Don Jeffries Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 The bickering continues, but the larger picture is being ignored here. Why would anyone trust in the validity of the photos and x-rays that came out of this autopsy? That's the central question, isn't it? Why is it more outrageous to believe the photos and x-rays aren't legitimate, in light of the improper, irregular nature of everything that went on at Bethesda that night? And when we factor in the expert medical testimony that directly contradicts them, and all the other missing, altered and destroyed evidence in this case, imho it's far more logical to think they're fakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 David Joseph said it is obvious from the ZFilm that a shot was fired from the right front... which has been "explained" as jet-effect or muscle spasms, etc... since a good number of the frames surrounding 313 were removed to hide the ejecta from the back of the head... what was left was covered via plate painting... How is McC thrown under the bus by not agreeing with alteration here Andric? or Mr Ward for that matter.... there are too many problems with the zfilm in a number of areas for it NOT to be altered... including its current condition at the archives... there is nothing on that film that proves it as an original, THE original 0183... nothing. the film FROM its original form has been heavily altered... whether it was refilmed and replaced.. I believe so and very, very early that weekend... So the conflict is ??? You said the film was made at the speed you specified "so that an alteration could be done quickly and easily to remove whatever may be objectionable," yet at the same time you believe that the film clearly shows a shooter from the right front. But isn't a shooter from the right from one of the most--if not the most--, "objectionable" things imaginable to the alleged film fakers? How could the alteration have been done "easily" if the presence of a shooter from this position was "obvious" (in your opinion) at the end? Another question. Why did McClelland --with all his alleged expertise on gunshot wounds-- have to wait for the Zapruder film to conclude that more than one shooter was involved, if the drawing commissioned Josiah Thompson's drawing of McClelland's wound description is correct? I mean, doesn't the drawing show a huge wound at the back of the head? And if we couple the drawing with the alleged small wound McClelland saw in the left temple (and if we assume he meant "right temple,") shouldn't that information alone be an obvious indication to him that at least 2 shooters were involved? Or did McClelland think (prior to watching the film) that the small entrance was an exit and the huge wound was an entry? At this point all I have is, REALLY? You can still post comments like that about the Zfilm... "since it was altered there MUST NOT be any evidence of a frontal shot"... do you even hear yourself? "the most objectionable thing" they did the best they could in the time allowed to do it... movement was removed, plates painted over... what we have left was hidden for 12 years BECAUSE they did such a bad job and knew it would spark controversy... but then, it was too late. I'd suggest going to any of the MANY threads on a variety of forums where I've had this conversation. Even HORNE talks about how 48fps during certain sequences would have aided... and how it was just a flip of the switch away... the end result copied and recopied would take years before it was found... when was the "original" finally analyzed Andric? and found to be totally and completely lacking of identification related to an "original"... --- I said that if filmed at 48fps during these scenes, altering the film would be MUCH easier than if taken at the camera's setting of 16. The frames removed add to the "back and left" movement by making it appear twice as fast as it was.... Holland, the footprints, bumper, cigarettes butts, Bowers, the other GK witnesses... are you at this point still claiming no frontal shot? And with regards to your other incredibly naive questions Andric... why would a Dr at Parkland who had seen what REALLY happened be scared to open his mouth? His report said it all and he was told to go away, he was wrong. First there is the context of the times... they were TOLD that they were WRONG, and here's the autopsy... no Zfilm for 12 years... stone walls, silence and death meet those who think 2 shooters out loud... Everything shown to these people contradicted what they saw... If there is a large hole in the right rear and you look inside, would you not be looking at the right cerebral hemisphere, if it was there? If the occipital is gone it would be easy to determine if the right or left brain was injured or MISSING... no? I'm finding what appears to be pseudo-amazement at this conversation and your comments as indicative of someone who has not looked into the situation at all... nor consider the context of the times. The US Government, military, informs you how wrong you were about your initial assessment,how it REALLY happened or at least how the story would go...in 1963. What do you expect these people to do if they KNEW it didn't go down like that... but are told otherwise with the power and force of the FBI and US military... You that brave Andric? