David Josephs Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 (edited) What I find most interesting is that any one of us is tasked with describing the picture of a 1000 piece puzzle yet when we open the box and dump all the pieces we find we only have 150 of them and nothing about the 150 suggests they came from the original box... And then we all stand around and describe the picture we see... Boggles the mind that 50 years hence serious and intelligent people cannot even agree on the extent of the wounds... while spending time arguing conspiracy or not with those who have not even bothered to open the box. Pat - I don't know what to base the conclusion that at least two bullets found their mark with JFK's head... when the evidence from DALLAS suggests only one, the evidence from Parkland suggests only ONE. There is little to nothing of evidentiary value in the WCR related to how JFK was killed. The Zfilm does not match the recollections of those there (the evenly spaced shots).. there is no explanation for the missed shots, or even the "1st" shot, while suggesting as strongly as possible the SBT is supportable.... You "photographic analogy" holds no water Pat... when you learn that the images from the traffic camera have no chain of evidence and holds none of its original identifying marks... how do you equate that film to that day's events? There is no 0183 on the Zfilm... none. Even Zavada can't get around that... there is nothing on the extent film which proves it's original... there's nothing on the xrays that proves they are original, infact they prove they are NOT originals but altered copies... and THIS is what intelligent people discuss to determine the picture? The NIX and MUCHMORE films prove he was shot from the front... which is why THEY are not the focus of media attention... only the ZFILM is... how convenient. That a trail of particles - tiny particle - is left in the head indicates that bullet could NOT have been FMJ and NOT fired from the rear. There is simply no way fragments migrate UPWARD against gravity and leave a trail from NO OPENING to and obvious one at the man's temple... these are the fragments HUMES/BOSEWELL could not remove prior to 8pm... but had so mutilated the skull from 6:45-7:45 that is would NEVER serve as authenitc evidence. So we are left with DALLAS descriptions and Bethesda Alteration... we have multiple "front - right" witnesses and evidence... It is possible that we misinterpret the arms up and "hands to throat" movement as THROAT related rather than having a bullet wedged in his upper back at the time... We have O'Connor telling us of the bullet found and removed from the right rear of the president. WE do NOT have reliable evidence about what happened related to the throat wound and it's path thru the body... a small exploding round COULD have done the lower right rear damage while the front right temple shot pops open more of the bones... yet that requires we believe the BETHESDA wounds are the same as the DALLAS ones... and that is simply not possible given the AUTOPSY description of the wounds AFTER 8pm. The fragmenting of the FRONTAL right temple shot could also have created the right rear blowout yet we do not find any particles leading DOWN to the right rear... this would be the main reason for switching the brain and being deceptive with the xrays... Pat - you still neglected to tell us which witnesses from DP that day stated they saw the FRONT of his head open as seen in the lateral forged xray... (You've read Ebersole's testimonies right? The man came back in the middle of the night to produce MORE xrays... IMO Ebersole is in the same position as HUMES and assists by creating completely fraudulent xrays... At the end of the day, does it really matter? the evidence highly suggests a shooter to the right front of JFK.. the results of the assassination, recorded for history, is part of the cover-up.... and as Redlich states: I should add that the facts which we now have in our possession, submitted to us in separate reports from the FBI and Secret Service, are totally incorrect and, if left uncorrected, will present a completely misleading picture. So why do you use this information in forming your arguments and conclusions rather than the independent studies and non-government recording of witness testimony? Edited January 2, 2014 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Davies Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 Andric, Read Mrs. Newman's sworn affidavit. I have quoted her correctly. Mr. Newman also says JFK stood up. Read it. Again, rather than dodge, explain why the evidence of theNewmans trumps that of experience doctors who had a closer, longer view of the damage. How many juries have you swayed with such logic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 (edited) Ken... Those who saw a different version of the Zfilm say that the shot(s) literally lifted him up out of the seat... Yet the Newman's afidavits relate to the shot to his back just before the stemmons sign... the JUMP UP you are describing is related to the arms flying up and his reaction... Those that saw the other ZFILM say it was the headshot that lifts him up and then