Pat Speer Posted January 9 Share Posted January 9 (edited) 1 hour ago, Jonathan Cohen said: Do you honestly expect anyone here to be able to read, much less understand, your posts filled with different-sized and colored fonts and bold type for no apparent reason? Why you can't provide links rather than copying and pasting the same enormous blocks of text over and over again? You are giving people a headache. I agree. I don't think I've seen so many images in one post before. I thought there was a limit. As far as the content... Any post arguing that Bill Newman is a back of the head witness is nonsense. I've transcribed numerous interviews of him, and talked to him myself on several occasions, and he is consistent as can be that he was looking at the President as he passed, and saw but one explosion on the President's skull, that was by the ear, essentially where it is in the Z-film. Neither Newman nor his wife saw an explosion from the back of the president's head, even though they were looking right at it. Bobby Hargis, moreover, pretty much said the same thing. He said the skull exploded on the far side of the president's head from him (which would be the right side, where Newman placed the wound) and that brain and blood went up into the air, that he then drove through. Clint Hill also is a problem. Although he said the wound was on the right rear etc, he has for many years pointed out where he means when he says this, and places his hand at the top of his head above his right ear and slightly behind. He has also described the nature of the injury to the brain. He says it looked like someone had taken an ice cream scoop, and scooped out the brain beneath the skull defect. This is not the description of a brain whose back quadrant had been blasted from the skull, etc. And then there's Marilyn Willis, who is presented as a witness for a frontal entrance and an explosion from the far back of the head, even though she viewed the incident from almost a hundred yards behind, and did not see the front of Kennedy at the time, and even though she pointed out on her own skull where she thought there was a wound, and pointed to the top of her head. So...the post is misleading at best, and confusing as heck to boot. Edited January 9 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted January 9 Author Share Posted January 9 (edited) 23 hours ago, Pat Speer said: I agree. I don't think I've seen so many images in one post before. I thought there was a limit. As far as the content... Any post arguing that Bill Newman is a back of the head witness is nonsense. I've transcribed numerous interviews of him, and talked to him myself on several occasions, and he is consistent as can be that he was looking at the President as he passed, and saw but one explosion on the President's skull, that was by the ear, essentially where it is in the Z-film. Neither Newman nor his wife saw an explosion from the back of the president's head, even though they were looking right at it. Bobby Hargis, moreover, pretty much said the same thing. He said the skull exploded on the far side of the president's head from him (which would be the right side, where Newman placed the wound) and that brain and blood went up into the air, that he then drove through. Clint Hill also is a problem. Although he said the wound was on the right rear etc, he has for many years pointed out where he means when he says this, and places his hand at the top of his head above his right ear and slightly behind. He has also described the nature of the injury to the brain. He says it looked like someone had taken an ice cream scoop, and scooped out the brain beneath the skull defect. This is not the description of a brain whose back quadrant had been blasted from the skull, etc. And then there's Marilyn Willis, who is presented as a witness for a frontal entrance and an explosion from the far back of the head, even though she viewed the incident from almost a hundred yards behind, and did not see the front of Kennedy at the time, and even though she pointed out on her own skull where she thought there was a wound, and pointed to the top of her head. So...the post is misleading at best, and confusing as heck to boot. Quote I agree. I don't think I've seen so many images in one post before. I thought there was a limit. Images on posts are limited only by the limitations of the attachment limitations inherent to the Forum, but there is a way around that, which you are apparently unfamiliar with. The underhanded tactics to which you and your LN confederates will resort to to attack the messenger because of your dislike of the message never ceases to amaze me... Quote As far as the content... Any post arguing that Bill Newman is a back of the head witness is nonsense. I've transcribed numerous interviews of him, and talked to him myself on several occasions, and he is consistent as can be that he was looking at the President as he passed, and saw but one explosion on the President's skull, that was by the ear, essentially where it is in the Z-film. Neither Newman nor his wife saw an explosion from the back of the president's head, even though they were looking right at it. I wouldn't call the Newmans "back-of-the-head witnesses, as it seems clear that what they witnessed was from the vantage point of the front where they -- like Abraham Zapruder -- witnessed the bullet impact JFK's right temple. So I would label them "right temple impact witnesses." DEALEY PLAZA WITNESS BILL NEWMAN: "...I can remember seeing the side of the President's ear and head come off. I remember a flash of white and the red and just bit and pieces of flesh exploding from the President's head..." [Bill Newman interviewed about the JFK assassination -- 0:13-0:27 -- https://youtu.be/EEhlbAwI7Zg?t=14] However, Bill Newman's hand gesture at the back of his head in the interview in question does appear to indicate that he was conscious of the biological debris that was blown out of the back of JFK's head. In intervews Newman repeatedly related seeing JFK's ear coming off, which we know did not happen. The only way to interpret Newman's testimony to that effect is to recognize that his perspective did not allow him to actually directly see the back of JFK's head, limiting his observation to the blood, brain and skull that was being ejected from the back of the head, which to him appeared to be the ear, but was actually behind the ear. His hand gesture behind his ear below indicates that on some level he is conscious of this. More on the witness testimony of biological debris being ejected from the back of JFK's head below... Bill Newman, while describing the biological debris being blown out of JFK's head, makes a hand gesture over the lower right hand side of the back of his head, denoting the location where he saw the biological debris exiting JFK's head: And as for your reference to Newman's description being consistent with the extant Zapruder film, I beg to differ. If the Newmans had seen anything like what is depicted in the Zapruder film then they would have been describing something along the lines of the cavernous grapefruit sized hole in JFK's forehead that it depicts, which NONE of the witnesses at Dealey Plaza, Parkland Hospital or the Bethesda autopsy reported in any way, shape or form. Quote Bobby Hargis, moreover, pretty much said the same thing. He said the skull exploded on the far side of the president's head from him (which would be the right side, where Newman placed the wound) and that brain and blood went up into the air, that he then drove through. I've never been able to find an interview of Hargis in which he says anything more than that he saw JFK hit in the right side of his head, and that it spun his head around (Hargis is describing the entry of the shot to the right temple). He must have been distracted at the time, or else he would have seen what Secret Service Agent Sam Kinney saw (Kinney was the driver of the follow up car, and was very near Bobby Hargis at the time of the head shot). "...I HAD BRAIN MATTER ALL OVER MY WINDSHIELD AND LEFT ARM, THAT'S HOW CLOSE WE WERE TO IT ... IT WAS THE RIGHT REAR PART OF HIS HEAD ... BECAUSE THAT'S THE PART I SAW BLOW OUT. I SAW HAIR COME OUT, THE PIECES BLOW OUT, THEN THE SKIN WENT BACK IN -- AN EXPLOSION IN AND OUT..." SECRET SERVICE AGENT SAM KINNEY, who was driving the follow up car: “I saw one shot strike the President in the right side of the head. The President then fell to the seat to the left toward Mrs. Kennedy.” [11/30/1963 Statement: CE1024: 18H731] Kinney is referring to the right side of the back of JFK's head. We can be certain of this due to statements Kinney made when interviewed by Vince Palamara on 3/5/1994, as follows: "...I had brain matter