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crites Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 I'd like to ask for clarification from anyone here who read Dr. Crenshaw's books, "Conspiracy of Silence," (1992) and "Trauma Room 1," (2001) which was a re-print of the former . The McAdams website states that in the first book, Conspiracy of Silence, Crenshaw says about JFK's head wound: "Pg 86: "His entire right cerebral hemisphere appeared to be gone. It looked like a crater, an empty cavity." But I browsed through Trauma Room 1 and could not find the quote above. Instead, I found a very similar one: "Pg 67: The right occipital parietal portion of his brain appeared to be gone. It looked like a crater--an empty cavity." Link The two possibilities are: 1) McAdams is misquoting the first book, or 2) Crenshaw downplayed the non-occipital portion of the wound for his convenience the second time around. "Right occipital parietal portion" can be spun to be mostly occipital, and only a bit parietal; however, "entire right cerebral hemisphere" is a different story. Is it 1 or 2? Andric, I have Conspiracy Of Silence by Crenshaw, Hansen and Shaw, and on page 78&79: Then I noticed that the entire right hemisphere of his brain was missing, beginning at his hairline and extending all the way behind his right ear, and; part of his brain, the cerebellum, was dangling from the back of his head by a single strand of tissue, and; blood was still seeping from the wound onto the gurney, dripping into the kick bucket on the floor. He also definitely clarifies the wound in the (front of the) neck was an entrance wound Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crites Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 ALSO: in Conspiracy Of Silence: Dr Crenshaw also also remarks on the back of the head autopsy photo (I posted earlier ): "This is incorrect (referring to the photo) this area contained a large exit wound". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 (edited) http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t615-parkland-trauma-room-one-reunion I have no doubt that certain people will tell us the memories of these old doctors are completely shot. Funny how these people find the memories of some octogenarians reliable and others not. P.S. I am still unable to copy/paste or quote other members. Odd that this is the only site on the Net that I have this problem. The link above was laboriously typed out by hand. Edited January 6, 2014 by Robert Prudhomme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andric Perez Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 I'd like to ask for clarification from anyone here who read Dr. Crenshaw's books, "Conspiracy of Silence," (1992) and "Trauma Room 1," (2001) which was a re-print of the former . The McAdams website states that in the first book, Conspiracy of Silence, Crenshaw says about JFK's head wound: "Pg 86: "His entire right cerebral hemisphere appeared to be gone. It looked like a crater, an empty cavity." But I browsed through Trauma Room 1 and could not find the quote above. Instead, I found a very similar one: "Pg 67: The right occipital parietal portion of his brain appeared to be gone. It looked like a crater--an empty cavity." Link The two possibilities are: 1) McAdams is misquoting the first book, or 2) Crenshaw downplayed the non-occipital portion of the wound for his convenience the second time around. "Right occipital parietal portion" can be spun to be mostly occipital, and only a bit parietal; however, "entire right cerebral hemisphere" is a different story. Is it 1 or 2? Andric, I have Conspiracy Of Silence by Crenshaw, Hansen and Shaw, and on page 78&79: Then I noticed that the entire right hemisphere of his brain was missing, beginning at his hairline and extending all the way behind his right ear, and; part of his brain, the cerebellum, was dangling from the back of his head by a single strand of tissue, and; blood was still seeping from the wound onto the gurney, dripping into the kick bucket on the floor. He also definitely clarifies the wound in the (front of the) neck was an entrance wound Thank you very much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crites Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 I got problems pasting in the forum Robert, especially if I want to paste something that non-members can also see. I think it is me more than the site, but AI will email for help so send me a message if you want Robert with any questions you may have. Dr Crenshaw was in his late 50's when he wrote Conspiracy Of Silence, so he was not very old when recollecting what transpired at parkland Hospital that day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 The bickering continues, but the larger picture is being ignored here. Why would anyone trust in the validity of the photos and x-rays that came out of this autopsy? That's the central question, isn't it? Why is it more outrageous to believe the photos and x-rays aren't legitimate, in light of the improper, irregular nature of everything that went on at Bethesda that night? And when we factor in the expert medical testimony that directly contradicts them, and all the other missing, altered and destroyed evidence in this case, imho it's far more logical to think they're fakes. No, it's not, Don. The central question has been for some time that the Z-film, photos and x-rays PROVE Kennedy was killed by more than one shooter, so why waste years, even decades, trying to convince people they are fake? Oh, that's right. A couple of people wrote a couple of books suggesting they were fake, and they won't admit they could have been wrong. So why hold the whole "community" hostage? To