Landis's Disclosure and the 6.5 mm Object on the Autopsy Skull X-Rays

[Pat Speer]

45 minutes ago, Michael Crane said:

There are 14 pictures of the brain in the archives.Why the Government insists on using "drawings" seems like a red flag.

Plenty of brain matter in the back seat and floorboard.

Although a few tiny snippets were published by the HSCA, none of the autopsy photos have been officially published. Only drawings, and tracings of the drawings. Heck, the HSCA refused to publish JFK's x-rays unless the jaw was removed. Thought it would look too much like him. The photos on the internet were all obtained illicitly. The black and whites came from an SS agent who never saw the brain photos, which were taken the next week. And the color photos came from Groden, who apparently thought the brain photos not worth copying, or too disgusting. So no, hiding away the photos is not the least bit suspicious. 

[Tom Gram]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

You are just messing with me, right?

1. If you connect an entry by the EOP to the wound in the throat you will find that the trajectory leads across the underside of the cerebellum, precisely where Humes noted damage. I suppose you think that's a coincidence. And, oh yeah, the Clark Panel and HSCA saw a path from above and exiting at the throat wound on the x-rays. The Clark Panel pretended this path started at the back wound, which they pretended was well above the throat wound. The HSCA Panel knew this was nonsense, but were frightened by the implications of the trail, and so conjured up a line of bs so transparent you might find it convincing. They said JFK's tie blocked his throat wound and forced the air leaking from his windpipe to back up into his neck. Because, y'know, that happens

2. Most of the doctors you claim to believe in, including Mantik, have come to believe there was an entrance hole by the EOP. Assuming you believe they are correct, just where do you think the bullet exited? 

3. The brain photos are fake blah blah is built on Stringer's ARRB interview. It uses his belief the photos were not photos taken by him to push that the photos were faked to hide a huge hole on the back of the brain. And it does this without admitting Stringer also told the ARRB the photos showing an intact back of the head were taken by him, and that there was no hole on the back of the head. It's cherry-picking at its worst. 

4. Actually, the brain photos are fake blah blah is worse than bad cherry-picking. It conceals from impressionable parties what they need to know: that the photos match up with the autopsy protocol and supplemental report, and that this, the official evidence regarding the shooting of Kennedy, is clear-cut proof for two head shots, and thus, a conspiracy. 

There's no need to fake evidence when you can just mis-interpret it, or lie about it. 

 

If JFK was hit in the EOP at ~Z223, even with a subsonic, small caliber round, wouldn’t we see his head move forward in the Z-film? It seems reasonable to think that any bullet colliding with the thickest part of the skull would transfer enough momentum to jolt JFK’s head forward a bit, but no such movement is visible on the film.

Also, would a subsonic bullet retain enough momentum after hitting occipital bone to pass through JBC? I know you propose either that or a separate burst, but I’m having trouble seeing how the “single bullet” EOP scenario could happen in practice. Even in the burst scenario, would a small-caliber, subsonic bullet leave behind zero fragments, not tumble, and pass cleanly through JFK’s neck after impacting near the EOP? Would any bullet? The 6x15mm dimensions of the entrance suggest that the bullet hit at an angle, so it seems kind of unlikely that the bullet would exit the neck straight-on, does it not? 

I’m just speculating here, but I think these are reasonable questions to ask. 

Edited October 13, 2023 by Tom Gram

[Michael Crane]

Tom,

The head goes forward at frame 312 for a split second.I have posted it on this site lately.

It's my belief that a bullet entered JFK's head from the rear up to a full second before the frontal shot.

Edited October 13, 2023 by Michael Crane

[Michael Crane]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Although a few tiny snippets were published by the HSCA, none of the autopsy photos have been officially published. Only drawings, and tracings of the drawings. Heck, the HSCA refused to publish JFK's x-rays unless the jaw was removed. Thought it would look too much like him. The photos on the internet were all obtained illicitly. The black and whites came from an SS agent who never saw the brain photos, which were taken the next week. And the color photos came from Groden, who apparently thought the brain photos not worth copying, or too disgusting. So no, hiding away the photos is not the least bit suspicious. 

Something tells me that it might have been Knudsen's pictures that are missing (brain & probes) Maybe not the probes,but at least the back of the head photos.

Edited October 13, 2023 by Michael Crane

[Tom Gram]

21 minutes ago, Michael Crane said:

Tom,

The head goes forward at frame 312 for a split second.I have posted it on this site lately.