all over my windshield and left arm, that's how close we were to it ... It was the right rear part of his head ... Because that's the part I saw blow out. I saw hair come out, the pieces blow out, then the skin went back in -- an explosion in and out..." [3/5/1994 interview by Vince Palamara] Secret Service Agent Samuel Kinney (3/5/1994 interview by Vince Palamara). The interviews of Hargis also make it clear that he accepted the WC mythology about the assassination and was convinced that he had just rode through a cloud of biological debris, but that would not explain why he was hit by the bloody water and pieces of skull and brain so hard that he thought he had been shot: DALLAS MOTORCYCLE PATROLMAN BOBBY HARGIS: "...When President Kennedy straightened back up in the car the bullet hit him in the head, the one that killed him and it seemed like his head exploded, and I was splattered with blood and brain, and a kind of bloody water..." [4/8/1964 Warren Commission testimony] "... As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned toward him, and that was when he got hit in the side of his head, spinning it around. I was splattered with blood. Then I felt something hit me. It could have been concrete or something, but I thought at first I might have been hit...." [11/24/1963 article in the New York Daily News] The biological debris that impacted Hargis at such a velocity that he thought he'd been shot is consistent with Secret Service Agent Sam Kinney's description of seeing the biological debris ejected from the back of JFK's head. Quote Clint Hill also is a problem. Although he said the wound was on the right rear etc, he has for many years pointed out where he means when he says this, and places his hand at the top of his head above his right ear and slightly behind. He has also described the nature of the injury to the brain. He says it looked like someone had taken an ice cream scoop, and scooped out the brain beneath the skull defect. This is not the description of a brain whose back quadrant had been blasted from the skull, etc. Yes, Clint Hill definitely is a problem for you because his earliest reports of the assassination and his earliest testimony (meaning the MOST CREDIBLE reports and testimony) given under oath to the WC all attest to the BOH wound. Hill's later revisions of his story transpired in the context of selling books to the public in which he presented versions of his story that he sanitized to be consistent with the WC mythology. The later sanitized versions are worthless, and must be discarded as they would be in American court proceedings for not being the earliest in time. SECRET SERVICE AGENT CLINT HILL: described the wounds he saw at Parkland as, "The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed...There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head." [WC--V2:141] “As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President’s head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lying in the seat.” [Statement: CE1024: 18H742] After seeing the President's skull wound in Dealey Plaza, and after returning with the body to Bethesda Clint Hill was "summoned...down to the morgue to view the body (again) and to witness the damage of the gunshot wounds."--as agent Kellerman put it in his 11-29-63 report. (WC--CE #1024, Kellerman report of 11-29-63. In: WC--V18:26-27) Hill reported, "When I arrived the autopsy had been completed and...I observed another wound (in addition to the throat wound) on the right rear portion of the skull." [WC--CE#1024, V18:744] "...Blood, brain matter, and bone fragments exploded from the back of the President's head. The President's blood, parts of his skull, bits of his brain were splattered all over me -- on my face, my clothes, in my hair..." [in his 2012 book "Mrs. Kennedy and Me: An Intimate Memoir"] Quote And then there's Marilyn Willis, who is presented as a witness for a frontal entrance and an explosion from the far back of the head, even though she viewed the incident from almost a hundred yards behind, and did not see the front of Kennedy at the time, and even though she pointed out on her own skull where she thought there was a wound, and pointed to the top of her head. Marilyn Willis did not need to see the front of JFK's head in order to see the biological debris exploding outwards from the back of JFK's head, and at such a distance it is no surprise that she may have believed the wound was on the top of the head (assuming your representation about there being a photo of her indicating the wound was at the top of the head is true [I have never seen the photo, and have learned that you are not always an honest broker on such matters]). Willis's testimony that she saw the biological debris ejected from the back of JFK's head is perfectly credible whether you like it or not. DEALEY PLAZA WITNESS MARILYN WILLIS: "...The head shot seemed to come from the right front. It seemed to strike him here [gesturing to her upper right forehead, up high at the hairline], and his head went back, and all of the brain matter went out the back of the head. It was like a red halo, a red circle, with bright matter in the middle of it -- It just went like that..." [Marilyn Willis from 24:26-24:58 of TMWKK, Episode 1, at following link cued in advance for you https://youtu.be/BW98fHkbuD8?t=1466] Marilyn Willis appears to be another Dealey Plaza witness who was conscious of both the small entry wound in the front of JFK's head and the large exit wound in the back of his head. Per your typical avoidance of facts you cannot rebut, you have neglected to mention the following Dealey Plaza witnesses in your response: _________ SECRET SERVICE AGENT WILLIAM GREER was asked by Arlen Specter for the Warren Commission to describe the head wound he saw at Bethesda. Greer said, "I would--to the best of my recollection it was in this part of the head right here." Specter immediately asked, "Upper right?" Greer: "Upper right side." Specter: "Upper right side, going toward the rear. and what was the condition of the skull at that point?" Greer: "The skull was completely--this part was completely gone." [Warren Comm-- V2:127] I wish there was a photograph of Greer's hand gesture, but nevertheless, in the context of the aggregate of all of the Dealey Plaza testimony it is clear the Greer is referring to the right side of the back of JFK's head. _________ SECRET SERVICE AGENT ROY KELLERMAN under oath before the Warren Commission explained the head wound he saw to Arlen Specter, "He had a large wound this size." Specter: "Indicating a circle with your finger of the diameter of 5 inches would that be approximately correct?" (sic) Kellerman: "Yes, circular; yes, on this part of the head." Specter: "Indicating the rear portion of the head." Kellerman: "Yes." Specter: "More to the right side of the head." Kellerman: "Right. This was removed." Specter: "When you say, "This was removed", what do you mean by this?" Kellerman: "The skull part was removed." Specter: "All right." Kellerman: "To the left of the (right) ear, sir, and a little high; yes...(I recall that this portion of the rear portion of the skull) was absent when I saw him." [WC-V2:80- 81] Kellerman's 8/24/1977 HSCA sketch of JFK's wounds is somewhat confusing because he has reversed the locations of the wounds (putting the back wound of the right side rather than the left and likewise reversing the large occipital-parietal wound from the right side to the left), but his sketch confirms that he remembered the large avulsive wound was on the back of JFK's head rather than on the top or side of JFK's head. Furthermore, his sketch and corresponding WC testimony tends to confirm the existence of the second gunshot wound to the back of JFK's head: Any doubt about the actual location of the large back-of-the-head wound Kellerman observed is resolved by his testimony about viewing the wound in the morgue: Mr. SPECTER. I would like to develop your understanding and your observations of the four wounds on President Kennedy. Mr. KELLERMAN. OK. This all transpired in the morgue of the Naval Hospital in Bethesda, sir. He had a large wound this size. Mr. SPECTER. Indicating a circle with your finger of the diameter of 5 inches; would that be approximately correct? Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, circular; yes, on this part of the head. Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the rear portion of the head. Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes. Mr. SPECTER. More to the right side of the head? Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. This was removed. Mr. SPECTER. When you say, "This was removed," what do you mean by this? Mr. KELLERMAN. The skull part was removed. [2 H 80-81] Despite the confusion caused by the HSCA sketch, this testimony of Kellerman's observations about the large back-of the-head-wound in the morgue is powerful corroboration that it was located at the "rear portion of the head" on the right (and not on the left as in his HSCA sketch). _________ SECRET SERVICE AGENT PAUL LANDIS (Secret Service agent, on the right running-board of the follow up car), November 30, 1963: “I glanced towards the President and he still appeared to be fairly upright in his seat, leaning slightly towards Mrs. Kennedy with his head tilted slightly back. I think Mrs. Kennedy had her right arm around the President’s shoulders at this time. I also remember Special Agent Clinton Hill attempting to climb onto the back of the President’s car. It was at this moment that I heard a second report and it appeared that the President’s head split open with a muffled exploding sound. I can best describe the sound as I heard it, as the sound you would get by shooting a high powered bullet into a five gallon can of water or shooting into a mellon [sic]. I saw pieces of flesh and blood flying through the air ….” [Statement: CE1024: 18H755] Landis's statement to the WC was not very revealing as to the location of the head wound. However, in the context of the publicity surrounding the release of his 2023 book, Landis was asked about the location of the large head wound and he demonstrated with his hand that the large wound was in the occipital-parietal region on the right side of the back of JFK's head, as seen in the video below: SECRET SERVICE AGENT GEORGE HICKEY (Secret Service agent, in the follow-up car), November 30, 1963: “It looked to me as if the President was struck in the right upper rear of his head. The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed because the hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn’t seem to be any impact against his head. The last shot seemed to hit his head and cause a noise at the point of impact which made him fall forward and to his left again.” [Statement sent to Special Agent in Charge of White House Detail, Gerald A. Behn: 18H762] “Nothing was observed and I turned and looked at the President’s car. The President was slumped to the left in the car and I observed him come up. I heard what appeared to be two shots and it seemed as if the right side of his head was hit and his hair flew forward.” [Statement: 18H765] Clearly, Hickey is another back-of-the-head witness... _________ SECRET SERVICE AGENT EMORY ROBERTS (Secret Service agent, in the follow-up car), November 29, 1963: “I do not know if it was the next shot or the third shot that hit the President in the head, but I saw what appeared to be a small explosion on the right side of the President’s head ….” [Statement: CE1024: 18H734] Considering that all of the Secret Service Agents above were referring to the right side of the back of JFK's head when referencing "the right side," there is no reason not to assume that Robert's was also referring to the right side of the back of JFK's head, and this Roberts is also a back-of-the-head witness. _________ FIRST LADY JACQUELINE KENNEDY: "I was trying to hold his hair on. From the front there was nothing -- I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on. .... I could see a piece of his skull sort of wedge-shaped, like that, and I remember that it was flesh colored with little ridges at the top." [June 5, 1964 Warren Commission Testimony] _________ DEALEY PLAZA WITNESS CHARLES BREHM: Mark Lane: 0:15 Did you see the effects of the bullets upon the President? Charles Brehm: 0:21 When the second bullet hit there was a [Brehm puts his hand on the right side of the back of his head to demonstrate], hair seemed to go flying, uh it was very definite then that he was struck in the head with the second bullet, and uh, yes I very definitely saw the effects of the second bullet. Mark Lane: 0:38 Did you see any particles of the President's skull fly when the bullet struck him in the head? Charles Brehm: 0:46 I saw a piece fly over in the area of the curb where I was standing. Mark Lane: 0:53 In which direction did that fly? Charles Brehm: 0:56 It seemed to have come left and back...." [Charles Brehm interviewed about JFK assassination by Mark Lane for the 1967 documentary "Rush to Judgment": https://youtu.be/RsnHXywKIKs] _________ DEALEY PLAZA WITNESS JEAN HILL (on the south side of Elm Street, near the Presidential limousine at the time of the shots), March 13, 1964: “Mrs. Hill heard more shots ring out and saw the hair on the back of President Kennedy’s head fly up.” [FBI report: 25H853–4] Jean Hill reported effects of the ejection of biological debris from the back of JFK's head and this is a back-of-the-head witness as well. _________ MORE ON THE DEBRIS FIELD BEHING THE PRESIDENTIAL LIMOUSINE RESULTING FROM THE BLOOD, BRAIN AND SKULL BEING BLOWN OUT OF THE BACK OF JFK'S HEAD: Note that there are no pieces of skull or brain being "blasted out" of the back of JFK's head at Z-313 of the Zapruder film as there should be (See slow motion clip of Zapruder film headshot sequence below). Visible in the extant "original" Zapruder film is only a fine red mist suspended in the air for 1/18 of one second (frame Z-313 only), while all of the witnesses in real time on the ground in Dealey Plaza described an entirely different debris trail consisting of voluminous blood, brain and skull that was blown out of the back of JFK's head (Charles Brehm: "IT SEEMED TO HAVE COME LEFT AND BACK"), not the front, as you can see from the witness accounts directly below. -------------------------------------------------------- WITNESS ACCOUNTS OF BLOOD AND BRAINS EXITING THE BACK OF JFK'S HEAD: Clint Hill, Samuel Kinney, Bobby Hargis, Bill Newman, Marilyn Willis, Harry Holmes, Charles Brehm, Abraham Zapruder, Erwin Schwartz and Dino Brugioni. __________ "...BLOOD, BRAIN MATTER, AND BONE FRAGMENTS EXPLODED FROM THE BACK OF THE PRESIDENT'S HEAD. THE PRESIDENT'S BLOOD, PARTS OF HIS SKULL, BITS OF HIS BRAIN WERE SPLATTERED ALL OVER ME -- ON MY FACE, MY CLOTHES, IN MY HAIR..." Secret Service Agent Clint Hill (in his 2012 book "Mrs. Kennedy and Me: An Intimate Memoir"). __________ "...I HAD BRAIN MATTER ALL OVER MY WINDSHIELD AND LEFT ARM, THAT'S HOW CLOSE WE WERE TO IT ... IT WAS THE RIGHT REAR PART OF HIS HEAD ... BECAUSE THAT'S THE PART I SAW BLOW OUT. I SAW HAIR COME OUT, THE PIECES BLOW OUT, THEN THE SKIN WENT BACK IN -- AN EXPLOSION IN AND OUT..." Secret Service Agent Samuel Kinney (3/5/1994 interview by Vince Palamara). __________ "...WHEN PRESIDENT KENNEDY STRAIGHTENED BACK UP IN THE CAR THE BULLET HIT HIM IN THE HEAD, THE ONE THAT KILLED HIM AND IT SEEMED LIKE HIS HEAD EXPLODED, AND I WAS SPLATTERED WITH BLOOD AND BRAIN, AND KIND OF A BLOODY WATER...." Dallas Motorcycle Patrolman Bobby Hargis (4/8/1964 Warren Commission testimony). __________ "...I CAN REMEMBER SEEING THE SIDE OF THE PRESIDENT'S EAR AND HEAD COME OFF. I REMEMBER A FLASH OF WHITE AND THE RED AND JUST BITS AND PIECES OF FLESH EXPLODING FROM THE PRESIDENT'S HEAD..." Dealey Plaza witness Bill Newman interviewed about the JFK assassination -- 0:13-0:27 -- https://youtu.be/EEhlbAwI7Zg?t=13 __________ "...THE HEAD SHOT SEEMED TO COME FROM THE RIGHT FRONT. IT SEEMED TO STRIKE HIM HERE [gesturing to her upper right forehead, up high at the hairline], AND HIS HEAD WENT BACK, AND ALL OF THE BRAIN MATTER WENT OUT THE BACK OF THE HEAD. IT WAS LIKE A RED HALO, A RED CIRCLE, WITH BRIGHT MATTER IN THE MIDDLE OF IT - IT JUST WENT LIKE THAT...." Dealey Plaza witness Marilyn Willis from 24:26-24:58 of TMWKK, Episode 1, at following link cued in advance for you https://youtu.be/BW98fHkbuD8?t=1466 ). __________ "...THERE WAS JUST A CONE OF BLOOD AND CORRUPTION THAT WENT RIGHT IN THE BACK OF HIS HEAD AND NECK. I THOUGHT IT WAS RED PAPER ON A FIRECRACKER. IT LOOKED LIKE A FIRECRACKER LIT UP WHICH LOOKS LIKE LITTLE BITS OF RED PAPER AS IT GOES UP. BUT IN REALITY IT WAS HIS SKULL AND BRAINS AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WENT PERHAPS AS MUCH AS SIX OR EIGHT FEET. JUST LIKE THAT!..." Dealey Plaza witness and Postal Inspector Harry Holmes. Murder from Within (1974), Fred Newcomb and Perry Adams, p. 213. __________ "...Charles Brehm: 0:21 WHEN THE SECOND BULLET HIT, THERE WAS, THE HAIR SEEMED TO GO FLYING. IT WAS VERY DEFINITE THEN THAT HE WAS STRUCK IN THE HEAD WITH THE SECOND BULLET, AND, UH, YES, I VERY DEFINITELY SAW THE EFFECT OF THE SECOND BULLET. Mark Lane: 0:38 Did you see any particles of the President's skull fly when the bullet struck him in the head? Charles Brehm: 0:46 I SAW A PIECE FLY OVER OH IN THE AREA OF THE CURB WHERE I WAS STANDING. Mark Lane: 0:53 In which direction did that fly? Charles Brehm: 0:56 IT