, characteristically, you fail to give any inkling of how this was possible. If you think the Moorman photo was doctored, then tell us how this came about. If you don't, it will become clear that all you have to offer is your anger and insult. That's not worth much.

JT

When Vince Salandria confronted you about this, you explained that it was simply infelicitous language. Here's another example, where you cannot seriously claim that you were merely sloppy with your words.

The guy who is making stuff up is the one to whom I directed seven (7) questions. Where are your answers? You are a past master of the art of distraction. I asked seven, so where are your answers to the other six?

Here's the McClelland diagram, which, like the Crenshaw diagram, was drawn / authorized by a physician who attended JFK at Parkland. All by itself, a massive blow-out of this kind, by itself, proves conspiracy:

. . . [MCCLELLAN DIAGRAM]

It was first published in SIX SECONDS (1967), with an accompanying description by Dr. McClelland, and a comment by the author, "This is the clearest description we have of the Kennedy head wound" (p. 107).

Just to make the obvious point, since this blow out is "the clearest description we have of the Kennedy head wound", how could the Moorman be authentic if it does NOT show a massive blow-out of this kind?

Obviously, IT SHOULD BE THERE. But the image is sufficient obscure that I am not in the position to verify whether it's there or it's not. BUT I CAN AFFIRM THAT, IF IT'S NOT, THE PHOTO'S A FAKE.

Edited January 19, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

I have noticed the pattern of blizzards of distracting posts from Lamson and others when I ask questions that you would prefer not to answer. Please answer these. I am not the only one who wants to know. Many thanks.

Hows the view from fantasy land Fetzer?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

"And where do [Tink] you come up with the fantastic theory that scans of the original film are going to show features that were not on the original? This is not some scratch or speck of dust, Tink. This is not a random "black patch" but a feature that appears to have been strategically placed to conceal the blow out. Explain yourself." So what is your explanation, Lamson? Your positions are growing more and more desperate and bizarre.

I have noticed the pattern of blizzards of distracting posts from Lamson and others when I ask questions that you would prefer not to answer. Please answer these. I am not the only one who wants to know. Many thanks.

Hows the view from fantasy land Fetzer?

Edited January 19, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

"And where do [Tink] you come up with the fantastic theory that scans of the original film are going to show features that were not on the original? This is not some scratch or speck of dust, Tink. This is not a random "black patch" but a feature that appears to have been strategically placed to conceal the blow out. Explain yourself." So what is your explanation, Lamson? Your positions are growing more and more desperate and bizarre.

I have noticed the pattern of blizzards of distracting posts from Lamson and others when I ask questions that you would prefer not to answer. Please answer these. I am not the only one who wants to know. Many thanks.

Hows the view from fantasy land Fetzer?

It's a simple fact that the photographic copy process, even on film designed specifically for the process, builds contrast. That's why preflash is often employed (as it was for the first generation negative of the Zapruder film at the archives) to try and help reduce this contrast build.

The further from the original the more information lost.

An its not as if 'something is completely missing'. The question to be answered is the patch/shadow real or man made.

The farther from the original the harder it becomes to prove.

So far we have the Hollywood group claiming it is special effects. Fine. So far they have not supplied any proofs aside from "I see it, just believe me". Same applies to Tink's assessment from viewing the MPI 4x5's.

So we await the results of the proof from the Hollywood Group. Then we can assess the work.

I do find it interesting however that there is this sudden invitation for others to visit and view the scans and perhaps offer questions and comment. I'll let everyone decide for themselves what they think this means.

Edited January 19, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Your fabricated attempts to defend the indefensible are extraordinarily revealing. Not only are these odd "black patches" strategically placed, but if it were the case that they are easier to spot on later generational copies, then, as I observed to Tink already, surely they are the PREFERRED RESOURCE to detect them. I am sorry, but you and Tink have run out of room to preserve the fantasy that the film is authentic.

