A new proposal re the JFK shots and wounds

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Wait a minute!  Not so fast, pal.  You’ve made a claim that the Parkland doctors created an air-pocket over-laying the right C7/T1 transverse processes at the back base of JFK’s neck.

You are claiming that instead of inserting a tube into the trachea the Doctors instead shoved the tube all the way thru his neck.

You’re making this up as you go along, aren’t you Pet Theorist?

 

You are trolling Mr. Varnell. I come here in good faith, offer what I have to offer, attempt to discuss substance. You are name-calling in an attempt to ridicule. This is unacceptable. Go away, or I will. I hope the moderator will take note. 

From the page on this Forum titled "Terms of Forum Use":

• No member is allowed to make personal insults with regard to another member OR with respect to fellow members opinions. 
• No member is allowed to accuse a fellow member of lying
• ...insulting and taunting fellow members

From the page on this Forum titled "Membership Behavior":

We warmly welcome members to this site and encourage debate and discussion.

[Cliff Varnell]

7 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

You are trolling Mr. Varnell. I come here in good faith, offer what I have to offer, attempt to discuss substance.

If that were true you wouldn’t have made up that bit about “cervical brace.”

Or when you edited out my argument and then implied my response lacked nuance?

Or when you posit a scenario wherein the Parkland doctors inserted the trach tube thru his neck right above two transverse processes?

Or when you cherry-pick testimony suborned by Arlen Specter?

No, Greg, I don’t see a lot of good faith.  If James Gordon tells me not to refer to anyone as a Pet Theorist, I’ll rescind the characterization.

7 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

You are name-calling in an attempt to ridicule. This is unacceptable. Go away, or I will. I hope the moderator will take note. 

From the page on this Forum titled "Terms of Forum Use":

• No member is allowed to make personal insults with regard to another member OR with respect to fellow members opinions. 
• No member is allowed to accuse a fellow member of lying
• ...insulting and taunting fellow members

From the page on this Forum titled "Membership Behavior":

We warmly welcome members to this site and encourage debate and discussion

[Greg Doudna]

I found this old newspaper article, Boston Globe, Sat Nov 23, 1963. Here it is, right from the beginning: entrance rear occipital, exit throat, the original interpretation from Parkland, before the autopsy occurred.

[James DiEugenio]

Greg:

I try to avoid getting into these what realy happened in Dealey Plaza debates because since the autopsy was sabotaged, there is no good info on this matter.  The two key things that should have been done, were not done, that is the sectioning of the brain, and the dissecting of the back wound.

But from what you are saying, there are some really basic problems.

1. What is the evidence for that trajectory you are depicting?  On the x rays, the fragment trail is at the top of the skull.  And in Humes' report he described an ASCENDING particle trail, which was not visible on the x rays.

2. Do you really maintain that the anterior neck wound was an exit?  I mean you know how small Perry originally described it as, correct? How could that possibly be an exit for a 6.5 calibre bullet.

3. You are saying that one bullet went through JFK's lower occipital, exited his throat and then made all the wounds in Connally? And you are saying it was this bullet that was found in the front of the car? 

4. You are saying that the bullet found on the stretcher at Parkland was fired in Dealey Plaza and fell out of Kennedy's back? 

I am just trying to clarify these last two points.

 

Edited July 15, 2020 by James DiEugenio

[Greg Doudna]

Hi James.

1. On trajectory, at the indicated time for the head shot to the rear occipital entrance, the indicated time 0.7 seconds after the Z313 head shot, per blur analysis and following Donald Thomas, at ca. Z323, the angle of the rear occipital wound to the JFK throat wound was significantly less than it was at any other time before then in Zapruder, and it is this visually-seeming agreement with the 16 degrees (or whatever) angle of a bullet fired from the TSBD or other building to the rear, that I am supposing is both the timing and the trajectory for that bullet. This becomes possible at this point because JFK's head has been hit violently backwards and to the left, and his body has been knocked left in the process of toppling. I agree that at any point of JFK sitting upright the trajectory will not work.