SEEMED TO HAVE COME LEFT AND BACK...." Dealey Plaza witness Charles Brehm interviewed about JFK assassination by Mark Lane for the 1967 documentary "Rush to Judgment": https://youtu.be/RsnHXywKIKs __________ "...I SAW THE HEAD PRACTICALLY OPEN UP AND BLOOD AND MANY MORE THINGS, WHATEVER IT WAS, BRAINS, JUST CAME OUT OF HIS HEAD...." Testimony of Dealey Plaza witness Abraham Zapruder -- who filmed the assassination -- at the Clay Shaw trial -- https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/zapruder_shaw2.htm __________ "...I also asked him if he saw the explosion of blood and brains out of the head. He replied that he did. I asked him if he noticed which direction the eruption went. He pointed back over his left shoulder. He said, "IT WENT THIS WAY." I said, "You mean it went to the left and rear?" He said, "YES." Bartholomew then asked him, "Are you sure that you didn't see the blood and brains going up and to the front?" Schwartz said, "NO; IT WAS TO THE LEFT AND REAR...." Excerpt from interview of Erwin Schwartz -- Abraham Zapruder's business partner -- who accompanied Zapruder to develop the camera-original Zapruder film, and saw the camera-original projected more than a dozen times. Bloody Treason by Noel Twyman. __________ "...Brugioni's most vivid recollection of the Zapruder film was "...OF JFK'S BRAINS FLYING THROUGH THE AIR." He did not use the term 'head explosion,' but rather referred to apparent exit debris seen on the film the night he viewed it. "...AND WHAT I'LL NEVER FORGET WAS -- I KNEW THAT HE HAD BEEN ASSASSINATED -- BUT WHEN WE ROLLED THE FILM AND I SAW A GOOD PORTION OF HIS HEAD FLYING THROUGH THE AIR, THAT SHOCKED ME, AND THAT SHOCKED EVERYBODY WHO WAS THERE..." Excerpt from interview of Dino Brugioni -- Photoanalyst at the CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center -- who viewed the camera-original Zapruder film the evening of 11/23/1963. Douglas Horne, Inside the Assassination Records Review Board" , 2009, Volume IV, Chapter 14, page 1329. __________ Edited January 10 by Keven Hofeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 9 Share Posted January 9 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said: Images on posts are limited only by the limitations of the attachment limitations inherent to the Forum, but there is a way around that, which you are apparently unfamiliar with. The underhanded tactics to which you and your LN confederates will resort to to attack the messenger because of your dislike of the message never ceases to amaze me... I wouldn't call the Newmans "back-of-the-head witnesses, as it seems clear that what they witnessed was from the vantage point of the front where they -- like Abraham Zapruder -- witnessed the bullet impact JFK's right temple. So I would label them "right temple impact witnesses." DEALEY PLAZA WITNESS BILL NEWMAN: "...I can remember seeing the side of the President's ear and head come off. I remember a flash of white and the red and just bit and pieces of flesh exploding from the President's head..." [Bill Newman interviewed about the JFK assassination -- 0:13-0:27 -- https://youtu.be/EEhlbAwI7Zg?t=14] However, Bill Newman's hand gesture at the back of his head in the interview in question does appear to indicate that he was conscious of the biological debris that was blown out of the back of JFK's head. In intervews Newman repeatedly related seeing JFK's ear coming off, which we know did not happen. The only way to interpret Newman's testimony to that effect is to recognize that his perspective did not allow him to actually directly see the back of JFK's head, limiting his observation to the blood, brain and skull that was being ejected from the back of the head, which to him appeared to be the ear, but was actually behind the ear. His hand gesture behind his ear below indicates that on some level he is conscious of this. More on the witness testimony of biological debris being ejected from the back of JFK's head below... Bill Newman, while describing the biological debris being blown out of JFK's head, makes a hand gesture over the lower right hand side of the back of his head, denoting the location where he saw the biological debris exiting JFK's head: And as for your reference to Newman's description being consistent with the extant Zapruder film, I beg to differ. If the Newmans had seen anything like what is depicted in the Zapruder film then they would have been describing something along the lines of the cavernous grapefruit sized hole in JFK's forehead that it depicts, which NONE of the witnesses at Dealey Plaza, Parkland Hospital or the Bethesda autopsy reported in any way, shape or form. I've never been able to find an interview of Hargis in which he says anything more than that he saw JFK hit in the right side of his head, and that it spun his head around (Hargis is describing the entry of the shot to the right temple). He must have been distracted at the time, or else he would have seen what Secret Service Agent Sam Kinney saw (Kinney was the driver of the follow up car, and was very near Bobby Hagis at the time of the head shot). "...I HAD BRAIN MATTER ALL OVER MY WINDSHIELD AND LEFT ARM, THAT'S HOW CLOSE WE WERE TO IT ... IT WAS THE RIGHT REAR PART OF HIS HEAD ... BECAUSE THAT'S THE PART I SAW BLOW OUT. I SAW HAIR COME OUT, THE PIECES BLOW OUT, THEN THE SKIN WENT BACK IN -- AN EXPLOSION IN AND OUT..." SECRET SERVICE AGENT SAM KINNEY, who was driving the follow up car: “I saw one shot strike the President in the right side of the head. The President then fell to the seat to the left toward Mrs. Kennedy.” [11/30/1963 Statement: CE1024: 18H731] Kinney is referring to the right side of the back of JFK's head. We can be certain of this due to statements Kinney made when interviewed by Vince Palamara on 3/5/1994, as follows: "...I had brain matter all over my windshield and left arm, that's how close we were to it ... It was the right rear part of his head ... Because that's the part I saw blow out. I saw hair come out, the pieces blow out, then the skin went back in -- an explosion in and out..." [3/5/1994 interview by Vince Palamara] Secret Service Agent Samuel Kinney (3/5/1994 interview by Vince Palamara). The interviews of Hargis also make it clear that he accepted the WC mythology about the assassination and was convinced that he had just rode through a cloud of biological debris, but that would not explain why he was hit by the bloody water and pieces of skull and brain so hard that he thought he had been shot: DALLAS MOTORCYCLE PATROLMAN BOBBY HARGIS: "...When President Kennedy straightened back up in the car the bullet hit him in the head, the one that killed him and it seemed like his head exploded, and I was splattered with blood and brain, and a kind of bloody water..." [4/8/1964 Warren Commission testimony] "... As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned toward him, and that was when he got hit in the side of his head, spinning it around. I was splattered with blood. Then I felt something hit me. It could have been concrete or something, but I thought at first I might have been hit...." [11/24/1963 article in the New York Daily News] The biological debris that impacted Hargis at such a velocity that he thought he'd been shot is consistent with Secret Service Agent Sam Kinney's description of seeing the biological debris ejected from the back of JFK's head. Yes, Clint Hill definitely is a problem for you because his earliest reports of the assassination and his earliest testimony (meaning the MOST CREDIBLE reports and testimony) given under oath to the WC all attest to the BOH wound. Hill's later revisions of his story transpired in the context of selling books to the public in which he presented versions of his story that he sanitized to be consistent with the WC mythology. The later sanitized versions are worthless, and must be discarded as they would be in American court proceedings for not being the earliest in time. SECRET SERVICE AGENT CLINT HILL: described the wounds he saw at Parkland as, "The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed...There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head." [WC--V2:141] “As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President’s head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lying in the seat.” [Statement: CE1024: 18H742] After seeing the President's skull wound in Dealey Plaza, and after returning with the body to Bethesda Clint Hill was "summoned...down to the morgue to view the body (again) and to witness the damage of the gunshot wounds."