Dueling Delusions: LN vs CT

[Joe Bauer]

15 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Was Bill Newman prepared to see what was about to happen? No! He was looking at Kennedy from his right side when he was shot. He had no time to study it and assumed that he was seeing blood shoot out of the right side of Kennedy's head. What he didn't realize was that, when Kennedy was shot in the head, his head was turned and facing Jackie. The back of Kennedy's head was facing Newman at that time. Newman saw the blood shoot out of he back of the head, though he thought it was the right side.

Anyway, it is silly to believe a couple of witnesses who had no chance to study the wound and to believe their testimony trumps the 20 Parkland doctors and nurses who saw the wound for several minutes -- some of them very closely -- and the others Michael commented on.

 

Zapruder Film Restored HD

[Jonathan Cohen]

20 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Anyway, it is silly to believe a couple of witnesses who had no chance to study the wound and to believe their testimony trumps the 20 Parkland doctors and nurses who saw the wound for several minutes -- some of them very closely -- and the others Michael commented on.

What's actually silly is your refusal to believe that Mrs. Kennedy having applied pressure to the top and side of JFK's head on the way to Parkland may have obscured the true nature of the wound during those frantic, heated moments in the emergency room.

[Joe Bauer]

Sandy, with all due respect, what I see in the Zapruder film clip above is a flap blow out much further ahead than not just the back of the skull but even the right rear area behind the right-side ear.

To me the flap blowout shown in the film is clearly above and even forward of JFK's right ear.

Hill and 20 others always placed their location placing hand to an area between JFK's right ear and the full back of his head. No one places their hand above and slightly forward of his right-side ear.

[Cliff Varnell]

Consensus regarding the JFK head wound(s) doesn’t seem possible.  Was he hit in the head once, twice, thrice?

Consensus on the T3 back wound and throat entrance wound, however, would upend the Answer the Question of Conspiracy Parlor Game, and bring down the JFKA False Mystery Industry.

Pointing at Salandria and Fonzi and saying, “What they said,” isn’t enough to write books and speeches about.  Where’s the fun in that?

 

 

Edited November 15, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Sandy Larsen]

26 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Zapruder Film Restored HD

 

Obviously those frames in the Zapruder film have been altered. That's been known for decades.

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

3 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Obviously those frames in the Zapruder film have been altered. That's been known for decades.

Absolute nonsense, ad infinitum.

[Sandy Larsen]

10 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Absolute nonsense, ad infinitum.

 

Yes, yes, we know. You believe the 20 Parkland doctors and nurses mass hallucinated. We get it!

 

[Cory Santos]

2 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Yes, yes, we know. You believe the 20 Parkland doctors and nurses mass hallucinated. We get it!

 

Don’t forget, according to David Jackie kept the head in place so well that surgeons were fooled.  
 

[Sandy Larsen]

4 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

Don’t forget, according to David Jackie kept the head in place so well that surgeons were fooled.

 

The fact remains that 20 Parkland doctors (and several others) saw a gaping hole on the back of Kennedy's head, whereas the autopsy photo shows no such hole.

Either all ~25 professionals saw the wrong thing, even though they got a good look (i.e. mass hallucination) or the autopsy photo was doctored. Take your pick.

I don't believe in mass hallucination. I do know that photos can be doctored.

This is a no-brainer... the photo was doctored.

 

[Roger Odisio]

1 hour ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Absolute nonsense, ad infinitum.

There is no question that the Zapruder film was altered, Jonathon.  A while back I explained the basics of what happened that weekend, and probably thereafter,  based on the interviews Doug Horne did with Dino Brugioni, Homer McMahon, and Ben Hunter who made two separate sets of briefing boards from the film. I repeat it herein case you missed it.

The deletion of the turn on to Elm street is the most obvious change.  The altering of the head shot(s) in the film is most crucial change to understand: 

 

"Zapruder alteration is a thread currently at ROKC.  Let me summarize my take.

 

Fronting for the CIA, (Publisher CD Jackson was a long time CIA asset) Life bought partial rights to the original Zapruder film the day after the murder so they could print selected frames from it in their magazine.  We were told they flew the film to their Chicago headquarters to begin work on it.