On the x rays, I am assuming that all of those fragments you mention which as I recall are at the top of the head, are from the Z313 head shot (which I understand to be from the Grassy Knoll), and none of those fragments are from the bullet of the second head shot of Z323 entering at the rear occipital. I did not invent the two head shots idea, which I suspect at this point is basically mainstream among the cutting edge of those involved in JFK ballistics. 

2. Yes because it must be because an entrance is excluded by lack of corresponding exit or bullet within the neck (from x-rays). WC, HSCA, and all of the major ballistics panels who have investigated, to my knowledge, have not found the witness testimonies at Parkland concerning the descriptions of that throat wound prior to the tracheotomy, to exclude a throat exit. That's the best I can do on that; I am no firearms or medical expert myself.

3. Yes. The bullet fragments in the front of the limousine of course being in several pieces and a windshield hit, and a fragment under the seat of Nellie Connally also. Remember there is no C399 issue to worry about. An alternative would be to add an earlier 5th shot in agreement with blur analysis and Thomas's argument in agreement with the conventional timing of Connally being hit, and have that as a separate shot, and the final rear occipital-->throat bullet at Z323 would then just be JFK and not a modified single-bullet theory. I put the Connally hit also at Z323, which is revisionist, because I read independent arguments that seemed persuasive to me on that, which I still think is the case but I will also revisit that. The rear occipital-->throat at Z323 would remain whichever timing Connally's hit is put, though if Connally was hit earlier, then the final destination of the bullet of the rear occipital-->throat bullet at Z323 would need to be explained among the fragments in the limousine apart from the Connally bullet.

4. Yes. Referring to the stretcher bullet (which I do not assume is C399).  

Edited July 15, 2020 by Greg Doudna

[Cliff Varnell]

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

2. Yes because it must be because an entrance is excluded by lack of corresponding exit or bullet within the neck (from x-rays).

This is an egregious mis-statement of fact.

The bullets that created the back and throat wounds could have been removed prior to the autopsy, or the autopsists were correct in their speculation that JFK was hit with high tech rounds which dissolved.

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit for the HSCA:

<quote on>

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic] bullet, one which dissolves after contact.<quote off>

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit for the HSCA:

<quote on>

The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments completely.... Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic] Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that would almost completely fragmentize (sic).<quote off>

Pet theorists, who can’t bother with any data which doesn’t fit their pet theories, routinely deny or ignore the existence of such weapons even though the CIA confirmed their development.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_1_Colby.pdf

<pg 17 quote on >

Mr. CHAIRMAN: Is it not true, too, that the effort not only involved not only designing a gun that could strike at a human target without knowledge of the person who had been struck, but the toxin itself would not appear in the autopsy?

Mr. WILLIAM COLBY (CIA Director):  Well, there was an attempt—

Mr. CHAIRMAN: Or the dart.

Mr. COLBY: Yes; so there was no way of perceiving that the target was hit.

Mr. CHAIRMAN: As a murder instrument, that is about as efficient as you can get, is it not?

Mr. COLBY: It is a weapon, a very serious weapon.

<quote off>

Edited July 15, 2020 by Cliff Varnell

[Micah Mileto]

13 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

I found this old newspaper article, Boston Globe, Sat Nov 23, 1963. Here it is, right from the beginning: entrance rear occipital, exit throat, the original interpretation from Parkland, before the autopsy occurred.

I don't think the EOP information was known to anybody in the media then, probably a coincidence.

[Rick McTague]

Greg,

You mentioned this in your original post: "-- In this reconstruction, JFK's raising of his arms and elbows and appearing to be reaching both hands to his throat, of Zapruder, becomes a reaction not to the bullet of the rear occipital entrance and exiting through his throat--that shot has not happened yet--but rather is a reaction to the shot that hit JFK in the upper back."

I cannot see anyone reacting to being shot in the back with both hands coming up to hold his throat.  I could see his dominant hand reaching over his shoulder trying to get to his back like anyone would.  JFK's only reaction to the back shot was what Kellerman said JFK said: "My God, I've been hit!".  Which of course he could not have done had he been wounded in the throat at that time.  I do think it's possible that this bullet came out in the car or in the hospital at some point since it didn't penetrate deeply.