In Tink's post #629, for example, he maintains, "Since we've already seen that the more downstream a copy is, the more it shows patch effect, I wouldn't expect to find anything new...." Not even one or more patch effects somewhere else on the president? Why not, Josiah? Why just that one on the lower back of JFK's head? Is that because it's the only place one was "needed"? And if "patch effects" are more conspicuous in later generational copies, doesn't that make them the best source to locate them?

And have you forgotten the multiple proofs that Chaney had motored forward? Do I have to publish Clint Hill's testimony or that of Bobby Hargis, Forrest Sorrels, and Chief Curry AGAIN? Any time that Tink is confronted with decisive proofs, you put up a bizzard to distract us. That's no fantasy: anyone can check it. The pattern is there. Spare us more of your rubbish. You have lost. It's over. The film is a fraud!

"And where do [Tink] you come up with the fantastic theory that scans of the original film are going to show features that were not on the original? This is not some scratch or speck of dust, Tink. This is not a random "black patch" but a feature that appears to have been strategically placed to conceal the blow out. Explain yourself." So what is your explanation, Lamson? Your positions are growing more and more desperate and bizarre.

I have noticed the pattern of blizzards of distracting posts from Lamson and others when I ask questions that you would prefer not to answer. Please answer these. I am not the only one who wants to know. Many thanks.

Hows the view from fantasy land Fetzer?

It's a simple fact that the photographic copy process, even on film designed specifically for the process, builds contrast. That's why preflash is often employed (as it was for the first generation negative of the Zapruder film at the archives) to try and help reduce this contrast build.

The further from the original the more information lost.

An its not as if 'something is completely missing'. The question to be answered is the patch/shadow real or man made.

The farther from the original the harder it becomes to prove.

So far we have the Hollywood group claiming it is special effects. Fine. So far they have not supplied any proofs aside from "I see it, just believe me". Same applies to Tink's assessment from viewing the MPI 4x5's.

So we await the results of the proof from the Hollywood Group. Then we can assess the work.

I do find it interesting however that there is this sudden invitation for others to visit and view the scans and perhaps offer questions and comment. I'll let everyone decide for themselves what they think this means.

Edited January 19, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

Your fabricated attempts to defend the indefensible are extraordinarily revealing. Not only are these "black patches" strategically placed, but if it were the case that they are easier to spot on later generational copies, then, as I observed to Tink already, surely they are the PREFERRED RESOURCE to detect them. I am sorry, but you and Tink have run out of room to preserve the fantasy that the film is authentic.

In Tink's post #629, for example, he maintains, "Since we've already seen that the more downstream a copy is, the more it shows patch effect, I wouldn't expect to find anything new...." Not even one or more patch effects somewhere else on the president? Why not, Josiah? Why just that one on the lower back of JFK's head? Is that because it's the only place one was "needed"? And if "patch effects" are more conspicuous in later generational copies, doesn't that make them the best source to locate them?

And have you forgotten the multiple proofs that Chaney had motored forward? Do I have to publish Clint Hill's testimony or that of Bobby Hargis, Forrest Sorrels, and Chief Curry AGAIN? Any time that Tink is confronted with decisive proofs, you put up a bizzard to distract us. That's no fantasy: anyone can check it. The pattern is there. Spare us more of your rubbish. You have lost. It's over. You're done!

You are the KING of rubbish Fetzer as this latest reply shows.

Lets review your failures here. You think more contrasty duplicates frther removed from the original are a better source to study. What dreck.

Increased contrast alters the fine gradations in the transitions from highlight to shadow. The net effect is it alters the data needed to define real from fake. As usual your warped logic and fantasy worldview gets it completely backwards.

Why am I Not surprised.

As for your babble about the so called proofs from witness testimony. I don't do witness testimony. It's futile as the prolonged discussions about it on this thread alone prove. You are welcome to your opinion about, and I mine.

Finally if you review my latest posts they have nothing to do with the conversations between you two. My comments pertained to OTHER posts where you were not involved. As usual its your fantasy world run amuck.

Why don't you get back to us on the photographic issues when you have purchased your first clue.