 

That's not what happened.

 

The film was diverted to the National Photo Interpretation Center in DC where Dino Brugioni was asked to enlarge the key frames and paste them on two sets of briefing boards to be sent to the CIA director and the Secret Service.

 

After viewing the film several times, Dino picked the frames to be enlarged and provided notes about what he did.

 

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.

 

Dino's boards were later destroyed.

 

Before Dino was even finished making up the boards, early Sunday the film was flown to the then secret Hawkeye Works at the Kodak plant in Rochester.  Even the name Hawkeye Works was classified until 2010.

 

There the main job was to delete or obscure evidence of both shots from the front as well as the number of shots, as much as they could given the tools of the day.

 

While they were working on the film, Oswald was murdered, removing one, major impediment to their lone assassin story.  As Bart Kamp has explained in detail, they had no case against Oswald that could withstand scrutiny, and of course they knew it. 

 

Then the altered film was flown back to the NPIC lab in DC where Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter were to make a second set of briefing boards.

 

But this time the task was different. The film was brought back by a man identifying himself as "Bill Smith", a "Secret Service agent".

 

McMahon says he thought there were 6-8 shots from at least 3 directions (and this was even after the alterations). But "Smith" picked the frames to be enlarged. He was only interested in trying to show three shots from  behind. McMahon says his opinion was ignored.

 

There are 28 frames in the extant boards now at NARA.  But of that 28 McMahon says some enlargements they did are missing and some are included they didn't do.  Some of the accompanying notes were done by someone else.

 

Iow, McMahon and Hunter were minor functionaries in the process.  They made some enlargements but did not make up the boards, and left.  Someone else came after them and added and subtracted frames and wrote additional notes. 

 

But they 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. 

 

That very Sunday, Life went back to Zapruder and bought the full rights to the film, including the exclusive right to show the complete film to the public. 

 

Then Life buried it, never showing it. 

 

When a bootleg copy was shown 12 years later on TV by Geraldo Rivera, Life's coverup was finished. They sold the rights back to Zapruder for $1, verifying their role in the process.

 

It's not clear who did the further work on the film after McMahon and Hunter left late Sunday night.  Or over what time frame alterations were made. Life/CIA had the film tucked away for 12 years until they sold it back to Zapruder.

 

One deletion to the boards clearly made after McMahon and Hunter's work was the removal of the footage about the turn on to Elm Street. The extant boards begin with frame 188, after the turn.  But McMahon remembers making prints before that. He characterized the prior frames as involving some sort of commotion.

 

Perhaps more important, Brugioni told Doug Horne that the head shot in the extant film was nothing like what he saw when making up his boards using the original.  Now it's merely a flash confined to one frame. Dino was emphatic in saying it lasted for several frames and showed a spray of blood, bone, and tissue shooting several feet in the air."   

 

 

 

[David Von Pein]

3 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

Don’t forget, according to David [Von Pein][,] Jackie kept the head in place so well that surgeons were fooled.  

That is unquestionably what did happen.*

No other explanation comes close.*

* IMHO.

Edited November 16, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

The fact remains that 20 Parkland doctors (and several others) saw a gaping hole on the back of Kennedy's head, whereas the autopsy photo shows no such hole.

Either all ~25 professionals saw the wrong thing, even though they got a good look (i.e. mass hallucination) or the autopsy photo was doctored. Take your pick.

I don't believe in mass hallucination. I do know that photos can be doctored.

This is a no-brainer... the photo was doctored.

 

Please name these "20 doctors". And please present their quotes where they say the autopsy photos must be fakes because they got a very good look and they are absolutely certain blah blah blah. 

Most of the primary doctors deferred to the authenticity of the autopsy photos. And most deferred to the expertise of men like Lattimer. Very few bought into the back of the head blow-out pushed by Lifton, Livingstone, Groden, Mantik, etc. The one exception among the primary doctors was McClelland. And he claimed the wound was of the left temple in his earliest report, and later said he thought the autopsy photos were legit, but deceptive. And no, he wasn't describing a small entrance wound in that first report. Read a textbook. Doctors DO NOT mention wounds they did not see in their reports while leaving out wounds they would later insist they'd studied. That's not supposed to happen. 