So, hit #1 on JFK was to his back, hit #2 was from the front, probably through the windshield into his throat (reference the list of medical professionals describing the throat would as an entrance in Cliff's reply on page 3 from Vincent Palamara's 2015 book "JFK: From Parkland To Bethesda" ).

Where did that throat wound bullet end up?  I personally believe removing that or other bullets and altering the trach wound in the throat into a large, message, jagged wound to make it look like an exit was part of the "pre-autopsy autopsy" conducted in the >1 hour time period between the multiple morgue entries.  It also had to be when the head wound was enlarged and the brain removed per Paul O'Connor, all before the third morgue entrance with the bronze casket.  The Z film showing the large orange blob/flap was in progress (ala Doug Horne's timeline with the NPIC events described by Dino B), and the body had to be changed to somewhat resemble the extant film. 

The Parkland doctors and medical professionals described nothing like what the Z film shows; the Z film shows nothing like what the Parkland doctors and medical professionals described.

Thanks

[Denny Zartman]

On 7/14/2020 at 7:42 PM, Greg Doudna said:

Two of the names cited in Palamara 2015 as giving "entrance" identifications said they never even saw the throat wound before the tracheotomy! Dr. William Clark ("I was not present when the President arrived and did not see this wound") and Nurse Bowron ("I didn't [have any opportunity to observe his neck]...until after they had pronounced him dead and we cleaned up and removed the trach tube").

Hi Greg, welcome to the forum.

Since my little informal analysis has been brought up in this thread, I might as well throw in my two cents.

Vince Palamara notes repeatedly in his 2015 book "JFK: From Parkland To Bethesda" that many of the medical witnesses have indeed given contradictory accounts at different times. If that was not reflected in my analysis, it is a fault of mine and should not reflect upon the quality of Vince's work.

My analysis was intended to attempt to briefly and as impartially as possible count the number of health professionals who had observed JFK's anterior neck wound and how they characterized that wound, not just to the Warren Commission (where they would be under the most pressure to conform to the official story), but contemporaneously as well as what they've later said in interviews to authors and reporters. I did this analysis based upon the information in Vince's 2015 book.

In my list, I clearly quoted Dr. William Clark as saying that Dr. Kemp Clark told him that Kemp observed the throat wound and Kemp said that it was one of entrance. I did not imply nor intend to imply that William observed it himself, only that William characterized it as one of entrance based upon the information provided to him by Kemp. I probably I should have listed Kemp's name instead of William's in order to better conform to the intent of the analysis.

Nurse Diana Bowron is quoted from Harrison Livingstone's 1993 book "Killing The Truth" pg. 718:

Quote

Nurse Diana Bowron: "...and the entry wound in his throat."

HL: OK. And what did that look like?

DB: Well, that looked like an entry wound.

 

On 7/14/2020 at 7:42 PM, Greg Doudna said:

And an additional three more of the names cited in Palamara as "entrance" identifications are quoted differently: Dr. Carrico ("it could have been either"); Dr. Baxter ("we could not determine...could well represent either exit or entry wound"); Dr. McClelland ("I would say it would be equally consistent with either type wound. It would be quite difficult to say--impossible"). 

It seems that many of the witnesses in the JFK case were pressured to conform to the official story, and it is true that many of them did equivocate when testifying to the Warren Commission. Of course the Warren Commission and Arlen Specter were under pressure to do everything they could to make the Lone Nut theory plausible and to discourage and dismiss any countering testimony. If I recall correctly, Specter had to use theoreticals and assumptions to get many of these doctors and nurses to admit to a possibility that the anterior neck wound was one of exit.

To take the Warren Commission testimony of anyone and rely exclusively on that testimony as the clearest evidence of that person's true opinions and observations would be a mistake, in my opinion. That's why I think it's important to also consider the contemporaneous statements as well as the statements made to sources other than the Warren Commission.