such an extent that people like myself and Andric get accused of being paid for stating what should be obvious to anyone not married to decades-old and otherwise unsupported theories regarding photo alteration--that the reliability of the Parkland witnesses is open to question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 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. Spencer's recollections of the photos fail to match the recollections of anyone in attendance at the autopsy. Horne assumed she saw photos of Kennedy taken at the end of the autopsy. The more realistic explanation is that she was trying to recall photos she'd developed over 30 years earlier. P.S. Frank O'Neil was not a CT. He thought Oswald acted alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 (edited) David Joseph said it is obvious from the ZFilm that a shot was fired from the right front... which has been "explained" as jet-effect or muscle spasms, etc... since a good number of the frames surrounding 313 were removed to hide the ejecta from the back of the head... what was left was covered via plate painting... How is McC thrown under the bus by not agreeing with alteration here Andric? or Mr Ward for that matter.... there are too many problems with the zfilm in a number of areas for it NOT to be altered... including its current condition at the archives... there is nothing on that film that proves it as an original, THE original 0183... nothing. the film FROM its original form has been heavily altered... whether it was refilmed and replaced.. I believe so and very, very early that weekend... So the conflict is ??? You said the film was made at the speed you specified "so that an alteration could be done quickly and easily to remove whatever may be objectionable," yet at the same time you believe that the film clearly shows a shooter from the right front. But isn't a shooter from the right from one of the most--if not the most--, "objectionable" things imaginable to the alleged film fakers? How could the alteration have been done "easily" if the presence of a shooter from this position was "obvious" (in your opinion) at the end? Another question. Why did McClelland --with all his alleged expertise on gunshot wounds-- have to wait for the Zapruder film to conclude that more than one shooter was involved, if the drawing commissioned Josiah Thompson's drawing of McClelland's wound description is correct? I mean, doesn't the drawing show a huge wound at the back of the head? And if we couple the drawing with the alleged small wound McClelland saw in the left temple (and if we assume he meant "right temple,") shouldn't that information alone be an obvious indication to him that at least 2 shooters were involved? Or did McClelland think (prior to watching the film) that the small entrance was an exit and the huge wound was an entry? At this point all I have is, REALLY? You can still post comments like that about the Zfilm... "since it was altered there MUST NOT be any evidence of a frontal shot"... do you even hear yourself? "the most objectionable thing" they did the best they could in the time allowed to do it... movement was removed, plates painted over... what we have left was hidden for 12 years BECAUSE they did such a bad job and knew it would spark controversy... but then, it was too late. I'd suggest going to any of the MANY threads on a variety of forums where I've had this conversation. Even HORNE talks about how 48fps during certain sequences would have aided... and how it was just a flip of the switch away... the end result copied and recopied would take years before it was found... when was the "original" finally analyzed Andric? and found to be totally and completely lacking of identification related to an "original"... --- I said that if filmed at 48fps during these scenes, altering the film would be MUCH easier than if taken at the camera's setting of 16. The frames removed add to the "back and left" movement by making it appear twice as fast as it was.... Holland, the footprints, bumper, cigarettes butts, Bowers, the other GK witnesses... are you at this point still claiming no frontal shot? And with regards to your other incredibly naive questions Andric... why would a Dr at Parkland who had seen what REALLY happened be scared to open his mouth? His report said it all and he was told to go away, he was wrong. First there is the context of the times... they were TOLD that they were WRONG, and here's the autopsy... no Zfilm for 12 years... stone walls, silence and death meet those who think 2 shooters out loud... Everything shown to these people contradicted what they saw... If there is a large hole in the right rear and you look inside, would you not be looking at the right cerebral hemisphere, if it was there? If the occipital is gone it would be easy to determine if the right or left brain was injured or MISSING... no? I'm finding what appears to be pseudo-amazement at this conversation and your comments as indicative of someone who has not looked into the situation at all... nor consider the context of the times. The US Government, military, informs you how wrong you were about your initial assessment,how it REALLY happened or at least how the story would go...in 1963. What do you expect these people to do if they KNEW it didn't go down like that... but are told otherwise with the power and force of the FBI and US military... You that brave Andric? McClelland's initial report said Kennedy was killed by a wound of the left temple. WHO scared him