--as agent Kellerman put it in his 11-29-63 report. (WC--CE #1024, Kellerman report of 11-29-63. In: WC--V18:26-27) Hill reported, "When I arrived the autopsy had been completed and...I observed another wound (in addition to the throat wound) on the right rear portion of the skull." [WC--CE#1024, V18:744] "...Blood, brain matter, and bone fragments exploded from the back of the President's head. The President's blood, parts of his skull, bits of his brain were splattered all over me -- on my face, my clothes, in my hair..." [in his 2012 book "Mrs. Kennedy and Me: An Intimate Memoir"] Marilyn Willis did not need to see the front of JFK's head in order to see the biological debris exploding outwards from the back of JFK's head, and at such a distance it is no surprise that she may have believed the wound was on the top of the head (assuming your representation about there being a photo of her indicating the wound was at the top of the head is true [I have never seen the photo, and have learned that you are not always an honest broker on such matters]). Willis's testimony that she saw the biological debris ejected from the back of JFK's head is perfectly credible whether you like it or not. DEALEY PLAZA WITNESS MARILYN WILLIS: "...The head shot seemed to come from the right front. It seemed to strike him here [gesturing to her upper right forehead, up high at the hairline], and his head went back, and all of the brain matter went out the back of the head. It was like a red halo, a red circle, with bright matter in the middle of it -- It just went like that..." [Marilyn Willis from 24:26-24:58 of TMWKK, Episode 1, at following link cued in advance for you https://youtu.be/BW98fHkbuD8?t=1466] Marilyn Willis appears to be another Dealey Plaza witness who was conscious of both the small entry wound in the front of JFK's head and the large exit wound in the back of his head. Per your typical avoidance of facts you cannot rebut, you have neglected to mention the following Dealey Plaza witnesses in your response: _________ SECRET SERVICE AGENT WILLIAM GREER was asked by Arlen Specter for the Warren Commission to describe the head wound he saw at Bethesda. Greer said, "I would--to the best of my recollection it was in this part of the head right here." Specter immediately asked, "Upper right?" Greer: "Upper right side." Specter: "Upper right side, going toward the rear. and what was the condition of the skull at that point?" Greer: "The skull was completely--this part was completely gone." [Warren Comm-- V2:127] I wish there was a photograph of Greer's hand gesture, but nevertheless, in the context of the aggregate of all of the Dealey Plaza testimony it is clear the Greer is referring to the right side of the back of JFK's head. _________ SECRET SERVICE AGENT ROY KELLERMAN under oath before the Warren Commission explained the head wound he saw to Arlen Specter, "He had a large wound this size." Specter: "Indicating a circle with your finger of the diameter of 5 inches would that be approximately correct?" (sic) Kellerman: "Yes, circular; yes, on this part of the head." Specter: "Indicating the rear portion of the head." Kellerman: "Yes." Specter: "More to the right side of the head." Kellerman: "Right. This was removed." Specter: "When you say, "This was removed", what do you mean by this?" Kellerman: "The skull part was removed." Specter: "All right." Kellerman: "To the left of the (right) ear, sir, and a little high; yes...(I recall that this portion of the rear portion of the skull) was absent when I saw him." [WC-V2:80- 81] Kellerman's 8/24/1977 HSCA sketch of JFK's wounds is somewhat confusing because he has reversed the locations of the wounds (putting the back wound of the right side rather than the left and likewise reversing the large occipital-parietal wound from the right side to the left), but his sketch confirms that he remembered the large avulsive wound was on the back of JFK's head rather than on the top or side of JFK's head. Furthermore, his sketch and corresponding WC testimony tends to confirm the existence of the second gunshot wound to the back of JFK's head: Any doubt about the actual location of the large back-of-the-head wound Kellerman observed is resolved by his testimony about viewing the wound in the morgue: Mr. SPECTER. I would like to develop your understanding and your observations of the four wounds on President Kennedy. Mr. KELLERMAN. OK. This all transpired in the morgue of the Naval Hospital in Bethesda, sir. He had a large wound this size. Mr. SPECTER. Indicating a circle with your finger of the diameter of 5 inches; would that be approximately correct? Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, circular; yes, on this part of the head. Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the rear portion of the head. Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes. Mr. SPECTER. More to the right side of the head? Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. This was removed. Mr. SPECTER. When you say, "This was removed," what do you mean by this? Mr. KELLERMAN. The skull part was removed. [2 H 80-81] Despite the confusion caused by the HSCA sketch, this testimony of Kellerman's observations about the large back-of the-head-wound in the morgue is powerful corroboration that it was located at the "rear portion of the head" on the right (and not on the left as in his HSCA sketch). _________ SECRET SERVICE AGENT PAUL LANDIS (Secret Service agent, on the right running-board of the follow up car), November 30, 1963: “I glanced towards the President and he still appeared to be fairly upright in his seat, leaning slightly towards Mrs. Kennedy with his head tilted slightly back. I think Mrs. Kennedy had her right arm around the President’s shoulders at this time. I also remember Special Agent Clinton Hill attempting to climb onto the back of the President’s car. It was at this moment that I heard a second report and it appeared that the President’s head split open with a muffled exploding sound. I can best describe the sound as I heard it, as the sound you would get by shooting a high powered bullet into a five gallon can of water or shooting into a mellon [sic]. I saw pieces of flesh and blood flying through the air ….” [Statement: CE1024: 18H755] Landis's statement to the WC was not very revealing as to the location of the head wound. However, in the context of the publicity surrounding the release of his 2023 book, Landis was asked about the location of the large head wound and he demonstrated with his hand that the large wound was in the occipital-parietal region on the right side of the back of JFK's head, as seen in the video below: SECRET SERVICE AGENT GEORGE HICKEY (Secret Service agent, in the follow-up car), November 30, 1963: “It looked to me as if the President was struck in the right upper rear of his head. The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed because the hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn’t seem to be any impact against his head. The last shot seemed to hit his head and cause a noise at the point of impact which made him fall forward and to his left again.” [Statement sent to Special Agent in Charge of White House Detail, Gerald A. Behn: 18H762] “Nothing was observed and I turned and looked at the President’s car. The President was slumped to the left in the car and I observed him come up. I heard what appeared to be two shots and it seemed as if the right side of his head was hit and his hair flew forward.” [Statement: 18H765] Clearly, Hickey is another back-of-the-head witness... _________ SECRET SERVICE AGENT EMORY ROBERTS (Secret Service agent, in the follow-up car), November 29, 1963: “I do not know if it was the next shot or the third shot that hit the President in the head, but I saw what appeared to be a small explosion on the right side of the President’s head ….” [Statement: CE1024: 18H734] Considering that all of the Secret Service Agents above were referring to the right side of the back of JFK's head when referencing "the right side," there is no reason not to assume that Robert's was also referring to the right side of the back of JFK's head, and this Roberts is also a back-of-the-head witness. _________ FIRST LADY JACQUELINE KENNEDY: "I was trying to hold his hair on. From the front there was nothing -- I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on. .... I could see a piece of his skull sort of wedge-shaped, like that, and I remember that it was flesh colored with little ridges at the top." [June 5, 1964 Warren Commission Testimony] _________ DEALEY PLAZA WITNESS CHARLES BREHM: Mark Lane: 0:15 Did you see the effects of the bullets upon the President? Charles Brehm: 0:21 When the second bullet hit there was a [Brehm puts his hand on the right side of the back of his head to demonstrate], hair seemed to go flying, uh it was very definite then that he was struck in the head with