Vince Palamara's 2015 book "JFK: From Parkland To Bethesda" pgs. 13-14, regarding Dr. Charles Carrico's observations:

Quote

a.   WR 519-520 / 17 H 4-5 / CE 392: handwritten report dated 11/22/63---"[the skull] wound had avulsed the calvarium and shredded brain tissue present with profuse oozing...attempts to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue via packs instituted...."; "small penetrating wound of ent. neck";

Palamara 2015 pg. 24, regarding Dr. Charles Baxter's observations:

Quote

c.   6 H 40, 41, 42 (re:neck) and 44 / testimony (3/24/64) ... throat wound: "4 to 5 mm in widest diameter...it was a very small wound. And, it was directly in his midline...this would more resemble a wound of entry...[but] ...I think that the wound could represent either exit or entry wound.";

So that's it for Dr. Charles Baxter, right? He's one of those that said it could be either an entrance or an exit, correct? But wait a moment. Not so fast. It seems that Dr. Charles Baxter wasn't so unsure about the nature of the anterior neck wound when asked about it later.

From Palamara 2015, also pg. 24, regarding Dr. Baxter's observations:

Quote

f.   "High Treason", p. 45 ("The Continuing Inquiry", 10/80 [based off a 1979 taped interview]) "It was a large gaping wound in the occipital area." He thought the wound was tangential and rejected the official picture. The wound in the neck was "no more than a pinpoint. It was made by a small caliber weapon. And it was an entry wound.";

The quote "And it was an entry wound" was, in my opinion, definitive enough for me to put Dr. Charles Baxter in the category of those who characterized the anterior neck wound as one of entrance.

On 7/14/2020 at 7:42 PM, Greg Doudna said:

And I found a sixth name listed as one who identified the throat wound as "entrance" on the Palamaro list, Dr. Marion Jenkins, testified the exact opposite to the Warren Commission! (https://www.jfk-assassination.eu/warren/wch/vol6/page48.php)

So it is a grand total of one medical professional who saw JFK's anterior neck wound and described it as one of exit? Yet, even that testimony to the Warren Commission seems to be called into question.

Livingstone 1993, pg. 13, regarding the observations of Dr. Marion Jenkins:

Quote

Four of the Dallas doctors - Carrico, Baxter, Peters, and Jenkins - repeated on June 4, 1992, that they saw an entry wound on the President's throat. Those four, who said that they would let stand in all respects the observations they made in 1963, are not all who stated at one time or another that there was an entry wound there. Add to them: Jones, Perry, and Crenshaw. None of them has ever changed his mind.

I have not yet been able to find a transcript if one even exists) of the Dallas forum where Jenkins and the others discussed the anterior throat wound.

[Paul Brancato]

The first impressions of the doctors and nurses at Parkland were the least likely to be tainted. What were they? I’m sure others can answer that question. What I can say from memory is that I recall hearing very early on that JFK was shot in the throat. Perhaps this comes from hearing Mark Lane speak in 1964 (I was 16) at public events. I remain convinced the throat wound was one of entry. 

[Greg Doudna]

Rick McTague-- thanks, on the JFK arm raising as response to being hit in the back instead of the throat wound ... I have thought about this. In viewing Zapruder it is not clear to me he is necessarily reaching for his throat. It looks like he is raising both arms and elbows with his fists clenching. Imagine being struck by a bullet that goes in about an inch in the upper back or shoulder blade area, perhaps feeling like a sudden hornet sting. JFK's corset hinders movement. Is JFK attempting to shrug mightily to try to dislodge whatever has hit him in the back?  

Denny Zartman--thank you very much for the clarifications on the witness testimonies and explaining how that was done from the Vince Palamaro book. It makes sense that the earliest observations are what matter most, and that Warren Commission testimony has had time for bias both in shaping memory and reporting of memory. Paul B. also noting that "the first impressions of the doctors and nurses at Parkland were the least likely to be tainted". 

Micah Mileto, on the visual of the Nov 23 Boston Globe appearing to show the bullet entering at the rear occipital, you are right! Good point!