Edited January 19, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Josiah Thompson]

A Simple Question

The Zapruder film has been a thorn in the government's side since it first led the Secret Service and the FBI to conclude in December 1963 that Connally was hit by a separate bullet. When it was shown on TV by Bob Groden in 1975 it provided the muscle of public opinion to get the case reopened.

Let's say you are some mysterious intelligence outfit that brought off the assassination and now has to cover up the fact that JFK was shot in the head from the right front. Isn't the simplest and most effective solution to seize the Zapruder film as soon as anyone knows what it in it? "I'm sorry, Mr. Zapruder," says Forrest Sorrels, "but the Secret Servide will have to take this film as evidence." Doesn't that about take care of the whole problem. Why go to the trouble of faking up parts of the film when the simplest solution is just to seize the damn thing? Then weeks or months later some "accident" can befall the film while it's in storage... a fire, a flood, a loss in transit.

But let's say that the myserious intelligence outfit decided to fake up parts of the film.

Why on earth would they leave the massive left backward snap in the film and just cover up some blood and brain at the back of Kennedy's head? The left backward snap is the most graphic evidence of a shot from the right front. It was seeing that that brought about the formation of HSAC. Why leave that in and only paint in a little patch at the back of JFK's head?

JT

[Pat Speer]

My responses in bold.

Pat,

It's call "the consilence of inductions" when lines of proof from multiple directions lead to the same

conclusion. For you to be even doubting whether Beverly was there is proof that you are a chicken with

its head cut off.

FWIW, I'd like to believe she was there, and think it's quite possible she was. When one looks at her full story, however, it's awfully hard to accept. I mean, do you believe she saw Ruby hanging out with Oswald? I'd bet most researchers do not.

Not only was she there, but she has given vivid descriptions of what she saw that are

consistent with what everyone else who was there reported, which all hangs together when you factor in

their relative locations, perspectives, and the chaos of the event.

I have demonstrated, repeatedly, that NONE of the Dealey Plaza witnesses said anything about an explosion from the back of Kennedy's head in the days after the shooting. They, in fact, said the explosion derived from the side of his head. So your claim that Beverly's decades-after recollection of an explosion from the back of his head is "consistent with what everyone else who was there reported" is 100% false.

We have lines of proof which confirm

the back of the head wound FROM EYEWITNESSES IN DEALEY PLAZA, DOCTORS AT PARKLAND,

STUDIES OF THE X-RAYS, AND FROM VIEWING FRAME 374. THE PRESENCE OF A BLACK PATCH

ON THE 3RD GENERATION FILM SHOWS YET ANOTHER LINE OF CONFIRMATION. DO YOU THINK

THAT BLACK PATCH SITUATED AT JUST THAT LOCATION IN THIS FILM IS JUST A COINCIDENCE?

I'm skeptical, but intrigued, about the black patch. As far as the rest of these "lines of proof," they are actually in conflict with each other. The Dealey Plaza witnesses and the Parkland witnesses indisputably reported wounds in different locations, and the "white patch" on the X-Rays you claim represents the blow-out location is inches away from the so-called cashew shape you've identified in frame 374. I mean, did you even LOOK at my last post where I showed that the Parkland witnesses were not united that the wound was on the back of the head? Your repeating like a mantra that a bunch of evidence confirms each other, when it is in fact in opposition, is disturbing to say the least. Black ain't white because you say it's so.

Here is a comparison from BEST EVIDENCE (1980), which illustrates the gross differences between what

the Parkland physicians initially observed,

Lifton's drawing is inaccurate, IMO. He placed the wound lower on the head than the doctors remembered it to be consistent with his belief the Harper Fragment was occipital bone. It wasn't.

the Bethesda autopsy report, and the HSCA reconstruction. Do

you not understand that you not only have to discount all of the evidence that confirms the wound at the

back of his head, which Clint Hill vividly described,

Clint Hill's comments about the wound were vague and somewhat contradictory prior to his recent book tour, where he repeatedly demonstrated where he meant when he said the wound was on the back of the head. He meant on top of the head, above the ear. The objection that he was lying and only said this to appease single-assassin theorists is undercut, moreover, by the fact he also claimed, on this book tour, that the single-bullet theory is bunkum.

but that you also have to "explain away" the autopsy

report from Bethesda? Cerebellum extruding from your SIDE WOUND is anatomically impossible, yet that

has not deterred you.