over to the left... Mr Newman tells us it appeared the shot hit him just above the right ear... he appears to be in a very good position to tell. By posting the text we remove all doubt as to what she said... HE said JFK was standing, not her - at least not in the affidavit. The fact that they are arguing about ER staff not knowing where a wound is, is getting absurd. Dozens of people have to be wrong for the US GOVERNMENT to be right... without any proof. and grown people ARGUE about this! Amazing. Mrs: When President Kennedy's car was about ten feet from us. I heard a noise like a firecracker going off. President Kennedy kind of jumped like he was startled and covered his head with his hands and then raised up. After I heard the first shot, another shot sounded and Governor Connally kind of grabbed his chest and lay back on the seat of the car Mr: We were standing at the edge of the curb looking at the car as it was coming toward us and all of a sudden there was a noise, apparently gunshot [sic]. The President jumped up in his seat, and it looked like what I thought was a firecracker had went off and I thought he had realized it. It was just like an explosion and he was standing up. By this time he was directly in front of us and I was looking directly at him when he was hit in the side of the head. I thought the shot had come from the garden directly behind me Edited January 3, 2014 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crites Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 Are there really people who post in this forum who actually believe the Harper Fragment resulted from a shot by a lone gunman from the rear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 And there was a police photographer who photographed the crash scene...and created photos showing the crash to have occurred at...Elm and Maple. Except that the photos were not prepared according to proper police protocol, and as it turns out the photos cannot be tracked back to the police photo lab because the lady at the police photo lab who was supposed to have developed the photos says these photos are not the ones she developed....Such photos would not be accepted in court, Pat. I believe this is incorrect. Please cite one example of autopsy photos or crime scene photos being disallowed because ONE person involved in the chain of custody didn't recognize them decades later. We have Humes, Boswell, and Finck saying they had photos taken. We have Stringer saying he took photos. We have Humes, Boswell, and Finck saying the back of the head photos are the photos they had taken. We have Stringer saying--and never swaying--that the back of the head photos in the archives are photos he'd taken. It's a slam dunk. Now, the brain photos are more problematic, but odds are even they would be allowed into evidence--along with Stringer's latter-day statements he didn't recognize them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 Andric, Read Mrs. Newman's sworn affidavit. I have quoted her correctly. Mr. Newman also says JFK stood up. Read it. Again, rather than dodge, explain why the evidence of theNewmans trumps that of experience doctors who had a closer, longer view of the damage. How many juries have you swayed with such logic? They don't TRUMP anything, Ken. They support the Zapruder film, Moorman photo, autopsy photos, and X-rays, not to mention Mrs. Kennedy's words to White and Manchester. It is the CUMULATIVE evidence that suggests the Parkland witnesses were wrong, not any ONE piece of evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 Are there really people who post in this forum who actually believe the Harper Fragment resulted from a shot by a lone gunman from the rear? Possibly. But I'm not one of them, if that's what you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crites Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 Stringer disputing the brain photos but says the back of the head photos are genuine? That's a contradiction. Saundra Spencer's statements are most credible. The photos were altered. Frank Oneill disputed the photos because of the huge hole in the back of the head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andric Perez Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 The Zfilm does not match the recollections of those there (the evenly spaced shots).. there is no explanation for the missed shots, or even the "1st" shot, while suggesting as strongly as possible the SBT is supportable.... May I suggest that it is not the case that most witnesses have described the shots as being evenly spaced? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Davies Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 Pat, I have read your blog, and I admire your fine work, however, I cannot believe that the doctors at Parkland were so incompetent,or confused as be unable to correctly identify the size and location of the head wounds. I believe that their evidence on medical points does trump that of lay people who observed something from a greater distance. ( My own viewing of the Z film in regular, slow, freeze frame, etc,, many, many times, makes me think that a portion of JFK's head on the right side is sliced and falls sideways, but this makes no sense.