It's my belief that a bullet entered JFK's head from the rear up to a full second before the frontal shot.

I just meant in the context of Pat’s theory, which has the EOP shot occurring at Z223-224.

I think Tink Thompson’s theory has the  EOP shot at Z327; and he presents evidence from the Z-Film to back it up, like an unusually fast forward jolt and the head wound changing appearance in subsequent frames. I don’t know how legit that is, but it’s an interesting theory. Thompson’s original theory from SSID, as you probably know, had near-simultaneous front and back headshots around Z-312, similar to what you propose above - but a full second seems like a bit of a stretch, IMO. 

Pat’s Z223 EOP shot theory has some evidentiary support too, but I don’t recall any discussion of the lack of head movement on his site. I think he mentions a few cases of bullets hitting the skull and traveling down into the neck, but I don’t recall any examples of clean exits, clean exits with angled entrances, bullets continuing on to penetrate anything, etc. 
 

Edited October 13, 2023 by Tom Gram

[Michael Crane]

Not a full second,but possibly up to a full second.

Once again,it is my speculation that the ZFilm has been tampered with near the head shots.

[Michael Crane]

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

I just meant in the context of Pat’s theory, which has the EOP shot occurring at Z223-224.

I think Tink Thompson’s theory has the  EOP shot at Z327; and he presents evidence from the Z-Film to back it up, like an unusually fast forward jolt and the head wound changing appearance in subsequent frames. I don’t know how legit that is, but it’s an interesting theory. Thompson’s original theory from SSID, as you probably know, had near-simultaneous front and back headshots around Z-312, similar to what you propose above - but a full second seems like a bit of a stretch, IMO. 

Pat’s Z223 EOP shot theory has some evidentiary support too, but I don’t recall any discussion of the lack of head movement on his site. I think he mentions a few cases of bullets hitting the skull and traveling down into the neck, but I don’t recall any examples of clean exits, clean exits with angled entrances, bullets continuing on to penetrate anything, etc. 
 

Tink should just come forward and announce if he thinks the Z-Film has been tampered with or not.He himself has a copy from one of the copies that Life Magazine bought (probably the original)

Edited October 13, 2023 by Michael Crane

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

I just meant in the context of Pat’s theory, which has the EOP shot occurring at Z223-224.

I think Tink Thompson’s theory has the  EOP shot at Z327; and he presents evidence from the Z-Film to back it up, like an unusually fast forward jolt and the head wound changing appearance in subsequent frames. I don’t know how legit that is, but it’s an interesting theory. Thompson’s original theory from SSID, as you probably know, had near-simultaneous front and back headshots around Z-312, similar to what you propose above - but a full second seems like a bit of a stretch, IMO. 

Pat’s Z223 EOP shot theory has some evidentiary support too, but I don’t recall any discussion of the lack of head movement on his site. I think he mentions a few cases of bullets hitting the skull and traveling down into the neck, but I don’t recall any examples of clean exits, clean exits with angled entrances, bullets continuing on to penetrate anything, etc. 
 

You are correct in that not every aspect of the case is clear. It seems clear, however, that a bullet entering near the EOP and descending the neck would almost certainly be a subsonic bullet. The tests performed for the WC, furthermore, show that a bullet striking Connally and creating all his wounds would also be a subsonic bullet. At times I have wondered if they could be the same bullet. But I ultimately came to suspect they were two separate rounds fired in a burst from an automatic rifle. I even found a specially-designed assassination rifle that would do the trick. 

I would agree, however, that speculation about a particular weapon is inherently risky, and that CT world has had a terrible track record when it comes to speculation about top secret weapons and ammo. 

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Michael Crane said:

Tink should just come forward and announce if he thinks the Z-Film has been tampered with or not.He himself has a copy from one of the copies that Life Magazine bought (probably the original)

If you look through the archives of this site you will find that Tink joined up to argue with Fetzer on this very point. Tink thinks the Z-film is proof of conspiracy, and thinks those arguing it's been altered are out to lunch or worse. At the time, three of the most popular arguments for the alteration of the film were 1) the cherry-picked statements indicating the limo stopped when no such stop is shown in the film, 2) the cherry-picked statements of Mary Moorman indicating she was in the street when she took her famous photo when the film shows her on the grass, and 3) the cherry-picked statements indicating James Chaney rode up to Jesse Curry's car before reaching the overpass, when this is not shown in the film. These three arguments, and many others, were destroyed right here on this forum, mostly by Tink, but with some help from others.