On the issue of the small size of the throat wound, it is clear that its appearance was in agreement with being an entrance wound according to early observers. The key question however is a different one: does its appearance also exclude the wound being an exit? On grounds of appearance alone (early observation reports of which are the only evidence in existence for that wound), are there two possibilities or only one possibility for the entrance versus exit issue of that wound? 

If both are possible, then the number of witnesses who said it looked like an entrance wound is almost irrelevant, because while such a statement may be true, it does not answer the question of whether an exit is excluded, which is the relevant question.

Not having expertise myself, all I can do is look up forensic pathology studies on bullet entrance and exit wounds. The following studies strongly suggest to me that the descriptions of the JFK throat wound, described as a small hole 4-5 mm in diameter by Dr. Baxter, do not represent an exclusion of exit as reasonably possible for that wound.

"Exit wounds can appear round, oval, slitlike, stellate, or crescent shaped. In other words, exit wounds can take any shape whether small or large. A common misconception is that an exit wound is bigger than its corresponding entrance wound. Size does not determine whether a gunshot wound is an exit wound; rather, it is the lack of a margin of abrasion that distinguishes an exit wound from an entrance wound. Exit wounds may have small marginal tears caused by the bullet pushing the skin outward. Exit wounds may also have an atypical appearance. One example is a shored or reinforced exit wound. This is an exception to the rule that only entrance wounds have an associated margin of abrasion. Shored exit wounds are encountered when the skin is supported by a firm surface, such as a wall or floor, as the bullet exits. The exiting bullet pushes the skin into the supporting surface, which scrapes and abrades it. Articles of clothing, such as leather belts, may also provide sufficient firmness to produce shored exit wounds. Of course, where there is an exit wound, there must also be an entrance wound. Even so, a shored exit wound can closely resemble an entrance wound and may occasionally challenge even an experienced forensic pathologist." (https://www.archivesofpathology.org/doi/full/10.1043/1543-2165(2006)130[1283%3APPOGW]2.0.CO%3B2)

"[Dr. John] Lattimer used pork legs, with the bone removed, to simulate Kennedy's neck. Around the pork he fastened a shirt and tie like the one Kennedy was wearing on the day of the assassination. Using a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle and ammunition identical to that used by Oswald, shot through the "neck" at an angle that caused the bullet to exit at the same place, relative to the tie and collar, that the Single Bullet exited Kennedy's neck. The resulting exit wound was very small, approximately ¼ in. in diameter [. . .] The [HSCA] panel members agree that the fabric of the shirt and tie and their anatomic relationship to the underlying missile wound might have served as sufficient reinforcement to diminish distortion of the skin.  Several panel members are also of the opinion that an unshored exit wound of a missile of comparable size and velocity might be similar if the missile were not misshapen by striking a substantial bone within the body. The panel believes that it would be reasonable for a surgeon not to appreciate or even consider the significance of the clothing in terms of the wound shape produced, especially if the clothing had been removed prior to his initial examination . . ." (HSCA Volume 7, p. 95). (https://jfkassassination.net/factoid5.htm)

"The size and the shape of the exit wound are dependent to a certain degree on the location of the exit. In lax skin, the exit wounds tend to be small and slit-shaped. In contrast, where the skin is stretched tightly across a bony surface, e.g., the scalp, exist wounds tend to be larger and more irregular, often with a stellate configuration. Although exit wounds are typically larger than entrance wounds, it is possible for an exit to be smaller than the entrance and in fact smaller in diameter than the bullet." (https://www.bevfitchett.us/gunshot-wounds/entrance-versus-exit-wounds-entrance-wounds.html)

While I am no ballistics or medical expert, each of the three above are, and on the basis of this expertise an exit for the JFK throat wound appears reasonable (i.e. no basis for exclusion) as well as entrance being reasonable. Neither is excluded. If neither is excluded, the answer to whether that wound was entrance or exit can only then be determined on other grounds, not from the observation reports. Agree? Disagree?

Edited July 16, 2020 by Greg Doudna

[Cliff Varnell]

5 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

While I am no ballistics or medical expert, each of the three above are, and on the basis of this expertise an exit for the JFK throat wound appears reasonable (i.e. no basis for exclusion) as well as entrance being reasonable. Neither is excluded. If neither is excluded, the answer to whether that wound was entrance or exit can only then be determined on other grounds, not from the observation reports. Agree? Disagree?