into saying that? The proliferation of "back of the head" and cerebellum sightings was much greater in the March 64 testimony of the Parkland witnesses--when the presumed cover-up was at its height--than in the initial reports of the doctors. So much for their cowering in fear. When one studies the medical evidence in detail rather than swallowing what's been dredged up by others, one finds that there was a cover-up of the back wound location almost from the beginning of the WC's investigation, but that no cover-up involving the head wound location was enacted...other than the depiction of Kennedy leaning too far forward in the Rydberg drawings...so they could claim the shots came from above. Edited January 6, 2014 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 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. Spencer's recollections of the photos fail to match the recollections of anyone in attendance at the autopsy. Horne assumed she saw photos of Kennedy taken at the end of the autopsy. The more realistic explanation is that she was trying to recall photos she'd developed over 30 years earlier. Factually incorrect. She testified that she saw autopsy photos in books that were not the autopsy photos she developed. So it wasn't a matter of 30 years passing. And so what if her recollections don't match "the autopsy" witnesses? She's not an autopsy witness, Pat! Is there no rationale too weak for you to seek in support of the obviously faked Fox 5? P.S. Frank O'Neil was not a CT. He thought Oswald acted alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 The bickering continues, but the larger picture is being ignored here. Why would anyone trust in the validity of the photos and x-rays that came out of this autopsy? That's the central question, isn't it? Why is it more outrageous to believe the photos and x-rays aren't legitimate, in light of the improper, irregular nature of everything that went on at Bethesda that night? And when we factor in the expert medical testimony that directly contradicts them, and all the other missing, altered and destroyed evidence in this case, imho it's far more logical to think they're fakes. No, it's not, Don. The central question has been for some time that the Z-film, photos and x-rays PROVE Kennedy was killed by more than one shooter, so why waste years, even decades, trying to convince people they are fake? That's a "central question" only for those who don't understand the first thing about the JFK assassination. For those who do understand the First Thing about the JFK assassination -- the T3 back wound was too low to have been associated with the throat wound -- know that the central question of the case is -- "What happened to the bullets that caused the back and throat wounds?" Pat, you're leading the pet theorist brigade straight down a whole warren of rabbit holes, alas... Oh, that's right. A couple of people wrote a couple of books suggesting they were fake, and they won't admit they could have been wrong. So why hold the whole "community" hostage? To such an extent that people like myself and Andric get accused of being paid for stating what should be obvious to anyone not married to decades-old and otherwise unsupported theories regarding photo alteration--that the reliability of the Parkland witnesses is open to question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 (edited) So why hold the whole "community" hostage? So why is the "whole community" held hostage to the popular yet readily-debunked Zombie Theory that JFK was shot at the base of his neck? Eh, Pat? Edited January 6, 2014 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crites Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 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. Spencer's recollections of the photos fail to match the recollections of anyone in attendance at the autopsy. Horne assumed she saw photos of Kennedy taken at the end of the autopsy. The more realistic explanation is that she was trying to recall photos she'd developed over 30 years earlier. P.S. Frank O'Neil was not a CT. He thought Oswald acted alone. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Saundra Spencer was a dedicated professional who testified UNDER OATH, UNDER THE LAWS OF PERJURY, that photos were not what she saw. Who in attendance at the autopsy saw EXACTYLY what the photos show? And, who testified UNHDER OATH, that there was a large hole in the back of the head? do a poll. O'Neill stated that he believed that Oswald acted alone out of some kind of twisted, blind, damaging patriotism. Or, to cover his ass. He stated, testified, and wrote of a different scenario than what the photos show. Must have had the same disease Clint Hill is suffering from. Pat, do you believe Oswald acted alone? If so: 1 - did the bullet enter the occipital area? Or, 2 - did the bullet enter the cowlick area? We got 2 government versions, which one do you believe happened if you now think Oswald acted alone, in accordance with your great website. You don't need to answer if you still believe in a frontal shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crites Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 By the way Pat, DiEugenio on BOR (last show) referred the listeners to your website to check out your summary of the media coverage of the 50TH. Putting this argument aside, thanks again for the work you did. Now - back to the exit wound in the head discussion,,,,,,,,,,,, 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