the second bullet, and uh, yes I very definitely saw the effects of the second bullet. Mark Lane: 0:38 Did you see any particles of the President's skull fly when the bullet struck him in the head? Charles Brehm: 0:46 I saw a piece fly over in the area of the curb where I was standing. Mark Lane: 0:53 In which direction did that fly? Charles Brehm: 0:56 It seemed to have come left and back...." [Charles Brehm interviewed about JFK assassination by Mark Lane for the 1967 documentary "Rush to Judgment": https://youtu.be/RsnHXywKIKs] _________ DEALEY PLAZA WITNESS JEAN HILL (on the south side of Elm Street, near the Presidential limousine at the time of the shots), March 13, 1964: “Mrs. Hill heard more shots ring out and saw the hair on the back of President Kennedy’s head fly up.” [FBI report: 25H853–4] Jean Hill reported effects of the ejection of biological debris from the back of JFK's head and this is a back-of-the-head witness as well. _________ MORE ON THE DEBRIS FIELD BEHING THE PRESIDENTIAL LIMOUSINE RESULTING FROM THE BLOOD, BRAIN AND SKULL BEING BLOWN OUT OF THE BACK OF JFK'S HEAD: Note that there are no pieces of skull or brain being "blasted out" of the back of JFK's head at Z-313 of the Zapruder film as there should be (See slow motion clip of Zapruder film headshot sequence below). Visible in the extant "original" Zapruder film is only a fine red mist suspended in the air for 1/18 of one second (frame Z-313 only), while all of the witnesses in real time on the ground in Dealey Plaza described an entirely different debris trail consisting of voluminous blood, brain and skull that was blown out of the back of JFK's head (Charles Brehm: "IT SEEMED TO HAVE COME LEFT AND BACK"), not the front, as you can see from the witness accounts directly below. -------------------------------------------------------- WITNESS ACCOUNTS OF BLOOD AND BRAINS EXITING THE BACK OF JFK'S HEAD: Clint Hill, Samuel Kinney, Bobby Hargis, Bill Newman, Marilyn Willis, Harry Holmes, Charles Brehm, Abraham Zapruder, Erwin Schwartz and Dino Brugioni. __________ "...BLOOD, BRAIN MATTER, AND BONE FRAGMENTS EXPLODED FROM THE BACK OF THE PRESIDENT'S HEAD. THE PRESIDENT'S BLOOD, PARTS OF HIS SKULL, BITS OF HIS BRAIN WERE SPLATTERED ALL OVER ME -- ON MY FACE, MY CLOTHES, IN MY HAIR..." Secret Service Agent Clint Hill (in his 2012 book "Mrs. Kennedy and Me: An Intimate Memoir"). __________ "...I HAD BRAIN MATTER ALL OVER MY WINDSHIELD AND LEFT ARM, THAT'S HOW CLOSE WE WERE TO IT ... IT WAS THE RIGHT REAR PART OF HIS HEAD ... BECAUSE THAT'S THE PART I SAW BLOW OUT. I SAW HAIR COME OUT, THE PIECES BLOW OUT, THEN THE SKIN WENT BACK IN -- AN EXPLOSION IN AND OUT..." Secret Service Agent Samuel Kinney (3/5/1994 interview by Vince Palamara). __________ "...WHEN PRESIDENT KENNEDY STRAIGHTENED BACK UP IN THE CAR THE BULLET HIT HIM IN THE HEAD, THE ONE THAT KILLED HIM AND IT SEEMED LIKE HIS HEAD EXPLODED, AND I WAS SPLATTERED WITH BLOOD AND BRAIN, AND KIND OF A BLOODY WATER...." Dallas Motorcycle Patrolman Bobby Hargis (4/8/1964 Warren Commission testimony). __________ "...I CAN REMEMBER SEEING THE SIDE OF THE PRESIDENT'S EAR AND HEAD COME OFF. I REMEMBER A FLASH OF WHITE AND THE RED AND JUST BITS AND PIECES OF FLESH EXPLODING FROM THE PRESIDENT'S HEAD..." Dealey Plaza witness Bill Newman interviewed about the JFK assassination -- 0:13-0:27 -- https://youtu.be/EEhlbAwI7Zg?t=13 __________ "...THE HEAD SHOT SEEMED TO COME FROM THE RIGHT FRONT. IT SEEMED TO STRIKE HIM HERE [gesturing to her upper right forehead, up high at the hairline], AND HIS HEAD WENT BACK, AND ALL OF THE BRAIN MATTER WENT OUT THE BACK OF THE HEAD. IT WAS LIKE A RED HALO, A RED CIRCLE, WITH BRIGHT MATTER IN THE MIDDLE OF IT - IT JUST WENT LIKE THAT...." Dealey Plaza witness Marilyn Willis from 24:26-24:58 of TMWKK, Episode 1, at following link cued in advance for you https://youtu.be/BW98fHkbuD8?t=1466 ). __________ "...THERE WAS JUST A CONE OF BLOOD AND CORRUPTION THAT WENT RIGHT IN THE BACK OF HIS HEAD AND NECK. I THOUGHT IT WAS RED PAPER ON A FIRECRACKER. IT LOOKED LIKE A FIRECRACKER LIT UP WHICH LOOKS LIKE LITTLE BITS OF RED PAPER AS IT GOES UP. BUT IN REALITY IT WAS HIS SKULL AND BRAINS AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WENT PERHAPS AS MUCH AS SIX OR EIGHT FEET. JUST LIKE THAT!..." Dealey Plaza witness and Postal Inspector Harry Holmes. Murder from Within (1974), Fred Newcomb and Perry Adams, p. 213. __________ "...Charles Brehm: 0:21 WHEN THE SECOND BULLET HIT, THERE WAS, THE HAIR SEEMED TO GO FLYING. IT WAS VERY DEFINITE THEN THAT HE WAS STRUCK IN THE HEAD WITH THE SECOND BULLET, AND, UH, YES, I VERY DEFINITELY SAW THE EFFECT OF THE SECOND BULLET. Mark Lane: 0:38 Did you see any particles of the President's skull fly when the bullet struck him in the head? Charles Brehm: 0:46 I SAW A PIECE FLY OVER OH IN THE AREA OF THE CURB WHERE I WAS STANDING. Mark Lane: 0:53 In which direction did that fly? Charles Brehm: 0:56 IT SEEMED TO HAVE COME LEFT AND BACK...." Dealey Plaza witness Charles Brehm interviewed about JFK assassination by Mark Lane for the 1967 documentary "Rush to Judgment": https://youtu.be/RsnHXywKIKs __________ "...I SAW THE HEAD PRACTICALLY OPEN UP AND BLOOD AND MANY MORE THINGS, WHATEVER IT WAS, BRAINS, JUST CAME OUT OF HIS HEAD...." Testimony of Dealey Plaza witness Abraham Zapruder -- who filmed the assassination -- at the Clay Shaw trial -- https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/zapruder_shaw2.htm __________ "...I also asked him if he saw the explosion of blood and brains out of the head. He replied that he did. I asked him if he noticed which direction the eruption went. He pointed back over his left shoulder. He said, "IT WENT THIS WAY." I said, "You mean it went to the left and rear?" He said, "YES." Bartholomew then asked him, "Are you sure that you didn't see the blood and brains going up and to the front?" Schwartz said, "NO; IT WAS TO THE LEFT AND REAR...." Excerpt from interview of Erwin Schwartz -- Abraham Zapruder's business partner -- who accompanied Zapruder to develop the camera-original Zapruder film, and saw the camera-original projected more than a dozen times. Bloody Treason by Noel Twyman. __________ "...Brugioni's most vivid recollection of the Zapruder film was "...OF JFK'S BRAINS FLYING THROUGH THE AIR." He did not use the term 'head explosion,' but rather referred to apparent exit debris seen on the film the night he viewed it. "...AND WHAT I'LL NEVER FORGET WAS -- I KNEW THAT HE HAD BEEN ASSASSINATED -- BUT WHEN WE ROLLED THE FILM AND I SAW A GOOD PORTION OF HIS HEAD FLYING THROUGH THE AIR, THAT SHOCKED ME, AND THAT SHOCKED EVERYBODY WHO WAS THERE..." Excerpt from interview of Dino Brugioni -- Photoanalyst at the CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center -- who viewed the camera-original Zapruder film the evening of 11/23/1963. Douglas Horne, Inside the Assassination Records Review Board" , 2009, Volume IV, Chapter 14, page 1329. __________ At quick glance it looks like you are doubling down on all your nonsense, including that I am a LN. If you'd been following this forum for more than a minute before you decided to fly in and litter it with your propaganda, you'd know that I am long-time CT, who is respected by many on both sides of the fence...because I refuse to swallow and recycle garbage. Now, I'm still waiting... You seem to be one who exists primarily to attack, and pretend everyone who disagrees with you is part of some conspiracy. Since it appears you believe the images have been faked, it appears you believe the photographic evidence has been altered and not the body. Or is it both? In any event, what do you make of Aguilar's dismissal of Horne and body alteration? Do you agree with him that all this talk of body alteration has been a huge distraction? P.S. You owe Clint Hill an apology. It is unfair to claim he changed his opinion about the head wound location, when he continued to use the same words when describing it, and was simply pointing out what he meant. IF he was part of a conspiracy to support the Oswald did it crowd, moreover, he would have said he now accepted the single-bullet theory, or some such thing, and would have described the brain wound as a hole in the brain substance, and not in the manner he did. Edited January 9 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Cohen Posted January 9 Share Posted January 9 For the love of god, can someone please stop this guy from posting pages and pages of the same stuff over and over again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Crane Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 Keep it coming Keven, I pick up little pieces of the puzzle with your posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denny