Well, this led Fetzer to start a rumor Tink was a secret LN, and would come out on the 50th announcing he'd changed his mind. He was wrong, of course. Tink came out on the 50th to announce he was writing a new conspiracy book. And Fetzer??? He kept upping the ante and making crazier and crazier claims, until finally he was sued for saying a young murdered boy never existed, and his parents were just actors hired by Da EVIL Guvment to scare us into believing school shootings were real. 

Edited October 13, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Michael Griffith]

On 10/12/2023 at 7:34 PM, Pat Speer said:

 

You are just messing with me, right?

No, but you must be messing with me. Once again, we see your willingness to accept erroneous WC assumptions and then claim that the only problem is misinterpretation.

1. If you connect an entry by the EOP to the wound in the throat you will find that the trajectory leads across the underside of the cerebellum, precisely where Humes noted damage. I suppose you think that's a coincidence.

Really?! Let’s see you connect the EOP wound to the throat wound without hitting the cerebellum. Use the two diagrams I posted and show us a trajectory from the EOP to the throat wound that could have missed the cerebellum. Let’s see it.

And, eee-gads, leaving aside the problem of missing the cerebellum, a bullet going from the EOP site to the throat wound (1) would have had to enter the head at around a 45-degree downward angle (was the gunman firing from a helicopter hovering above the TSBD?), (2) would have caused severe damage to the intervening neck tissue, and (3) could not have produced the small, neat, punched-in wound described by the Dallas doctors and nurses.

And, oh yeah, the Clark Panel and HSCA saw a path from above and exiting at the throat wound on the x-rays.

Oh, so Arlen Specter and crew were actually right in claiming the throat wound was an exit wound, and the Dallas doctors and nurses were all wrong, and the only problem is that WC apologists have missed (or suppressed) the EOP-to-throat-wound explanation! This is just so much poppycock it’s hard to take it seriously.

The Clark Panel pretended this path started at the back wound, which they pretended was well above the throat wound. The HSCA Panel knew this was nonsense, but were frightened by the implications of the trail, and so conjured up a line of bs so transparent you might find it convincing. They said JFK's tie blocked his throat wound and forced the air leaking from his windpipe to back up into his neck. Because, y'know, that happens.

As you know, I have documented that during the autopsy the pathologists absolutely, positively determined that the back wound was shallow and had no exit point. However, you would snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and substitute the bogus back-wound-to-throat-wound theory with the far more ludicrous theory that the throat wound was the exit wound for the EOP rear head shot.

2. Most of the doctors you claim to believe in, including Mantik, have come to believe there was an entrance hole by the EOP. Assuming you believe they are correct, just where do you think the bullet exited? 

I think I’ve already made it clear that I accept the EOP entry site, but that you cannot accept the EOP site if you believe the brain photos are authentic.

Where did the EOP shot exit? Given the fraud that we know occurred regarding the autopsy report (please don’t tell me you think Humes’s first draft was essentially the same as the published version), and given that we know that photos and x-rays were withheld, we cannot say with certainty where it went or how it behaved after it hit the skull. The bullet that Belmont said was lodged behind the right ear could have been the EOP shot. Or, the EOP shot, or a sizable fragment from it, could have exited the right parietal area and created the right parietal flap in the process. Even Dr. Mantik agrees that the right parietal flap is plausible and that it could explain the trajectory of some of the debris.

3. The brain photos are fake blah blah is built on Stringer's ARRB interview. It uses his belief the photos were not photos taken by him to push that the photos were faked to hide a huge hole on the back of the brain. And it does this without admitting Stringer also told the ARRB the photos showing an intact back of the head were taken by him, and that there was no hole on the back of the head. It's cherry-picking at its worst. 

You are years behind the times and are misrepresenting Stringer’s ARRB testimony. Stringer insisted that the extant brain photos did not show the same brain that he photographed, and that the extant photos were taken with a different kind of film than the film he used.