Isn’t it amazing how inconvenient evidence like the C7/T1 air pocket just disappears — “no basis for exclusion”?

Hey, if it takes the Parkland doctors shoving a trach tube all the way thru JFK’s neck to keep a Pet Theory alive, so be it.

[Cliff Varnell]

8 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

The first impressions of the doctors and nurses at Parkland were the least likely to be tainted. What were they? I’m sure others can answer that question. What I can say from memory is that I recall hearing very early on that JFK was shot in the throat. Perhaps this comes from hearing Mark Lane speak in 1964 (I was 16) at public events. I remain convinced the throat wound was one of entry. 

Of course!  This should have been settled decades ago.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

16 hours ago, Rick McTague said:

Greg,

You mentioned this in your original post: "-- In this reconstruction, JFK's raising of his arms and elbows and appearing to be reaching both hands to his throat, of Zapruder, becomes a reaction not to the bullet of the rear occipital entrance and exiting through his throat--that shot has not happened yet--but rather is a reaction to the shot that hit JFK in the upper back."

I cannot see anyone reacting to being shot in the back with both hands coming up to hold his throat.  I could see his dominant hand reaching over his shoulder trying to get to his back like anyone would. 

Of course!  People reflexively reach for the area struck, and reflexively defend against getting hit again.  JFK held his fists in front of his throat to prevent another strike.

The timing of the back shot can be established by Secret Service SA Glenn Bennett's well corroborated account.

From Bennett's statement 11/23/63:

<quote on>

About thirty minutes after leaving Love Field about 12:25 P.M., the Motorcade entered an intersection and then proceeded down a grade. At this point the well-wishers numbered but a few; the motorcade continued down this grade enroute to the Trade Mart. At this point I heard what sounded like a fire-cracker. I immediately looked from the right/crowd/physical area/and looked towards the President who was seated in the right rear seat of his limousine open convertible. At the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another fire-cracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder. A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the President's head. I immediately hollered "he's hit" and reached for the AR-15 located on the floor of the rear seat. Special Agent Hickey had already picked-up the AR-15. We peered towards the rear and particularly the right side of the area. I had drawn my revolver when I saw S/A Hickey had the AR15. I was unable to see anything or one that could have fired the shots. The President's car immediately kicked into high gear and the follow-up car followed.

<quote off>

Willis 5 at Z202 shows Bennett facing to the right.  Altgens 6 at Z255 shows Bennett with blurred features, consistent with his head turning to the front.  The bullet holes in the clothes are 4 inches below the bottom of the collars.

We can safely place the back shot between Z255 and the head shot/s.

 

 

[Colm Byrne]

On 7/14/2020 at 5:43 PM, David Josephs said:

Real quick about that throat wound.... 

Mr. Rankin:

Then there‘s a great range of material in regards to the wound and the autopsy and this point of exit or entrance of the bullet in the front of the neck, and that all has to be developed much more than we have at the present time.

We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came out the front of the neck, but with the elevation the shot must have come from, and the angle, it seems quite apparent, since we have the picture of where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where the picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front, and the bullet, according to the autopsy didn't strike any bone at all, that particular bullet, and go through.

So that how it could turn, and -- 

Rep. Boggs. I thought I read that bullet just went in a finger's length.

Mr. Rankin. That is what they first said

Now, if you go to the autopsy you will not find this passage anywhere...  not the autopsy the public finally sees.... so one has to wonder from what document Rankin is reading...  there are other problems with there being 2 autopsy reports but that's not for this thread.  What I still have yet to learn is from which Autopsy this unknown info comes....  since Humes supposedly burned everything....  

I'd like to address your whole post, which I will, but want to answer this question first....  Chris knows to correct anything I misstate below... he's 3 or 4 levels deeper into the subject... and the originator of the use of Math in quantifying the fraud.

===

As to what MATH RULES shows....