Zartman Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 Truly outstanding work here, @Keyvan Shahrdar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 (edited) 1 hour ago, Michael Crane said: Keep it coming Keven, I pick up little pieces of the puzzle with your posts. Well, then, please explain what his point is. Is it that the body was altered, or that the photos were faked? P.S. I saw that Bobby Hargis was included in Keven's bogus list of back of the head witnesses.Well, here's what Hargis really had to say... Bobby W. Hargis rode to the right of Martin and to the left of Mrs. Kennedy. (11-22-63 article in the Dallas Times-Herald. Note: in 1995 Hargis would tell researchers Ian Griggs and Mark Oakes that he didn't write this article and that it must have been based on a conversation he'd had with a reporter in a hallway) “About halfway down between Houston and the underpass I heard the first shot. It sounded like a real loud firecracker. When I heard the sound, the first thing I thought about was a gunshot. I looked around and about then Governor Connally turned around and looked at the President with a real surprised look on his face…The President bent over to hear what the Governor had to say. When he raised back up was when the President got shot…I felt blood hit me in the face and the Presidential car stopped almost immediately after that…I racked (parked) my motorcycle and jumped off. I ran to the North side of Elm to see if I could find where the bullets were coming from. I don’t think the President was hit with the first shot… I felt that the Governor was shot first." (Undated typescript of interview with Hargis found within the Dallas-Times-Herald's photograph collection, as reported by Richard Trask in Pictures of the Pain, 1994. This is almost certainly the basis for the 11-22 article) "I felt blood hit me in the face, and the presidential car stopped almost immediately after that and stayed stopped about half a second, then took off at a high rate of speed. I racked my cycle and jumped off. I ran to the north side of Elm Street to see if I could find where the bullets came from. I don't think the President got hit with the first shot, but I don't know for sure. When I heard the first shot, it looked like he bent over. I feel that the Governor was shot first. I could be wrong. Right after the first shot, I was trying to look and see if the President got shot. When I saw the look on Connally's face, I knew somebody was shooting at the car...The fatal bullet struck the President in the right side of the head. I noticed the people in the Texas School Book Depository were looking up to see the top. I didn't know if the President stopped under the triple underpass or not. I didn't know for sure if the shots had come from the Book Depository. I thought they might have come from the trestle." (11-23-63 UPI article found in the Fresno Bee) “I saw flesh flying after the shot, and the president’s hair flew up,” Hargis said, “I knew he was dead.” (11-23-63 article in the Houston Post) "A Dallas motorcycle officer who was riding two feet from the presidential car described to the Houston Post Friday what he saw when a sniper fired the shots that killed President Kennedy and wounded Gov. John B. Connally. 'When the first rifle bullet spewed into the open limousine,' said Patrolman J.H. Hargis, 'The President bent forward in the car.' Hargis, a nine-year veteran of the force, said the first shot hit the governor. 'Then immediately after that,' Hargis said, 'the second shot was fired, striking the President in the right side of the head.' The Secret Service man driving the car immediately picked up the phone inside the car and said "Let's go to the nearest hospital.' Hargis said he jumped off his motorcycle and began a search of the building from which the shots were fired. 'I knew it was high and from the right. I looked for any sign of activity in the windows, but I didn't see anybody.'" (11-24-63 article in the New York Sunday News) "We turned left onto Elm St. off Houston, about a half block from where it happened. I was right alongside the rear fender on the left side of the President's car, near Mrs. Kennedy. When I heard the first explosion, I knew it was a shot. I thought that Gov. Connally had been hit when I saw him turn toward the President with a real surprised look. The President then looked like he was bent over or that he was leaning toward the Governor, talking to him. As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned toward him, and that was when he got hit in the side of his head, spinning it around. I was splattered with blood. Then I felt something hit me. It could have been concrete or something, but I thought at first I might have been hit. Then I saw the limousine stop, and I parked my motorcycle at the side of the road, got off and drew my gun. Then this Secret Service agent (in the President's car) got his wits about him and they took off. The motorcycle officer on the right side of the car was Jim Chaney. He immediately went forward and announced to the chief that the President had been shot." (4-3-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 6H293-296): “I was next to Mrs. Kennedy when I heard the first shot, and at that time the President bent over, and Governor Connally turned around. He was sitting directly in front of him, and (had) a real shocked and surprised expression on his face…I thought Governor Connally had been shot first, but it looked like the President was bending over to hear what he had to say, and I thought to myself then that Governor Connally, the Governor had been hit, and then as the President raised back up like that the shot that killed him hit him.” (When asked about the blood) "when President Kennedy straightened back up in the car the bullet him in the head, the one that killed him and it seemed like his head exploded, and I was splattered with blood and brain, and kind of bloody water, It wasn't really blood. And at that time the Presidential car slowed down. I heard somebody say 'Get going' or 'get going.'" (When asked about the source of the shots) "Well, at the time it sounded like the shots were right next to me. There wasn't any way in the world I could tell where they were coming from, but at the time there was something in my head that said that they probably could have been coming from the railroad overpass, because I thought since I had got splattered, with blood--I was Just a little back and left of--just a little bit back and left of Mrs. Kennedy, but I didn't know. I had a feeling that it might have been from the Texas Book Depository, and these two places was the primary place that could have been shot from." (8-7-68 interview with Tom Bethel and Al Oser, investigators working on behalf New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, NARA #180-10096-10005) (When discussing how he could have been sprayed with blood, if the shot came from behind) "Well, that right there is what I've wondered about all along, but see there's ah -- you've got to take into consideration we were moving at the time, and when he got hit all that stuff went like this, and of course I run through it." (When discussing his interpretation of the direction of the shots) "Well, like I say, being that we know that the shot came from the School Book Depository, right then it was kind of hard to say what run through your mind. You know you pick up these little things. You don't know why you do it. You don't know why you do 'em, you just do 'em. It's just kind of instinct. But I had in my mind the shots you couldn't tell where they was coming, but it seemed like the motion of the President's head or his body and the splatter had hit me, it seemed like both the locations needed investigating, and that's why I investigated them. But you couldn't tell, there was -- it looked like a million windows on the Book Depository.You couldn't tell exactly if there was anyone in there with a gun." (When asked if the shots could have come from anywhere) "Uh huh. That's correct." (When asked if he saw the President's head jerk as a response to a bullet's impact) "Yes. Uh huh...To the left forward. Kind of that way...I couldn't see what part of it got hit...If he'd got hit in the rear, I'd have been able to see it. All I saw was just a splash come out on the other side." (a 1971 interview of Hargis by "Whitney," someone working for researcher Fred Newcomb, as presented by Larry Rivera and Jim Fetzer on the Veterans Today website, 4-3-14) (When asked how long the limo stopped) "Oh – you mean after that first shot?...Only about uh, oh 3-4 seconds. Maybe about 5-6. That’s all...but you won’t find that in the Warren Commission report." (When asked if it said the limo stopped) "Ah no