Surely you know that when Lifton interviewed Stringer years earlier, on tape, Stringer clearly and specifically described a large wound in the back of the head. He even used the medical terms “occiput” and “occipital” to describe the wound’s location. Lifton repeatedly asked him if the large wound was “in the back” and “in the occipital part of the skull,” etc., and each time Stringer said it was. Lifton even asked Stringer if the large wound was in the part of the head that would touch the tile if a person were to lie flat on their back in a bathtub, and Stringer said yes. You know this, right?

When we look closely at Stringer’s ARRB testimony, we see that it does not contradict his Lifton interview as sharply as some would like to think:

          Q: And, now, in terms of the back of the skull, was the portion that would include part of the occiput also severely damaged when you saw the President’s head?

          A: Yes. But when -When I first saw it, this was all intact. But then they peeled it back, and then you could see this part of the bone gone. (ARRB interview, 7/16/96, p. 86)

And:

          Q: Okay. And where Mr. Robinson drew a circle showing missing occipital bone, would it be --do you have any recollection of whether any portion of that occipital bone was missing?

          A: I don’t know, because I don’t -- I don’t think I ever saw the whole hair pulled down that far. (p. 91)

Frankly, if you read Stringer’s whole ARRB interview, you see that he was all over the map on the issue of missing occipital bone.

Crucially, Stringer specified that when he photographed the head, the rear area of the head was intact. Yes, of course, because when Stringer photographed the head, the skull had already been reconstructed. Saundra Spencer explained that the pre-reconstruction photos showed a sizable right-rear defect, just as dozens of other witnesses said, but that the post-reconstruction photos showed the back of the head intact.

4. Actually, the brain photos are fake blah blah is worse than bad cherry-picking. It conceals from impressionable parties what they need to know: that the photos match up with the autopsy protocol and supplemental report,

But, as we have seen, the brain photos markedly contradict the autopsy report because they show no pre-mortem damage to the cerebellum or the right occipital lobe, whereas the autopsy report says a bullet entered slightly above the EOP and created a fragment trail that led to the right orbit.

and that this, the official evidence regarding the shooting of Kennedy, is clear-cut proof for two head shots, and thus, a conspiracy. 

And WC apologists love your two-rear-head-shots conspiracy because it is so specious, untenable, and convoluted, and because it, like the lone-gunman theory, dismisses all evidence of shots from the grassy knoll. According to you, all the witnesses who insisted that some shots came from the knoll were wrong; all the witnesses, in three different locations, who saw a large right-rear head wound were wrong; the doctors, including a neurosurgeon, who saw severe damage to the cerebellum were wrong; all the witnesses who smelled the distinct odor of gun powder near the knoll were wrong; all the witnesses who saw gun smoke on the knoll were wrong; the apparent gun smoke seen in the Wiegman film near the knoll is just an optical illusion or smoke from steam pipes; etc., etc., etc.

There's no need to fake evidence when you can just mis-interpret it, or lie about it. 

Right. All the severe conflicts in the medical evidence and all the evidence of shots from the grassy knoll are all just cases of deliberate and innocent misinterpretations and misunderstandings. Nothing to see here. This was a cover-up that did not fake or alter a single piece of evidence! The brain photos that show only 2-3 ounces of missing brain tissue [Baden says the photos show only "an ounce or two" of missing tissue] and a virtually undamaged cerebellum—yes, they’re authentic, even if the guy who supposedly took them insists they don’t show the same brain that he saw and were not taken with the same film that he used, and even though we know that brain matter was splattered on the limo’s seats, on some of the limo’s occupants, on the limo’s trunk, on the follow-up car’s windshield, and on two of the trailing patrolmen. Yeah, sure, all that brain matter amounted to no more than 3 ounces!

Edited October 30, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Michael Crane]

10 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

You are correct in that not every aspect of the case is clear. It seems clear, however, that a bullet entering near the EOP and descending the neck would almost certainly be a subsonic bullet. The tests performed for the WC, furthermore, show that a bullet striking Connally and creating all his wounds would also be a subsonic bullet. At times I have wondered if they could be the same bullet. But I ultimately came to suspect they were two separate rounds fired in a burst from an automatic rifle. I even found a specially-designed assassination rifle that would do the trick. 

I would agree, however, that speculation about a particular weapon is inherently risky, and that CT world has had a terrible track record when it comes to speculation about top secret weapons and ammo. 

I like the looks of this for the throat wound since the hole was so small.

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

You are just messing with me, right?

No, but you must be messing with me. Once again, we see your willingness to accept erroneous WC assumptions and then claim that the only problem is misinterpretation.

