The Law of Unintended Consequences

[Cliff Varnell]

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?

We'd be sipping cuba libres at the Havana Hilton?

Edited January 19, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[John Costella]

[Edited to remove sunglasses smiley instead of ( B ). I'll learn eventually.]

[second edit: Of course, you also add in an imperceptible (in real time) forward head motion of some inches from 312 to 313, which completely trumps the backwards motion after 313. Good physics party trick.]

Tink,

A good question that I'm often asked, by young school students and seasoned TV reporters alike.

Following your "what if", let's (for the sake of argument) assume that the Z film was fabricated.

LIFE published some images from "an 8mm film of the assassination" in muddy black and white within days of the assassination. This locks in (a) the fact that there was at least one muddy, possibly black and white, 8 mm film taken, and ( B ) some "key frames".

Why (in this scenario) was that allowed? That's a sub-question. Let's assume that either (i) it was known that there was a film taken (be it Honest Abe or anyone else) or (ii) it was deemed desirable that a film of the assassination exist.

What happens now (or without (ii)) if there is no film of the assassination (never existed, or lost, destroyed, blurry, etc.)? Then all the other evidence becomes the main focal point. If you can't see with your own eye what happened, then you actually have to listen to the eyewitnesses and build up your own mind's eye view of it.

That's far more dangerous.

By controlling the relatively clear, comprehensive motion picture film of the assassination, you control what people believe happened. (Even today, members of this forum state events from the assassination as if they were fact, simply because they've seen them on the film -- even when it disagrees with eyewitnesses; the film is assumed to "trump" the eyewitnesses, because it's physical, objective truth. It is -- if it can be proven to be genuine.)

Why the backward head snap? Because those LIFE images contained images showing the President forward with an intact head, and then back against the seat with a shot head. You eliminate the limo slow / stop, and you have to get from A to B within half a second or so. There's no way of doing it without having either (A) the head snap or ( B ) blowing out the "six seconds" timeline and reintroducing the significant slowing / stopping of the limo.

What happens next? The film is a mess. The Tague bullet necessitates the Specter fairy tale. All evidence of shots -- except the 313 paint job -- is removed from the film. All blood and gore (again, except 313) is removed.

And so it's locked up for 12 years. Apart from renegade authors taking photos of copies of it at LIFE and others bootlegging 58th generation copies snaffled from the subpoenaed film, it's not until Groden is allowed to add a clear copy to his growing assassination collection that it really starts to get out.

And what do we get from what is there? 45 years of debate about what the film we do have even shows. Ridiculous arguments about cheeks allegedly puffing out and lapels flapping as substitutes for actual evidence of shots.

(I won't speculate about the patch on the back of the head until I see some of these materials myself.)

John

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

Edited January 19, 2012 by John Costella

[Greg Burnham]

Great post, John.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

A Simple Question

et'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

AGREED, Josiah.

THE head-snap was crucial to David Lifton'S theory

which is why I simply do not understand

why David claims the Z-film is fake.

[i think Pat Speer has valuable insights here,

although PAT 7 I DISAGREE about the source of the head shot.

I think Pat is right that there was no blowout

in the back of the head.

But I disagree with Pat.

The knoll shot was an EXPLODING bullet

from the knoll

which did not exit.

My two cents.

Edited January 19, 2012 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Greg Burnham]

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. [emphasis added]

Pat,

In all due respect, did you really say that you wouldn't be able to determine for sure "what a blacked out segment of the film proved..." ??? At the very least, I would think that you could say that the existence of such a PATCH would definitively prove that: THE FILM HAS BEEN ALTERED! -- right?

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.

There is no "upcoming viewing" for anyone to attend, Pat. This is a work in progress. However, a whole lot has already been accomplished. If you would like to accompany me to DELUXE to see this evidence for yourself, just send me an email: JFKresearch@cox.net

Sydney has indicated that anyone I invite to accompany me will be welcome.

[Greg Burnham]

AGREED, Josiah.

THE head-snap was crucial to David Lifton'S theory

which is why I simply do not understand

why David claims the Z-film is fake.

Raymond,

There have obviously been many points of contention between me and DAVID LIFTON. However, I think this is evidence of David's integrity. Even though he has relied on the Zapruder film to make his case, he has also been intellectually honest enough to admit the existence of problems within his "photographic best evidence" --the contradiction be damned. I think this speaks well of David.

[i think Pat Speer has valuable insights here,

although PAT 7 I DISAGREE about the source of the head shot.

I think Pat is right that there was no blowout

in the back of the head.

