The sequence of shot obfuscation

[Pat Speer]

16 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

FWIW, I studied a dozen or more books and articles on full-metal jacket gunshot wounds, And these books were consistent on a number of points. One of these was that the size of the large wound noted on JFK's head--whether it be the top of his head or back of his head--is inconsistent with the size of a wound made by a full metal jacket projectile, UNLESS the bullet was fired from inches away, or struck at an angle to the skull, and created a wound of both entrance and exit. Later, I spent a few months reading about gunshot injuries to the brain, and injuries to the top of the brain, and realized that the injuries to JFK's mid-brain are forensic proof for an impact at the top of his head. 

This is explained in detail in chapters 18c and 18d at patspeer.com. 

P.S. In looking back at your post, I see a few drawings depicting a wound LOW on the back of the head. I hope you realize that these drawings were created decades after the shooting by minor league witnesses after they'd been exposed to materials depicting a wound LOW on the back of the head. None of the primary physicians involved in JFK's care at Parkland, including McClelland, described such a wound, and such a wound makes little sense. Clark and Humes agreed that the large wound was missing overlying scalp. This marks this wound as an entrance, no matter its location. And the large size marks it as a tangential wound of both entrance and exit. In any event, such a wound would not be an exit for a shot entering the right temple or forehead, etc. 

Edited September 25, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Michael Crane]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

P.S. In looking back at your post, I see a few drawings depicting a wound LOW on the back of the head. I hope you realize that these drawings were created decades after the shooting by minor league witnesses after they'd been exposed to materials depicting a wound LOW on the back of the head. None of the primary physicians involved in JFK's care at Parkland, including McClelland, described such a wound, and such a wound makes little sense. Clark and Humes agreed that the large wound was missing overlying scalp. This marks this wound as an entrance, no matter its location. And the large size marks it as a tangential wound of both entrance and exit. In any event, such a wound would not be an exit for a shot entering the right temple or forehead, etc. 

I can't find that picture that has all of the witnesses holding their hand on the back of their head.

This damn medical evidence is so complicated & difficult.

I suspect that the low shot in back of the head arrived a split second before the temple shot.

The frontal shot obliterated the rear shot & became one large defect.

*If Humes was telling the truth...he said that "scientifically sir,it is impossible for the missle to not have entered from behind or to have exited from behind"

** I got two head shots & one of those is at a very,very strange angle/trajectory.

Edited September 25, 2023 by Michael Crane

[Michael Crane]

I've posted this before,so it's just something to consider.

And of course these are not my diagrams,but also something to consider.

I did not get the floor pan idea from this diagram.I think I read about it in "Murder in Dealey Plaza" when they removed the interior/seats/carpet on the JFK limo.

 

Edited September 25, 2023 by Michael Crane

[Michael Crane]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

FWIW, I studied a dozen or more books and articles on full-metal jacket gunshot wounds, And these books were consistent on a number of points. One of these was that the size of the large wound noted on JFK's head--whether it be the top of his head or back of his head--is inconsistent with the size of a wound made by a full metal jacket projectile, UNLESS the bullet was fired from inches away, or struck at an angle to the skull, and created a wound of both entrance and exit. Later, I spent a few months reading about gunshot injuries to the brain, and injuries to the top of the brain, and realized that the injuries to JFK's mid-brain are forensic proof for an impact at the top of his head. 

This is explained in detail in chapters 18c and 18d at patspeer.com. 

I'll head on over to patspeer.com 18c and 18d.

[Pat Speer]

9 minutes ago, Michael Crane said:

I'll head on over to patspeer.com 18c and 18d.

Sorry, Michael, my bad. 18c and 18d were about the controversy over JFK's head wounds. 16b and 16c are the two on the forensic literature. Someone could argue with much of my work--saying it's just my impression, etc. But the material in 16b and 16c is mostly not my own, as I am simply repeating what physicians and researchers were reporting in the early 20th century. . 

[Michael Crane]

Yeah,I went over there for just a bit.I'm going to head back over tomorrow for a longer look/read.

I was able to find that one picture that I was talking about.

I'm a guy that believes in the Parkland witnesses more than the Bethesda witnesses.

The establishment came down hard on Crenshaw,so to me that says that he must have been close to the truth.

 

Nothing close to the top of the head.

[Chris Davidson]

11 hours ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

 I would also assume that, somewhere the FBI refer to  Z frame numbers, so can't we see a frame numbering mistake in the documentation? to indicate later frame removal (or is that simply achieved by ignoring later Z frames in later documents?)