1. If you connect an entry by the EOP to the wound in the throat you will find that the trajectory leads across the underside of the cerebellum, precisely where Humes noted damage. I suppose you think that's a coincidence.

Really?! Let’s see you connect the EOP wound to the throat wound without hitting the cerebellum. Use the two diagrams I posted and show us a trajectory from the EOP to the throat wound that could have missed the cerebellum. Let’s see it.

And, eee-gads, leaving aside the problem of missing the cerebellum, a bullet going from the EOP site to the throat wound (1) would have had to enter the head at around a 45-degree downward angle (was the gunman firing from a helicopter hovering above the TSBD?), (2) would have caused severe damage to the intervening neck tissue, and (3) could not have produced the small, neat, punched-in wound described by the Dallas doctors and nurses.

And, oh yeah, the Clark Panel and HSCA saw a path from above and exiting at the throat wound on the x-rays.

Oh, so Arlen Specter and crew were actually right in claiming the throat wound was an exit wound, and the Dallas doctors and nurses were all wrong, and the only problem is that WC apologists have missed (or suppressed) the EOP-to-throat-wound explanation! This is just so much poppycock it’s hard to take it seriously.

The Clark Panel pretended this path started at the back wound, which they pretended was well above the throat wound. The HSCA Panel knew this was nonsense, but were frightened by the implications of the trail, and so conjured up a line of bs so transparent you might find it convincing. They said JFK's tie blocked his throat wound and forced the air leaking from his windpipe to back up into his neck. Because, y'know, that happens.

As you know, I have documented that during the autopsy the pathologists absolutely, positively determined that the back wound was shallow and had no exit point. However, you would snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and substitute the bogus back-wound-to-throat-wound theory with the far more ludicrous theory that the throat wound was the exit wound for the EOP rear head shot.

2. Most of the doctors you claim to believe in, including Mantik, have come to believe there was an entrance hole by the EOP. Assuming you believe they are correct, just where do you think the bullet exited? 

I think I’ve already made it clear that I accept the EOP entry site, but that you cannot accept the EOP site if you believe the brain photos are authentic.

Where did the EOP shot exit? Given the fraud that we know occurred regarding the autopsy report (please don’t tell me you think Humes’s first draft was essentially the same as the published version), and given that we know that photos and x-rays were withheld, we cannot say with certainty where it went or how it behaved after it hit the skull. The bullet that Belmont said was lodged behind the right ear could have been the EOP shot. Or, the EOP shot, or a sizable fragment from it, could have exited the right parietal area and created the right parietal flap in the process. Even Dr. Mantik agrees that the right parietal flap is plausible and that it could explain the trajectory of some of the debris.

3. The brain photos are fake blah blah is built on Stringer's ARRB interview. It uses his belief the photos were not photos taken by him to push that the photos were faked to hide a huge hole on the back of the brain. And it does this without admitting Stringer also told the ARRB the photos showing an intact back of the head were taken by him, and that there was no hole on the back of the head. It's cherry-picking at its worst. 

You are years behind the times and are misrepresenting Stringer’s ARRB testimony. Stringer insisted that the extant brain photos did not show the same brain that he photographed, and that the extant photos were taken with a different kind of film than the film he used.

Surely you know that when Lifton interviewed Stringer years earlier, on tape, Stringer clearly and specifically described a large wound in the back of the head. He even used the medical terms “occiput” and “occipital” to describe the wound’s location. Lifton repeatedly asked him if the large wound was “in the back” and “in the occipital part of the skull,” etc., and each time Stringer said it was. Lifton even asked Stringer if the large wound was in the part of the head that would touch the tile if a person were to lie flat on their back in a bathtub, and Stringer said yes. You know this, right?

When we look closely at Stringer’s ARRB testimony, we see that it does not contradict his Lifton interview as sharply as some would like to think:

          Q: And, now, in terms of the back of the skull, was the portion that would include part of the occiput also severely damaged when you saw the President’s head?

          A: Yes. But when -When I first saw it, this was all intact. But then they peeled it back, and then you could see this part of the bone gone. (ARRB interview, 7/16/96, p. 86)

And:

          Q: Okay. And where Mr. Robinson drew a circle showing missing occipital bone, would it be --do you have any recollection of whether any portion of that occipital bone was missing?