Shaneyfelt moved the path of the limo off the Robert West surveyor path, to one which enables the limo to appear in the same place yet at the wrong frame # (which were also created by Shaneyfelt)  By changing 168 to 161 in CE884 they take a distance of .9 feet over 3 frames or 2.24mph, to 5 frames 161-166 or a little over 3mph...

Below is the limo shown both as the Zfilm had him at 161, and superimposed over that is where Shaneyfelt put the limo at 168...  The Line of sight from Zapruder to limo would show JFK in the exact same Line...  (which was why they messed with the lane markers afterward)  yet the frame # would be wrong... 7 more from the start (168-161=7) 
5 fewer for the end (171-166=5)... 3 frames for speed adjustment and 18.3 fps....

The red arrows shows the surveyed path, pink is LOS for Zapruder, Green is Zapruder frame 205 when the left front fender clears the sign.
Different analysis uses the front bumper, the back bumper and JFK in the limo 15.2 feet from the front as frame locations...

This was accomplished by moving the limo - physically moving the stand-in limo.. then, looking thru the camera on the pedestal and matching it to the Zfilm...
Chris here shows that due south from Position A is the divergence point for Shaneyfelt and my note explains what he did

 

CE884 changed in a few key areas...This legend and the original work of Robert West secured by Tom Purvis many years ago challenges everythin you may know about the Zfilm.

Don't we have all sorts of strangeness with Z207 -z222 on the film?   Same places yet new and different frame numbers...
The WHY was to sync the scant few images/films of the shooting around 313 and work backward...

It was also to remove the correct number of frames between 132 and 133....

The B&W image shows the limo stand-in at Position A...  the Queen Mary right on its tail...
Not only was this turn removed, but they had to wait until the QM was again right behind the limo...

Otherwise, why include a spot the limo supposedly did not move thru...  if the limo does

Mr. SHANEYFELT. This shows the photograph that was made from the point where Zapruder was standing looking toward the car, and is a point that we have designated as position A because it is in a position that did not appear on the Zapruder film
The Zapruder film does not start until the car gets farther down Elm Street.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. What is that exhibit number?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Exhibit No. 886.
Mr. SPECTER. And why was that location selected for the position of the car?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This location was selected as the first point at which a person in the sixth floor window of the Book Building at our control point could have gotten a shot at the President after the car had rounded the corner from Houston to Elm

Seems like that limo could roll back up Elm quite a bit and we stil lcould see and hit that spot on his back...  Chris also proves why the stand-in car was 10" higher than the limo

Note: we have - supposedly - the actual frame by frame film of the assassination from this angle... why recreate it?   Why survey and resurvey 4 and 5 times?

This is what the turn might have actually looked like.  Shaneyfelt refers to the very important Station C as where he WOULD HAVE TURNED... but they simply ignore TRULY's statement about the limo turning wide and almost hitting the little Elm curb.

 

 

A limo at 11.2 mph travels farther in 3 frames than .9 foot.  The speed was averaged and for very good reason...
But what we don't see it this massive slowing and accelerating necessary to match CE884's data.... which in turn was designed to all work back to the 6th floor window... 

 

The frame rates given for Zapruder and Towner are simply wrong and used to hide the cuts and overlaps....

No camera operates at 22 fps...  neither does it operate at 18.3 frames per second (note: the pitch of Elm is exactly 18.3:1 run over rise... so every second of film we should travel 18.3 feet.. makes the math much easier)

A theory held for quite some time is that with a flick of his finger, 16fps jumps to 48fps... and Zapruder now has 3x as many frames as regular speed....
Take out 25% of the frames from 48 you have 36 fps.... take 50% of those out of the film and we get 18 frames per second and with a few adjustments we can get 18.3fps...

Now, the MATH he uses gets deep into angles, distances and locations...  by reading the thread you realize the FBI simply changed the evidence to fit the need...

Where have we hear THAT before?  

DJ

FWIW, the dots on the plat from Shaneyfelt align exactly to the frames used by the NPIC Sunday night to create the briefing boards...
Coincidence?   Doubt it, right?