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 Stringer disputing the brain photos but says the back of the head photos are genuine? That's a contradiction. Saundra Spencer's statements are most credible. The photos were altered. Frank Oneill disputed the photos because of the huge hole in the back of the head. Stringer's problem with the brain photos was a photographic problem--35 years after the fact, he didn't remember using that kind of film. He is not a back of the head witness, and never was. The accuracy of his ARRB recollections is called into doubt, moreover, by the fact he failed to remember even meeting with the HSCA. Horne tried to spin Stringer as a BOH witness. He failed, IMO. From chapter 18c at patspeer.com: Autopsy photographer John Stringer is yet another autopsy participant to wrongly be characterized as a "back of the head" witness. Stringer, along with Boswell, Ebersole, and Humes, signed the November 1, 1966 inventory of the autopsy photos and x-rays, in which these materials were claimed to be authentic. The final page of this inventory bearing their signatures claimed that it listed "all the x-rays and photographs taken by us during the autopsy." Although Stringer and the others have since indicated they weren't so sure about the word "all," they have never retreated from their claim the x-rays and photos they observed were ones they'd taken. It is almost certain, moreover, that these are the x-rays and photographs in the archives today. And yet, when testifying for the ARRB in 1996, Stringer failed to recognize the photos of Kennedy's brain as photos he'd taken at the supplementary examination of Kennedy's brain. He thought he would have done a better job identifying the photos themselves when taken; he thought he'd have used a different kind of film; and he didn't remember taking one of the views. Well, this, of course, is interesting. But conspiracy theorists of all stripes have taken from this that the photos were switched out to hide a hole on the back of the brain, a hole proving once and for all that the shot killing Kennedy came from the front and blew out the back of his head. Many assert that this makes Stringer--yep, you guessed it--a "back of the head" witness... And that's just nonsense. I mean, if the 78 year-old Stringer could tell by looking at the photos in 1996 that they were not taken by him, wouldn't he have been much better able to tell in 1966, just a few years after their taking, when he was but 48? Well, then why didn't he say so, or remember his thinking so? In 1977, moreover, the HSCA asked the then 59 year-old Stringer to go to the archives and look at the autopsy photos. The report on his doing so reflects that, while he was uncertain he'd taken the black and white photos of the brain, the brain itself gave the appearance of the brain he'd photographed, and that the brain, as Kennedy's brain, was not sectioned (cut into quarters). While some, including Doug Horne and writer Jim DiEugenio, are fond of pointing out that Stringer told the ARRB that autopsy photographers who objected to things, such as rushing through the autopsy, didn't "last long," this by no means suggests he would have readily gone along with someone switching out his photos, as they so ardently believe. Nor does it make much sense. By Horne's own admission, the 78 year-old Stringer's memory had by 1996 faded so badly that he couldn't even remember being contacted by the HSCA, let alone visiting the archives on their behalf. It follows then that the confusing aspects of his ARRB testimony may simply have been a reflection of his age, and the passing of time. It makes little sense, after all, to assume Stringer would readily admit what all too many now perceive as as an important truth--that he did not take the brain photographs--but then lie about the nature of Kennedy's head wounds in order to "get along." What, are we to believe Stringer was so stupid he didn't realize his disowning the brain photos was bound to raise some questions? And yes, you read that right. Those holding that Stringer was a bold and fearless truth-teller when discussing the brain photos inevitably hold he was a cowardly xxxx when discussing Kennedy's head wounds. Consider... When first contacted by Doug Horne on behalf the ARRB, and asked to describe the large head wound, Stringer told Horne "there was a fist-sized hole in the right side of his head above his ear...It was the size of your fist and it was entirely within the hair area. There was a sort of flap of skin there, and some of the underlying bone was gone." When under oath in his ARRB testimony, moreover, Stringer further confirmed that, no matter who took the brain photos, there was NO large blow-out wound on the back of Kennedy's head. When asked to describe Kennedy's head wounds, he at first described a small wound on the occipital bone near the EOP, "about the size of a bullet, from what you could see." He then described the large head wound: "Well, the side of the head, the bone was gone. But there was a flap, where you could lay it back. But the back - I mean, if you held it in, there was no vision. It was a complete head