          A: I don’t know, because I don’t -- I don’t think I ever saw the whole hair pulled down that far. (p. 91)

Frankly, if you read Stringer’s whole ARRB interview, you see that he was all over the map on the issue of missing occipital bone.

Crucially, Stringer specified that when he photographed the head, the rear area of the head was intact. Yes, of course, because when Stringer photographed the head, the skull had already been reconstructed. Saundra Spencer explained that the pre-reconstruction photos showed a sizable right-rear defect, just as dozens of other witnesses said, but that the post-reconstruction photos showed the back of the head intact.

4. Actually, the brain photos are fake blah blah is worse than bad cherry-picking. It conceals from impressionable parties what they need to know: that the photos match up with the autopsy protocol and supplemental report,

But, as we have seen, the brain photos markedly contradict the autopsy report because they show no pre-mortem damage to the cerebellum or the right occipital lobe, whereas the autopsy report says a bullet entered slightly above the EOP and created a fragment trail that led to the right orbit.

and that this, the official evidence regarding the shooting of Kennedy, is clear-cut proof for two head shots, and thus, a conspiracy. 

And WC apologists love your two-rear-head-shots conspiracy because it is so specious, untenable, and convoluted, and because it, like the lone-gunman theory, dismisses all evidence of shots from the grassy knoll. According to you, all the witnesses who insisted that some shots came from the knoll were wrong; all the witnesses, in three different locations, who saw a large right-rear head wound were wrong; the doctors, including a neurosurgeon, who saw severe damage to the cerebellum were wrong; all the witnesses who smelled the distinct odor of gun powder near the knoll were wrong; all the witnesses who saw gun smoke on the knoll were wrong; the apparent gun smoke seen in the Wiegman film near the knoll is just an optical illusion or smoke from steam pipes; etc., etc., etc.

There's no need to fake evidence when you can just mis-interpret it, or lie about it. 

Right. All the severe conflicts in the medical evidence and all the evidence of shots from the grassy knoll are all just cases of deliberate and innocent misinterpretations and misunderstandings. Nothing to see here. This was a cover-up that did not fake or alter a single piece of evidence! The brain photos that show only 2-3 ounces of missing brain tissue and a virtually undamaged cerebellum—yes, they’re authentic, even if the guy who supposedly took them insists they don’t show the same brain that he saw and were not taken with the same film that he used, and even though we know that brain matter was splattered on the limo’s seats, on some of the limo’s occupants, on the limo’s trunk, on the follow-up car’s windshield, and on two of the trailing patrolmen. Yeah, sure, all that brain matter amounted to no more than 3 ounces!

 

All of these issues are addressed on the website you claim to have read, but clearly fail to understand. 

I will address one point. The descriptions of the brain in the autopsy report and supplemental report strongly suggest two headshots. They mention a trail of fragments on the x-rays in the initial report, but present no evidence for it after studying the brain. It seems clear then that Humes had fooled himself into thinking he saw such a trail on the x-rays a few days later when writing the report, or was flat-out fibbing. In any event, the conclusions of the doctors are at odds with their own observations. 

You keep missing this. The observations are the key, not the conclusions. People stating they do not see a fragment on the back of the head on the lateral x-ray are not simultaneously saying it is on the back of the head on the A-P x-ray. One can not determine depth from an x-ray--this is why they take two views when trying to determine location. As for those stating they could not see a partner or whatever, they were responding to questions written and asked under the presumption the fragment on the A-P was on the back of the head. Their answer was they could not see it. If you can show me one such exchange where they were told beforehand that the largest fragment removed at autopsy was removed from behind the eye, and then asked if the fragment behind the eye had a partner on the lateral, well, that would be something. But that never happened. Heck, Morgan was never allowed to meet with H and B before claiming the fragment was on the back of the head. He was told to find evidence proving the shot was from behind, and popped up with a non-existent fragment on the back wall by a non-existent hole. You don't believe there was such a hole, right? So why would you believe there was such a fragment? 

 

[Roger Odisio]

12 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

If you look through the archives of this site you will find that Tink joined up to argue with Fetzer on this very point. Tink thinks the Z-film is proof of conspiracy, and thinks those arguing it's been altered are out to lunch or worse. At the time, three of the most popular arguments for the alteration of the film were 1) the cherry-picked statements indicating the limo stopped when no such stop is shown in the film, 2) the cherry-picked statements of Mary Moorman indicating she was in the street when she took her famous photo when the film shows her on the grass, and 3) the cherry-picked statements indicating James Chaney rode up to Jesse Curry's car before reaching the overpass, when this is not shown in the film. These three arguments, and many others, were destroyed right here on this forum, mostly by Tink, but with some help from others.