My conclusion the doctors were mistaken about the cerebellum was not arrived at easily, and without months of introspection, if that's what you're implying.

So here is your next challenge: How in the world do you reconcile the HUGE WOUND

outlined in the official autopsy report? How are you going to reduce that to your modest side wound?

My "next challenge"? You're kidding, right? I've discussed the HUGE WOUND dozens if not hundreds of times on this forum, and at conferences. Dr. Humes claimed, from the get-go, that the calvarium crumpled in his hands as he peeled back the scalp. The HUGE WOUND he measured is obviously the large wound he saw afterward. This wound, as admitted in the autopsy report, extended into the occipital region. This was a wound so large he could just pull out the brain. The large size of this wound, furthermore, was confirmed by Custer, O'Connor, and Jenkins.

Doug

Horne, INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), explains how Thomas Evan Robinson and Floyd Riebe watched as Humes

took a cranial saw and increased its size dramatically, as the diagram shows. You have read it, haven't you?

Yikes! You don't even read my posts before responding. I've already discussed Horne's silly analysis of Robinson. Horne, whose book you apparently have never read with anything resembling a critical eye, embarrassingly concluded Robinson's description of an orange-sized hole in the back of Kennedy's head represented the appearance of the wound before the autopsy, while at the same time concluding Robinson's co-worker John Hoesen's description of an orange-sized hole in the middle of the back of the head represented the appearance of the wound after reconstruction. Yikes again!

Edited January 20, 2012 by Pat Speer

[David G. Healy]

A Simple Question

The Zapruder film has been a thorn in the government's side since it first led the Secret Service and the FBI to conclude in December 1963 that Connally was hit by a separate bullet. When it was shown on TV by Bob Groden in 1975 it provided the muscle of public opinion to get the case reopened.

Let's say you are some mysterious intelligence outfit that brought off the assassination and now has to cover up the fact that JFK was shot in the head from the right front. Isn't the simplest and most effective solution to seize the Zapruder film as soon as anyone knows what it in it? "I'm sorry, Mr. Zapruder," says Forrest Sorrels, "but the Secret Servide will have to take this film as evidence." Doesn't that about take care of the whole problem. Why go to the trouble of faking up parts of the film when the simplest solution is just to seize the damn thing? Then weeks or months later some "accident" can befall the film while it's in storage... a fire, a flood, a loss in transit.

But let's say that the myserious intelligence outfit decided to fake up parts of the film.

Why on earth would they leave the massive left backward snap in the film and just cover up some blood and brain at the back of Kennedy's head? The left backward snap is the most graphic evidence of a shot from the right front. It was seeing that that brought about the formation of HSAC. Why leave that in and only paint in a little patch at the back of JFK's head?

JT

Dr. Thompson, Zapruder film alteration (whatever the degree) debate is as with so many other things concerning this case (so-called) evidence-debate is merely a pointer towards possible CONSPIRACY. For clearheaded thinking individuals there's no need for any bad guy, "mysterious intelligence outfit..."

Let's just, simply say, keep those assassination debate(s) fire stooked! Focus on case nuance, avoid the big, number one question. Did in fact a conspiracy take the life of JFK?

Continued conspiracy debate is great for the turnstiles at the 6th floor mausoleum, a few select book publishers, and a whole lot of author-nutter-conspiracists... In my opinion, a lone nut dog & pony show! There's no mystery at all!

So here's a simple question for you: What would of happened in 1963-64 if, IF the Warren Commission, and I stress the word IF determined a conspiracy caused JFK's death? Now THAT is something to wonder about.

Edited January 19, 2012 by David G. Healy

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

So everyone is wrong except for Pat Speer! Generations of experts studying the case have missed what

ONLY YOU have properly understood--that there was a side wound gushing cerebrum and cerebellum!