 

 

Start with these questions:

How many frames would the real Zfilm consist of, if Z had started filming as the limo started turning around the corner, just as the Towner film does?

Where/How did the FBI obtain a 33 second (assassination footage) Z version?

What are the odds that the total frames difference ratio between the FBI 33 second Z version and the extant Z version, when applied to the extant zfilm frame rate, would equal the approx frame rate Myers applies to the Towner/Martin films in order for his (multi film sync) project to work?

Keep in mind that the Towner/Martin films were shot with different 8mm cameras.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Eddy Bainbridge]

9 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Start with these questions:

How many frames would the real Zfilm consist of, if Z had started filming as the limo started turning around the corner, just as the Towner film does?

Where/How did the FBI obtain a 33 second (assassination footage) Z version?

What are the odds that the total frames difference ratio between the FBI 33 second Z version and the extant Z version, when applied to the extant zfilm frame rate, would equal the approx frame rate Myers applies to the Towner/Martin films in order for his (multi film sync) project to work?

Keep in mind that the Towner/Martin films were shot with different 8mm cameras.

 

 

Hi Chris,

Thankyou for posting. As usual your posts leave me confused, but to try and answer your questions;

1. How many frames would the real Zfilm consist of, if Z had started filming as the limo started turning around the corner, just as the Towner film does?

This is a wild estimate but I'd say another maybe 3-4 secs more for a slow wide turn (50 - 70 frames?) as I think you believe occurred. Should I be allowing for later frame removal as well?

2. Where/How did the FBI obtain a 33 second (assassination footage) Z version?

I have not read , but think you have quoted, that the FBI had a longer film than the extant Z film.

My best guess is that they would get it from Life, but I am going to take some convincing the FBI used one film while the CIA modified another. That is incredibly incompetent.

3. What are the odds that the total frames difference ratio between the FBI 33 second Z version and the extant Z version,.......

Sorry but that sounds obvious. To synch films, showing the same initial footage, is always going to take the same 'frame difference ration' isn't it?

Edited September 25, 2023 by Eddy Bainbridge

[Chris Davidson]

1 hour ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

Hi Chris,

Thank you for posting. As usual your posts leave me confused, but to try and answer your questions;

1. How many frames would the real Zfilm consist of, if Z had started filming as the limo started turning around the corner, just as the Towner film does?

This is a wild estimate but I'd say another maybe 3-4 secs more for a slow wide turn (50 - 70 frames?) as I think you believe occurred. Should I be allowing for later frame removal as well?

Not wild at all. Yes, later frames removed.

2. Where/How did the FBI obtain a 33 second (assassination footage) Z version?

I have not read , but think you have quoted, that the FBI had a longer film than the extant Z film.

It's from the link attached in my previous posting. From the WC298 document.

My best guess is that they would get it from Life, but I am going to take some convincing the FBI used one film while the CIA modified another. That is incredibly incompetent.

3. What are the odds that the total frames difference ratio between the FBI 33 second Z version and the extant Z version,.......

Sorry but that sounds obvious. To synch films, showing the same initial footage, is always going to take the same 'frame difference ration' isn't it?

I didn't say apply the ratio to the same initial footage, I said apply it after using it on the total frame amounts.

Eddy,

How many frames in a 33 second film at 18.3 frames per sec?

How many total extant Z frames are there which include the pre-limo DPD motorcycle segment?

Divide those two numbers with the larger being the numerator?

What is the ratio?

Multiply that ratio by the extant Z frame rate of 18.3

Locate the frame rate for Towner/Martin's camera in Myers multisync project?

What's the total frame difference between a 33 second film and the extant zfilm?

 

 

 

 

 

[Pat Speer]

16 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

Yeah,I went over there for just a bit.I'm going to head back over tomorrow for a longer look/read.

I was able to find that one picture that I was talking about.

I'm a guy that believes in the Parkland witnesses more than the Bethesda witnesses.

The establishment came down hard on Crenshaw,so to me that says that he must have been close to the truth.

 

Nothing close to the top of the head.

Actually, a number of them are covering the top rear of their head. And several of those pointing to the low back of the head were pointing to the most rearward part of the defect after the scalp was pulled back and skull felt to the table, and not where there was a defect at the beginning of the autiopsy. (Pretty sneaky, that Groden.) Custer, moreover, specified that the low back of the head was shattered, but intact beneath the scalp. 