Well, this led Fetzer to start a rumor Tink was a secret LN, and would come out on the 50th announcing he'd changed his mind. He was wrong, of course. Tink came out on the 50th to announce he was writing a new conspiracy book. And Fetzer??? He kept upping the ante and making crazier and crazier claims, until finally he was sued for saying a young murdered boy never existed, and his parents were just actors hired by Da EVIL Guvment to scare us into believing school shootings were real. 

You're summary of the three "most popular" arguments of Z film alteration "at the time" may in some sense be correct,  but how can anyone today argue that Zapruder was *not* altered?

 

The issue, and Tink's opinions, may came to a head at the Duquesne U seminar, Nov 15-17.  Thompson, together with Gary Aguilar, Doug DeSalles, and Bill Simpich, is scheduled to talk about: "Converging Lines of Evidence in the Case for Two Headshots"  It's the first session on the first full day.  And the longest session of the meeting.

 

One of those converging lines should  be a discussion of the alteration of the Zapruder frames showing the head shot--one from the front and one from the back--in order to try to obscure the front shot. I don't know if it will be.

 

Unfortunately I'm likely only to be able to attend the session remotely.  Could any of you there in person bring up the Zapruder alteration if the presenters don't?  Surely if the case for two, close to simultaneous, head shots can be made convincingly it would be a major breakthrough in the whole case. 

 

I posted an explanation of the alteration in another thread.  Here is a brief summary.

 

The most obvious alteration was the deletion of the the turn by the limo on to Elm Street.  Zapruder and his assistant said once he started filming he never stopped until the limo was gone (please correct me if I'm wrong about that).  Yet the turn right underneath the TSBD and the Dall-Tex building is missing.  Homer McMahon, who did the second set of briefing boards that weekend, said he included frames from that segment on his boards, but they were later deleted by somebody. 

 

But the most important alteration was done to the frames showing the head shot(s). In his interview by Doug Horne, Dino Brugioni, who did the first set of briefing boards, emphatically insisted the head shot(s) in the original film he worked on lasted for several frames and a grotesque spray of blood, brain, and bone shot up several feet in the air. The extant Zapruder shows only a flash in one frame.

 

It's likely the original Zapruder would have contained more information to substantiate the two shot claim.

 

How was the alteration done? After Life magazine bought the right to publish some frames, the film original was diverted that Saturday to the CIA's National Photo Interpretation Center for Brugioni to enlarge the key frames for briefing boards that would clearly show what happened.  

 

The framing of Oswald had already begun. The story was that Oswald killed JFK with three shots from behind from the TSBD.  The framers needed a clear record of the extent to which Zapruder contradicted their story.  That was the real purpose of Brugioni's work, not briefing John McCone.

 

The film was then flown to the CIA's then secret Hawkeye Works lab in Rochester for alterations to try to obscure evidence both of frontal shot(s) and the number of them. 

 

The film was then flown back to the NPIC that Sunday for a second set of boards to be made.  This time the selection of frames was directed by "Bill Smith of the Secret Service" to try to conform to the WR story of three shots from the back. Those are the boards now at NARA.  Brugioni's boards were later destroyed. 

 

McMahon and Ben Hunter only did part of the work of enlarging frames for the second set of boards.  Others completed the boards later.  McMahon told Horne that some enlargements they did are missing and some are included they didn't do.  Some of the accompanying notes were done by someone else

 

But the framers of Oswald realized the altered film and boards weren't going to be enough to conceal shots from the front if people could see the actual film, even after the alterations they made up to that point. There was only so much alteration they could do back then. They lacked the tools to fully eliminate evidence of frontal shot(s), if that was even possible.

 

So that Sunday Life went back to Zapruder and purchased all rights to the film, including the right to show the full film.  They then buried it, never showing it to the public.

 

When a bootleg version was shown on the Geraldo Rivera show in1975, Life's part of the coverup was finished.  They sold all rights to the film back to Zapruder for one dollar.

 

 

[Pat Speer]

9 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

You're summary of the three "most popular" arguments of Z film alteration "at the time" may in some sense be correct,  but how can anyone today argue that Zapruder was *not* altered?