If there was no blowout to the back of the head, then where do you think the frontal shot exited? I am surprised, Ray. You are one who constantly berates anyone who even examines evidence that in any way fails to exonerate OSWALD. The existence of a rear blowout to the head OBVIOUSLY could not have been created as the result of a shot originating from the (rear) alleged position of OSWALD.

But I disagree with Pat.

The knoll shot was an EXPLODING bullet

from the knoll

which did not exit.

My two cents.

So, you agree with Pat Speer: ALL OF THE WITNESSES WHO REPORTED A REAR BLOWOUT WERE MISTAKEN?

wow--

[J. Raymond Carroll]

the contradiction be damned. I think this speaks well of David.

GREG I have no desire to speak ill of David.

I hold David in enormous esteem.

I JUST THINK HE IS WRONG

about Zfilm fakery

If there was no blowout to the back of the head,

then where do you think the frontal shot exited?

Tentatively I would say the frontal shot

was fired from the position of 'Hatman.'

Since it was an exploding bullet

[as can be clearly seen in the Z-film]

it did not exit.

I am surprised, Ray. You head OBVIOUSLY could not have been created as the result of a shot originating from the (rear) alleged position of OSWALD.

I am not convinced there were any shots from the TSBD.

So, you agree with Pat Speer: ALL OF THE WITNESSES WHO REPORTED A REAR BLOWOUT WERE MISTAKEN?

Yes, I think Pat is on the money on this one.

But Pat thinks the fatal shot came from behind

while I think the fatal shot came

from the right front.

Edited January 20, 2012 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Greg Burnham]

Ray,

Neither you nor Pat nor I are qualified to make those judgments. None of us are forensic specialists. He thinks from the rear, you think from the front. blah, blah, blah...

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Ray,

Neither you nor Pat nor I are qualified to make those judgments. None of us are forensic specialists. He thinks from the rear, you think from the front. blah, blah, blah...

DO NOT BLOCK THE PATH OF INQUIRY.

Charles Sanders Peirce.

[Greg Burnham]

Ray,

Neither you nor Pat nor I are qualified to make those judgments. None of us are forensic specialists. He thinks from the rear, you think from the front. blah, blah, blah...

DO NOT BLOCK THE PATH OF INQUIRY.

Charles Sanders Peirce.

Ok, Ray. Sorry to leave you out. Would you like to accompany me to DELUXE, as well? Send me an email, I'll see what I can do.

Edited January 20, 2012 by Greg Burnham

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Ok, Ray. Sorry to leave you out. Would you like to accompany me to DELUXE, as well? Send me an email, I'll see what I can do.

Greg. I DON'T READ EVERYTHING

on the forum

so I don't understand the reference

to DE LUXE

[Greg Burnham]

Ok, Ray. Sorry to leave you out. Would you like to accompany me to DELUXE, as well? Send me an email, I'll see what I can do.

Greg. I DON'T READ EVERYTHING

on the forum

so I don't understand the reference

to DE LUXE

No problem, Ray. It was obvious. I was being rather kind. You might want to go back to the beginning of the thread before you comment further.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I was being rather kind.

That's a big change for you, Greg.

You might want to go back to the beginning of the thread before you comment further.

Simply don't have time, old chap,

so what's your point

[Greg Burnham]

Greg Burnham, on 19 January 2012 - 08:13 PM, said:

I was being rather kind.

Ray said: That's a big change for you, Greg.

monk said: You might want to go back to the beginning of the thread before you comment further.

Ray said: Simply don't have time, old chap, so what's your point?

monk sez:

You might not want to engage in discussions without having first read the context in which the discussions have taken place.

Edited January 20, 2012 by Greg Burnham

[David Lifton]

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!

Pat,

I only have time to respond to two points. With regard to what Dr. Humes testified to, re the size of the head wound, you write:

(a) Dr. Humes claimed, from the get-go, that the calvarium crumpled in his hands as he peeled back the scalp.

(b ) 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.\\

I have serious problems with both of these statements of yours.

Re (a):

The intransitive verb crumple is defined as: "to become or make something full of irregular creases and wrinkles." Merriam Webster defines it as "to press, bend, or crush out of shape."

Now compare what you wrote with what Humes testified to, before the Warren Commission:

"“We had to do virtually no work with a saw to remove these portions of the skull, they came apart in our hands very easily . . . as we moved the scalp about, fragments of various sizes would fall to the table.” (WC volume 2, p. 354)

Your description is entirely incorrect, because it fails to note the fact that, by the time Humes received the body, a major portion of the skull cap was in numerous separate pieces. As Humes noted in his testimony (and Liebeler repeated this in his memorandum that went to the Earl Warren et al, Robert Kennedy, and the White House), the fractures "taxed satisfactory verbal description."