The witnesses are wrong, the doctors are wrong, Mantik's studies are wrong, frame 374 is wrong--even

Clint Hill's consistent description of the wound is wrong! What is vague or ambiguous about his report?

Even in this, your most recent post, you grossly distorted what we know about Clint Hill's actions and observations that day, as I have reported them in "Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?"

Anyone who is serious about getting to the truth of these matters has to take to heart what Clint Hill has been telling us for nearly 50 years now. Get a grip on yourself, Pat. There is NOTHING "vague or ambiguous" here:

"As I approached the vehicle there was a third shot. It hit the President in the head, upper right rear of the right ear, caused a gaping hole in his head, which caused brain matter, blood, and bone fragments to spew forth out over the car, over myself. At that point Mrs. Kennedy came up out of the back seat onto the trunk of the car. She was trying to retrieve something that had gone off to the right rear. She did not know I was there. At that point I grabbed Mrs. Kennedy, put her in the back seat. The President fell over into her lap, to his left.

"His right side of his head was exposed. I could see his eyes were fixed. There was a hole in the upper right rear portion of his head about the size of my palm. Most of the gray matter in that area had been removed, and was scattered throughout the entire car, including on Mrs. Kennedy. I turned and gave the follow-up car crew the thumbs-down, indicating that we were in a very dire situation. The driver accelerated; he got up to the lead car which was driven by Chief Curry, the Dallas Chief of Police . . .”.

Not only does Clint's description of the wound contradict your characterization, but his account is consistent with what Bobby Hargis, Forrest Sorrels, and Chief Jesse Curry have told us about about Chaney, which refutes the film's authenticity.

Tink has repeatedly claimed this happened AFTER the limo had already passed the TUP and that we have simply not been thinking about the temporal relationship here. My three favorites are Bobby Hargis, Forrest Sorrels, and Chief Jesse Curry:

(1) Forrest Sorrels: "A motorcycle pulled up alongside of the car and Chief Curry yelled ‘Is anybody hurt?’, to which the officer replied in the affirmative, and Chief Curry immediately broadcast to surround the building. By that time we had gotten just about under the underpass when the President’s car pulled up alongside, . . ."

(2) Bobby Hargis: "I remembered seeing Officer Chaney. Chaney put his motor in first gear and accelerated up to the front to tell them to get everything out of the way, that he [the President] was coming through, and that is when the Presidential limousine shot off . . . .”

(3) Chief Jesse Curry: "at that time I looked in my rear view mirror and I saw some commotion in the President’s caravan and realized that probably something was wrong, and it seemed to be speeding up, and about this time a motorcycle officer, I believe it was Officer Chaney rode up beside us and I asked if something happened back there . . ."

You not only reject all of those sources I have cited above but you even discount Thomas Evan Robinson!

Each post illustrates a degree of detachment from reality normally not observed outside a clinical setting.

Apparently you are unaware that it was Robinson who informed the ARRB that this much larger defect had

been created by Humes using a cranial saw! So you quite literally have no idea what you are talking about!

No serious student of the assassination would go so far out of his way to try to prove every witness was not

speaking the truth. Among your other failings, you do not understand anything about the use of language.

I hate to say it, Pat, but you are the single most incompetent student of the assassination in the nearly

50 years since study commenced. I have never known anyone less rational and impervious to evidence!

My responses is bold.

Pat,

It's call "the consilence of inductions" when lines of proof from multiple directions lead to the same

conclusion. For you to be even doubting whether Beverly was there is proof that you are a chicken with

its head cut off.

FWIW, I'd like to believe she was there, and think it's quite possible she was. When one looks at her full story, however, it's awfully hard to accept. I mean, do you believe she saw Ruby hanging out with Oswald? I'd bet most researchers do not.

Not only was she there, but she has given vivid descriptions of what she saw that are

consistent with what everyone else who was there reported, which all hangs together when you factor in

their relative locations, perspectives, and the chaos of the event.