 

The issue, and Tink's opinions, may came to a head at the Duquesne U seminar, Nov 15-17.  Thompson, together with Gary Aguilar, Doug DeSalles, and Bill Simpich, is scheduled to talk about: "Converging Lines of Evidence in the Case for Two Headshots"  It's the first session on the first full day.  And the longest session of the meeting.

 

One of those converging lines should  be a discussion of the alteration of the Zapruder frames showing the head shot--one from the front and one from the back--in order to try to obscure the front shot. I don't know if it will be.

 

Unfortunately I'm likely only to be able to attend the session remotely.  Could any of you there in person bring up the Zapruder alteration if the presenters don't?  Surely if the case for two, close to simultaneous, head shots can be made convincingly it would be a major breakthrough in the whole case. 

 

I posted an explanation of the alteration in another thread.  Here is a brief summary.

 

The most obvious alteration was the deletion of the the turn by the limo on to Elm Street.  Zapruder and his assistant said once he started filming he never stopped until the limo was gone (please correct me if I'm wrong about that).  Yet the turn right underneath the TSBD and the Dall-Tex building is missing.  Homer McMahon, who did the second set of briefing boards that weekend, said he included frames from that segment on his boards, but they were later deleted by somebody. 

 

But the most important alteration was done to the frames showing the head shot(s). In his interview by Doug Horne, Dino Brugioni, who did the first set of briefing boards, emphatically insisted the head shot(s) in the original film he worked on lasted for several frames and a grotesque spray of blood, brain, and bone shot up several feet in the air. The extant Zapruder shows only a flash in one frame.

 

It's likely the original Zapruder would have contained more information to substantiate the two shot claim.

 

How was the alteration done? After Life magazine bought the right to publish some frames, the film original was diverted that Saturday to the CIA's National Photo Interpretation Center for Brugioni to enlarge the key frames for briefing boards that would clearly show what happened.  

 

The framing of Oswald had already begun. The story was that Oswald killed JFK with three shots from behind from the TSBD.  The framers needed a clear record of the extent to which Zapruder contradicted their story.  That was the real purpose of Brugioni's work, not briefing John McCone.

 

The film was then flown to the CIA's then secret Hawkeye Works lab in Rochester for alterations to try to obscure evidence both of frontal shot(s) and the number of them. 

 

The film was then flown back to the NPIC that Sunday for a second set of boards to be made.  This time the selection of frames was directed by "Bill Smith of the Secret Service" to try to conform to the WR story of three shots from the back. Those are the boards now at NARA.  Brugioni's boards were later destroyed. 

 

McMahon and Ben Hunter only did part of the work of enlarging frames for the second set of boards.  Others completed the boards later.  McMahon told Horne that some enlargements they did are missing and some are included they didn't do.  Some of the accompanying notes were done by someone else

 

But the framers of Oswald realized the altered film and boards weren't going to be enough to conceal shots from the front if people could see the actual film, even after the alterations they made up to that point. There was only so much alteration they could do back then. They lacked the tools to fully eliminate evidence of frontal shot(s), if that was even possible.

 

So that Sunday Life went back to Zapruder and purchased all rights to the film, including the right to show the full film.  They then buried it, never showing it to the public.

 

When a bootleg version was shown on the Geraldo Rivera show in1975, Life's part of the coverup was finished.  They sold all rights to the film back to Zapruder for one dollar.

 

 

I know the gentlemen involved, and can assure you they will spend little to no time discussing the alteration of the Zapruder film. 

Edited October 13, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Roger Odisio]

17 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

I know the gentlemen involved, and can assure you they will spend little to no time discussing the alteration of the Zapruder film. 

I have Thompson's Last Second.  I understand his conclusions were based primarily on his interpretation of the acoustical evidence.  He thinks there were at least 4 or 5 shots from different directions.

But if you read his "Final Reconstruction", pp 355-7, of what he says happened, it's clear that virtually none of what he says can be seen in the extant Zapruder.  He is making the case for alteration, whether acknowledged or not.

He and the others probably thinks talking about Z alteration would be distraction from their detailed presentation of the evidence, particularly the acoustical part which is the heart of his argument. I don't agree. It leaves open the question:  if what you say happened is true, why can't I see it in Zapruder?

Are you going to be there, Pat?  Perhaps you could ask the group that.