So where does that leave us? If you wanna crawl in bed with the Liftons and Fetzers of the world, you can claim the earliest statements of some of the witnesses, and the subsequent statements of some of the other witnesses (after prodding by a wide-eyed "researcher") are a slam dunk, and that the multitude of times these doctors said they deferred to the autopsy report or the authenticity of the autopsy photos, and encouraged the likes of Lattimer, are an aberration, as a result of their being scared or some such.

But then you're not a supporter of the Parkland witnesses, are you? You are a zealot who thinks you can peer into their souls and discern what they really saw and who they really are. Not men who know they could be mistaken, and know autopsies are conducted for a reason. But scared little rabbits. 

Edited November 16, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Cory Santos]

13 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Please name these "20 doctors". And please present their quotes where they say the autopsy photos must be fakes because they got a very good look and they are absolutely certain blah blah blah. 

Most of the primary doctors deferred to the authenticity of the autopsy photos. And most deferred to the expertise of men like Lattimer. Very few bought into the back of the head blow-out pushed by Lifton, Livingstone, Groden, Mantik, etc. The one exception among the primary doctors was McClelland. And he claimed the wound was of the left temple in his earliest report, and later said he thought the autopsy photos were legit, but deceptive. And no, he wasn't describing a small entrance wound in that first report. Read a textbook. Doctors DO NOT mention wounds they did not see in their reports while leaving out wounds they would later insist they'd studied. That's not supposed to happen. 

So where does that leave us? If you wanna crawl in bed with the Liftons and Fetzers of the world, you can claim the earliest statements of some of the witnesses, and the subsequent statements of some of the other witnesses (after prodding by a wide-eyed "researcher") are a slam dunk, and that the multitude of times these doctors said they deferred to the autopsy report or the authenticity of the autopsy photos, and encouraged the likes of Lattimer, are an aberration, as a result of their being scared or some such.

But then you're not a supporter of the Parkland witnesses, are you? You are a zealot who thinks you can peer into their souls and discern what they really saw and who they really are. Not men who know they could be mistaken, and know autopsies are conducted for a reason. But scared little rabbits. 

Pat, in the documentary these medical professionals look at the diagnostic results and clearly say that what the films show are not what they witnessed.   I think Sandy has a point here.   Have you watched the latest documentary?

Edited November 16, 2023 by Cory Santos

[Cory Santos]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

That is unquestionably what did happen.*

No other explanation comes close.*

* IMHO.

David, if you ever come to Vegas, feel free to meet me for lunch.  Serious.  We can at least discuss Marilyn.  

[Chris Bristow]

16 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Please name these "20 doctors". And please present their quotes where they say the autopsy photos must be fakes because they got a very good look and they are absolutely certain blah blah blah. 

Most of the primary doctors deferred to the authenticity of the autopsy photos. And most deferred to the expertise of men like Lattimer. Very few bought into the back of the head blow-out pushed by Lifton, Livingstone, Groden, Mantik, etc. The one exception among the primary doctors was McClelland. And he claimed the wound was of the left temple in his earliest report, and later said he thought the autopsy photos were legit, but deceptive. And no, he wasn't describing a small entrance wound in that first report. Read a textbook. Doctors DO NOT mention wounds they did not see in their reports while leaving out wounds they would later insist they'd studied. That's not supposed to happen. 

So where does that leave us? If you wanna crawl in bed with the Liftons and Fetzers of the world, you can claim the earliest statements of some of the witnesses, and the subsequent statements of some of the other witnesses (after prodding by a wide-eyed "researcher") are a slam dunk, and that the multitude of times these doctors said they deferred to the autopsy report or the authenticity of the autopsy photos, and encouraged the likes of Lattimer, are an aberration, as a result of their being scared or some such.

But then you're not a supporter of the Parkland witnesses, are you? You are a zealot who thinks you can peer into their souls and discern what they really saw and who they really are. Not men who know they could be mistaken, and know autopsies are conducted for a reason. But scared little 

Regarding McClelland you said. "and later said he thought the autopsy photos were legit, but deceptive".

Are you referring to his statement in the NOVA documentary at the National Archives when he said  it looks like they have pulled the scalp up over the wound?