I have demonstrated, repeatedly, that NONE of the Dealey Plaza witnesses said anything about an explosion from the back of Kennedy's head in the days after the shooting. They, in fact, said the explosion derived from the side of his head. So your claim that Beverly's decades-after recollection of an explosion from the back of his head is "consistent with what everyone else who was there reported" is 100% false.

We have lines of proof which confirm

the back of the head wound FROM EYEWITNESSES IN DEALEY PLAZA, DOCTORS AT PARKLAND,

STUDIES OF THE X-RAYS, AND FROM VIEWING FRAME 374. THE PRESENCE OF A BLACK PATCH

ON THE 3RD GENERATION FILM SHOWS YET ANOTHER LINE OF CONFIRMATION. DO YOU THINK

THAT BLACK PATCH SITUATED AT JUST THAT LOCATION IN THIS FILM IS JUST A COINCIDENCE?

I'm skeptical, but intrigued, about the black patch. As far as the rest of these "lines of proof," they are actually in conflict with each other. The Dealey Plaza witnesses and the Parkland witnesses indisputably reported wounds in different locations, and the "white patch" on the X-Rays you claim represents the blow-out location is inches away from the so-called cashew shape you've identified in frame 374. I mean, did you even LOOK at my last post where I showed that the Parkland witnesses were not united that the wound was on the back of the head? Your repeating like a mantra that a bunch of evidence confirms each other, when it is in fact in opposition, is disturbing to say the least. Black ain't white because you say it's so.

Here is a comparison from BEST EVIDENCE (1980), which illustrates the gross differences between what

the Parkland physicians initially observed,

Lifton's drawing is inaccurate, IMO. He placed the wound lower on the head than the doctors remembered it to be consistent with his belief the Harper Fragment was occipital bone. It wasn't.

the Bethesda autopsy report, and the HSCA reconstruction. Do

you not understand that you not only have to discount all of the evidence that confirms the wound at the

back of his head, which Clint Hill vividly described,

Clint Hill's comments about the wound were vague and somewhat contradictory prior to his recent book tour, where he repeatedly demonstrated where he meant when he said the wound was on the back of the head. He meant on top of the head, above the ear. The objection that he was lying and only said this to appease single-assassin theorists is undercut, moreover, by the fact he also claimed, on this book tour, that the single-bullet theory is bunkum.

but that you also have to "explain away" the autopsy

report from Bethesda? Cerebellum extruding from your SIDE WOUND is anatomically impossible, yet that

has not deterred you.

My conclusion the doctors were mistaken about the cerebellum was not arrived at easily, and without months of introspection, if that's what you're implying.

So here is your next challenge: How in the world do you reconcile the HUGE WOUND

outlined in the official autopsy report? How are you going to reduce that to your modest side wound?

My "next challenge"? You're kidding, right? I've discussed the HUGE WOUND dozens if not hundreds of times on this forum, and at conferences. Dr. Humes claimed, from the get-go, that the calvarium crumpled in his hands as he peeled back the scalp. The HUGE WOUND he measured is obviously the large wound he saw afterward. This wound, as admitted in the autopsy report, extended into the occipital region. This was a wound so large he could just pull out the brain. The large size of this wound, furthermore, was confirmed by Custer, O'Connor, and Jenkins.

Doug

Horne, INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), explains how Thomas Evan Robinson and Floyd Riebe watched as Humes

took a cranial saw and increased its size dramatically, as the diagram shows. You have read it, haven't you?

Yikes! You don't even read my posts before responding. I've already discussed Horne's silly analysis of Robinson. Horne, whose book you apparently have never read with anything resembling a critical eye, embarrassingly concluded Robinson's description of an orange-sized hole in the back of Kennedy's head represented the appearance of the wound before the autopsy, while at the same time concluding Robinson's co-worker John Hoesen's description of an orange-sized hole in the middle of the back of the head represented the appearance of the wound after reconstruction. Yikes again!

Edited January 19, 2012 by James H. Fetzer