I don't suppose you misrepresented this situation deliberately--not at all--but what your choice of language (which is seriously inadequate) suggests is that you do not have a proper conception of the condition of President Kennedy's skull at the time the body was first examined by Commander Humes. It wasn't "crumpled"--it was smashed into many separate pieces, and held together--as the Sibert and O'Neill FBI report described-- by a second "additional wrapping which was saturated with blood." (CD 7, p. 288 et seq) In short the top of President Kennedy's head was, in effect, held together by a tightly wrapped blood-soaked wrapping,and when that wrapping was removed, and the scalp moved about, "fragments of various sizes would fall to the table."

What I have just quoted is entirely different from your description, which avoids numerous issues (i.e., just how did the body get this way?) by using the word "crumpled" instead of the words used by FBI Agents Sibert and O'Neill, and by Humes himself.

Re (b ):

Surely you do understand that just because a wound was "so large" does not in any way mean that, as a consequence "he could just pull out the brain."

Surely you realize that there are a host of anatomic structures that have to be cut or somehow severed to remove the brain--e.g., the spinal cord (but other structures as well). Surely you do realize that the brain cannot be removed from the skull as if one were removing a volleyball from one's gym bag. (So, if the hole is "large" enough, why the brain just "falls out" (!). Not at all. The various structures that have to be cut are described and listed, numerically, in Chapter 18 of Best Evidence ("The Pre-Autopsy Autopsy") . The point being that just because the skull wound was large does NOT explain--I repeat, does NOT explain--why Humes or Finck would state that the brain was removed "without recourse to surgery." So your reconstruction of what you apparently believe happened (if that's how you think the brain was removed that night at the autopsy) is medically inaccurate, and in fact rather fanciful. Also (and this gets back to my own interpretation of the data), you have not accounted for the "crushed vomer" (per Boswell's diagram) or the manner in which the falx was "loose" from the coronal suture, on back, or the contre coup injury on the base of the brain, or the stellate fracture pattern--of all which, as I argue in Chapter 18, indicates that the skull was struck (post-mortem) by a blow from above; after the scalp was parted in a quadrilateral manner, which accounts for the four scalp tears, which Humes laid out in "a" "b" "c" "d" fashion, indicating that the scalp was "flapped" prior to the time he received the body.

(And, just to avoid any misunderstanding: No, I do not think Humes did the pre-autopsy surgery. This gruesome "alteration" was not done in the autopsy room. I think Humes received the body exactly as he reported it. I do not believe he created that damage. I do believe, however, that he (and/or Boswell) were knowledgeable about, and very likely complicit in, the reconstruction that preceded the post-midnight autopsy photography, but that is another issue entirely).

Re the cerebellum:

One other matter: you write: "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." Your conclusion may have been arrived at after "months of introspection" but it is still wrong, and is in complete contradiction to the historical record; i.e., the medical reports and sworn testimony of those who were there, and who were perfectly competent to identify the cerebellum, and who were perfectly competent to distinguish between cerebral and cerebellar tissue. (FYI: This is all laid out, in detail, in Chapter 13 of Best Evidence, in the subsection: "What was Visible Through the Skull?" starting on page 321 of the Macmillan hardcover, or the Carroll and Graf edition). You refuse to believe what the doctors say--so you have indulged yourself in an exercise of positing a hypothesis as to why they are all wrong; in effect, why all the primary data is wrong. So we should ignore what they report, based on what they observed with their own eyes, and instead substitute your revisionist interpretation, based on your theory about why they were wrong. To repeat: all you have done--or attempted to do (imho)--is erect an "error theory" to explain away the evidence. What you have done--or, should I say (once again) attempted to do-would never fly in a court of law, and would receive low marks in any legal course. Someone can't walk into the Hayden Planetarium and assert that the moon isn't where the telescope shows it to be, and give everyone a lecture on why the optics are faulty. To my mind, that's the kind of exercise in which you are engaged. Its the willful and unjustified substitution of your interpretations, backed by pretty graphics, for facts that are carved in stone, and based on anatomic terminology that goes back a thousand years, and which all medical students learn at the start of their medical education.

DSL

1/20/12; 12:20 AM PST

Los Angeles, California

Edited January 21, 2012 by David Lifton