of hair. And on the front, there was nothing - the scalp. There was nothing in the eyes. You could have - Well, when they did the body, you wouldn't have known there was anything wrong." He was thereby describing the wound depicted in the autopsy photos and not the wound on the far back of the head proposed in books such as Horne's. Which only made sense... Stringer had, after all, signed an inventory in 1966 in which it was claimed the autopsy photos were those he'd taken, and had, upon studying these photos a second time in 1977, confirmed this by explaining to the HSCA's investigators what he was trying to portray as he took each shot. He had, moreover, told an interviewer from the Vero Beach Press-Journal in 1974 that the fatal bullet "had entered the right lower rear" of Kennedy's head and had come "out in the hair in the upper right side, taking with it a large chunk of his skull." While Mr. Stringer had also intimated (in a 1972 phone call with David Lifton) that the "main damage" was on the "back part" of Kennedy's skull, it's not entirely clear that Stringer was describing the damage to the skull apparent before the reflection of the scalp, or after. It's fortunate then that Stringer got a chance to clarify this issue in his ARRB testimony. He explained that when he first saw the skull, the scalp at the back of the head "was all intact. But then they peeled it back, and then you could see this part of the bone gone." Now, should one believe I'm cherry-picking here, and wrongly accepting Stringer's latter-day recollections over his much earlier statements to Lifton, one should go back and read the transcript of Stringer's conversation with Lifton, as released by the ARRB. It's confusing to say the least. After Stringer told Lifton the wound was on the "back part" of the skull, Lifton sought further clarification. He asked "In other words, there was no five-inch hole in the top of his head?" To which Stringer replied "Oh, it was...ahh some of it was blown off--yeah. I mean, ahh...towards out of the top, in the back, yeah." Apparently unsatisfied with that answer, Lifton later returned to this question, and re-framed it in one of the most confusing series of questions I've ever read. He asked "If you lie back in a bath tub, just in a totally prone position and your head rests against the bath tub, is that the part of the head, you know, is that the part of the head that was damaged?" To which Stringer replied "Yeah." (Now, I'm already lost. If you're laying back in a bath tub, you're not really prone, are you? Does Stringer's response then indicate that the top of the head was damaged? Or the back of the head?) Lifton then sought further clarification--with an equally confusing question. He asked "the part that would be against the tile of the bathtub?" To which Stringer replied "Mm-hmmm." (I'm still lost. Isn't the "tile of the bathtub" normally the tile on the back wall of a bathtub? And, if so, doesn't Stringer's response suggest the top of the head was damaged, and not the back?) Lifton then tried again: "Whereas the part that would be straight up ahead, vertically in that position--was undamaged?" To which Stringer replied "Oh, I wouldn't say--undamaged--no. There was---some of it was gone--I mean--out of some of the bone." (Now, I'm not exactly sure what this means. But it seems clear, nevertheless, that Stringer thought he'd observed a hole on the top of Kennedy's head, where so many assume no hole was found. And that's not all that seems clear. In his book Best Evidence, Lifton re-writes this last question, and changes the context of Stringer's reply. He claims he asked Stringer "about the part of the head which in that position would be straight up and down, the vertical part, the 'top.' Was that undamaged?" His actual words, of course, were not so clear. According to his transcript, he not only failed to specify that he was talking about the top of the head, but said "straight up ahead" instead of "straight up and down." And that's confusing as heck. There is reason to believe then, that Stringer was confused by Lifton's questions, and just played along to get him off his back, not realizing his answers would be quoted in a best-selling book 8 years later, and cited as evidence for a massive conspiracy.) And should one still have doubts Stringer failed to see a large hole on the back of Kennedy's head where conspiracy theorists believe it to have been, Stringer explained under further questioning by the ARRB that the occipital bone was "intact" but fractured, and that he could not recall any of it missing upon reflection of the scalp. So, yes, it's clear. Those believing Stringer to be honest and credible when telling the ARRB he didn't take the brain photos, and then using this to suggest there was a blow-out wound to the back of Kennedy's head, are behaving like the Warren Commission in reverse: taking snippets of someone's testimony, propping these snippets up as proof of something, and then finding ways to hide or ignore that the bulk of the witness' statements suggest something other than what they are trying to prove. Now, this is fairly common behavior, on all sides of the discussion. But what is unusual in this