A more telling observation is that none of these witnesses, outside Custer and O'Connor, who were pointing out the defect once the scalp was peeled to the side and skull fell to the table, and Crenshaw and Bell, who only came along decades later after being exposed to tons of conspiracy stuff showing a wound low on the back of the head, pointed to a location at and below the level of the ears. 

Now, an honest search for truth might lead one to conclude the wound as first observed was on the back of the head, above the level of the ears.

But a number of prominent CTs have instead taken what was actually said--that the wound was high on the back of the head--and pretended it means the wound was actually low on the back of the head between the ears. And that's bonkers. If some old sports writers recall the height of a star player, decades later, as 6' 6", when official records and photos show he was 6'9"', one can not just assume he was actually 6' 3'', and then conjure up a scenario where all the official records and photos have been faked. Can one? I hope not. 

[Michael Crane]

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Actually, a number of them are covering the top rear of their head. And several of those pointing to the low back of the head were pointing to the most rearward part of the defect after the scalp was pulled back and skull felt to the table, and not where there was a defect at the beginning of the autiopsy. (Pretty sneaky, that Groden.) Custer, moreover, specified that the low back of the head was shattered, but intact beneath the scalp. 

A more telling observation is that none of these witnesses, outside Custer and O'Connor, who were pointing out the defect once the scalp was peeled to the side and skull fell to the table, and Crenshaw and Bell, who only came along decades later after being exposed to tons of conspiracy stuff showing a wound low on the back of the head, pointed to a location at and below the level of the ears. 

Now, an honest search for truth might lead one to conclude the wound as first observed was on the back of the head, above the level of the ears.

But a number of prominent CTs have instead taken what was actually said--that the wound was high on the back of the head--and pretended it means the wound was actually low on the back of the head between the ears. And that's bonkers. If some old sports writers recall the height of a star player, decades later, as 6' 6", when official records and photos show he was 6'9"', one can not just assume he was actually 6' 3'', and then conjure up a scenario where all the official records and photos have been faked. Can one? I hope not. 

You're not going to get any cerebellum damage from a wound near the top of the head.

There was cerebellum leakage reported by a couple or more witnesses at Parkland.

At least with a low head wound and the downward angle of a shot,it's possible that you can get to the cerebellum.

Edited September 26, 2023 by Michael Crane

[Denny Zartman]

On 9/25/2023 at 12:23 AM, Pat Speer said:

P.S. In looking back at your post, I see a few drawings depicting a wound LOW on the back of the head. I hope you realize that these drawings were created decades after the shooting by minor league witnesses after they'd been exposed to materials depicting a wound LOW on the back of the head. None of the primary physicians involved in JFK's care at Parkland, including McClelland, described such a wound, and such a wound makes little sense. Clark and Humes agreed that the large wound was missing overlying scalp. This marks this wound as an entrance, no matter its location. And the large size marks it as a tangential wound of both entrance and exit. In any event, such a wound would not be an exit for a shot entering the right temple or forehead, etc. 

Do you not believe the doctors who said they saw cerebellum?

[Pat Speer]

13 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

Do you not believe the doctors who said they saw cerebellum?

Macerated cerebrum gives the appearance of cerebellum. Most of the doctors originally stating they saw cerebellum later backtracked and said they must have seen macerated cerebrum, or that they were simply repeating what others had said. Dr Clark thought conspiracy theorists were idiots and refused to comment. Dr. Peters said he saw THE cerebellum (as opposed to cerebellum dripping  out of the top or back of the head--which would be consistent with the cerebellum described by others. He was insistent, however, that he saw the cerebellum while looking down into the skull from ABOVE the cerebellum, and that there was no wound on the skull at the level of the cerebellum. That leaves McClelland, an erratic witness if there ever was one. He says he saw a clump of cerebellum drip out of the skull onto the floor. He says he saw this while standing at the head of the gurney looking down at the skull. The problem, of course, is that JFK was on his back the whole time. And it's worse than that. After a time, they placed Kennedy into what is known as the Trendelenburg position. Essentially, they lifted his feet to a position higher than his head to bring more blood flow to his upper body. Well, this suggests that McClelland was confused by the rotation of JFK's body, and that what he thought was the back of JFK's head was really the top of his head. This is demonstrated below. 

 

 

Edited September 27, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Michael Crane]

Ah,the good ol' backtracked story.

I hate when that happens.

Especially that witness that got shot in the head that said he couldn't identify Oswald.

Edited September 27, 2023 by Michael Crane

[Michael Crane]

Pat,

I think it would be foolish to say that there was not any top of the head damage.But,I don't think it would be foolish to say that there was no top of the head damage at Parkland Hospital.