circumstance is the strength with which those pushing this view hold onto two mutually exclusive ideas: 1) Stringer is a brave truth teller, and PROOF the brain photos are not of Kennedy's brain, and 2) Stringer is a gutless xxxx, out to protect the status quo by pretending there was no hole on the back of Kennedy's head. I trust I'm not alone in finding this a problem. As far as Doug Horne, not only does he push in his book that Stringer lied about Kennedy's head wounds to the ARRB, he asserts that Stringer first publicly reversed himself from the descriptions he'd provided Lifton (in the 1972 phone call) in 1993. This avoids that in the 1993 article cited by Horne, Stringer's 1974 comments, in which he'd accurately described the wounds depicted in the autopsy photos, were discussed, as well as the fact that a TV crew inspired by Lifton's book interviewed Stringer in 1988, only to shelve the footage when Stringer told them the autopsy photos were accurate depictions of Kennedy's wounds. This, then, raises as many questions about Horne's integrity as Stringer's. That Stringer was describing the wounds shown in the autopsy photos as early as 1974, after all, cuts into Horne's position that Stringer reversed himself on the nature of these wounds as a response to Lifton's book, published seven years later, in 1981. Of course, Stringer's not the only witness to be abused in such a manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 The HSCA, in the 1970's, conducted interviews with all of the autopsy witnesses at Bethesda, yet never released the contents of the interviews. Rather, the HSCA chose to lie to the public by saying all of those interviewed felt the autopsy photos gave an accurate portrayal of JFK's head wounds. It was not until the ARRB released the contents of these interviews that it was discovered the witnesses did not think the photos accurate at all. And now you are quoting the HSCA to us when speaking about JFK's head wounds, Pat. Haven't you heard the news? The HSCA was exposed as frauds. You're flogging a dead horse here, Pat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 (edited) And there was a police photographer who photographed the crash scene...and created photos showing the crash to have occurred at...Elm and Maple. Except that the photos were not prepared according to proper police protocol, and as it turns out the photos cannot be tracked back to the police photo lab because the lady at the police photo lab who was supposed to have developed the photos says these photos are not the ones she developed....Such photos would not be accepted in court, Pat. I believe this is incorrect. The HSCA concluded they were prima facie inadmissible -- the burden of proof on the prosecution attempting to enter such. Please cite one example of autopsy photos or crime scene photos being disallowed because ONE person involved in the chain of custody didn't recognize them decades later. You can't establish the Fox 5 photo as a JFK autopsy photo. You don't know who took it, you don't know who developed it, and there's nothing in the photo to indicate that the subject was JFK. Proper autopsy protocol was not followed, there's no chain of possession, and Fox 5 itself was singled out as particularly deficient. And you tout this crap as determinative , Pat? Edited January 3, 2014 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andric Perez Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 This is the drawing made by McClelland of the large wound in 1988, in "The Men Who Killed Kennedy." The image as shown in Speer's website is so bright that no details can be made out, at least in my computer; so I increased the contrast. Please discuss what you see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 The Zfilm does not match the recollections of those there (the evenly spaced shots).. there is no explanation for the missed shots, or even the "1st" shot, while suggesting as strongly as possible the SBT is supportable.... May I suggest that it is not the case that most witnesses have described the shots as being evenly spaced? Sorry Andric if I didn't state that clearly... on the ZFILM we have three fairly evenly spaced shots... about 160, about 225 and 313... when most everyone tells of the 2nd and 3rd shots being virtually on top of each other... and that JFK and JC are hit with two different shots between z200 and z235. I realize it is not the popular yet I am going with the theory that ZFILM was at least partially filmed at 48fps if not entirely so that an alteration could be done quickly and easily to remove whatever may be objectionable... The painted frames between 313 and beyond are just that... they hide a frontal entry and rear blow-out... among other things. Muchmore/Nix are missing frames as well - where debris would have been ejected out the back of the head... With regards to that drawing... you are sure it was done BY McClelland and not just reviewed by him? It seems to me, even with the way they've tilted his head back in the color version, that all three fit pretty well. and that the wound is about level with the ears as well as above and below.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now