I don’t think it didn’t – you’ve seen a rolling stop have you? It’s going less than one mile an hour?...Well that’s what he was doing he wasn’t completely stopped or dead still." The next three reports were posted on the Education Forum by Chris Scally, 6-21-11. (Interview by HSCA investigators James Kelly and Harold Rose on 10-26-77, notes transcribed 11-16-77, JFK document #003300, RIF 180-10107-10243) ""When they turned left on Elm from Houston, he was watching the President's car. Shortly afterwards, he heard a shot. He saw President Kennedy slump forward and Governor Connally turn. He felt at the time that Connally might have been hit and the President was leaning forward to find out what happened. He said the first shot sounded to him like a firecracker. The second shot hit JFK in the head. The presidential car had slowed almost to a stop. After the second shot, the car accelerated rapidly and sped to Parkland Hospital. Hargis said he pulled over to the curb at the grassy knoll. He got off the bike and went up the hill on the grass. He didn't see anyone with a gun, so he went over to the Texas School Book Depository at 411 Elm Street and helped other police officers seal it off." (Interview by HSCA investigator Jack Moriarty dated 8-8-78, notes transcribed 8-23-78, JFK document #014362, RIF 180-10113-10272) "When the first report sounded, he was "about one-third of the way down Elm", having made the last turn from Houston. It sounded like a firecracker, but he was unable to tell where it came from. He looked to his right and saw Connally turning and the President appeared to be leaning forward as if he was trying to hear what the Governor was saying. He had seen JFK lean forward in like manner during the motorcade as he and Connally had been conversing. This time, though, the President had an expression of pain on his face. When the second shot was fired - no doubt gunfire this time as it hit the President's head - the limousine slowed so much it practically stopped and he had to put his feet down to maintain balance. Then the driver accelerated and several motormen started the escort. Hargis remained behind parking his bike where it stood in the left side of Elm now about one half way down the hill. He ran to the grassy knoll and continued until he had reached the top section of the underpass. Finding nothing significant, he returned to his bike - still on the stand with the radio on (and working) and the engine off. He started the bike and drove back up Elm and parked just west of the front door of the TSBD where he joined Brewer as they became part of the effort to seal off this building, although, he adds, at that time no-one was certain just where the shots had come from." (Interview by HSCA investigator Jack Moriarty, 12-29-78, JFK document # 014224, RIF 180-10109-10354). "Reached Mr. Hargis at his new residence... today and developed the following additional information. At the sound of the first shot, he was "in position" - some five to six feet from the left corner of the rear bumper of John F. Kennedy limousine. At the sound of the second shot, he was a bit closer (the limousine slowed and nearly stopped) - perhaps four feet. By the third shot (although he doesn't recall the actual, but saw John F. Kennedy's head explode), he was "almost even with Jackie - no more than two or three feet, if that." (Interview with NBC broadcast on the 1988 program That Day In November) "It sounded like a firecracker to me and I thought 'Oh Lord, let it be a firecracker. And it looked like the President was bending over, forward. And then when he raised back up is when that second shot hit him in the head." (5-14-92 video-taped interview with Mark Oakes) "I was trying to catch up to my assigned station when the first shot rang out...I saw Connally turn around...I thought he had been shot. It sounded like a firecracker but then when I saw Connally's face I thought he'd been shot. Which he had...The second shot made his head like a ripe tomato when you shoot it with a gun on the ground. It explodes. That's how his head did. It exploded. Now you got brain matter, blood, and everything else on you" (6-26-95 video-taped interview with Mark Oakes and Ian Griggs) (On the explosion of Kennedy's head) "It didn't only hit me...It showered everything in the car behind it...You put a ripe tomato, and you shoot it with a gun and it splatters. That's what it was...But the first shot sounded like a firecracker...I've been fired at like five times and every one of them sounded like a firecracker--to me..." (Later, after voicing his support for the single-bullet theory) "There was not three shots; there was only two. I only heard two. One got him through the back and one got him through the head. That's it...The facts was there was two shots--one that hit him in the back and one that hit him in the head. And the one that hit him in the head just busted his head wide open. That's it." (On William Greer, the driver of the limo) "That guy slowed down, maybe his orders was to slow down, slowed down almost to a stop." (11-23-95 Dallas Morning News article found in the Herald Journal) "'I'm the only one living who was beside the car,' said Detective Hargis, now 63. 'When he was shot in the head, it splashed up, and I ran into all that brain matter, and all that. It came up and down, all over my uniform." (November 1998 interview with Texas Monthly) “About ten seconds after we made that left-hand turn, that first shot rang out…I remember Kennedy leaned forward to listen to what he had to say. And then when he raised back up, that second shot hit him in the head. But we figured out that he had got shot—that first bullet had gone through the upper part of his back, well through the seat, and hit Connally’s wrist and glanced off and went into his thigh.” (Interview within an 11-22-03 WBAP radio program found on Youtube) "Yeah I looked toward the President and I thought maybe John Connally was hit because he turned around to look at the President. He had a real surprised look on his face. Kennedy was bending over like he was listening to what Connally had to say. When he raised back up, that second shot hit him in the head. That's what killed him, There was only two shots fired." (11-22-03 article in the Dallas Morning News) “Hargis differs with the Warren Commission and most eyewitnesses, insisting that only two shots were fired. With the first, “a thousand million things went through my mind,” he says. After the last, “there was a plume of blood and brains and plasma. It was just like a fog, and I ran right through it.” (Oral History interview performed for the Sixth Floor Museum, 9-24-10) (When asked if his observations suggested that the fatal shot came from in front of Kennedy) "No." (When asked if it bothered him that people use his statements to suggest there'd been a conspiracy) "Yeah, it does...There was no conspiracy, whatsoever. There was two shots fired, and both shots, we found the bullet." (On the possibility there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll) "To me it sounds ludicrous." (11-22-13 article in The New York Post) "Few people were closer to President Kennedy’s assassination than the Dallas motorcycle cop who got splattered with his blood and gore. Bobby Hargis was riding a Harley-Davidson just behind and to the left of the Lincon Continental convertible that carried Kennedy through Dealey Plaza. The motorcade was moving so slowly, Hargis said, that “I had a hard time holding my Harley up. I never let it fall, but I had to use my kickstand quite a bit.” “People were so happy and they were crowding into the street,” Hargis said — until the shots that killed Kennedy cracked the air. “I saw him being struck. Big plume of brains and blood. I rode right through the plume. I didn’t even notice it,” said Hargis, 81. As chaos erupted, Hargis parked the bike and ran into the Book Depository looking for the shooter. Later, he recalled, “Another officer said to me, ‘You’ve got something on your lip.’ It was part of (Kennedy’s) brains.” Hargis said the shooting left him feeling guilty that and his colleagues had failed to protect the president. “Until then, I was real proud to be a police officer,” he said. “It seemed like we didn’t have it all together. We could have done better.” He also can’t forget how quickly things changed when Oswald opened fire. “One minute (Kennedy’s) so happy. They’re smiling and everybody’s happy. The crowd was happy,” he said. “And it was all just destroyed.” Edited January 10 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted January 10 Author Share Posted January 10 (edited) 11 hours ago, Pat Speer said: At quick glance it looks like you are doubling down on all your nonsense, including that I am a LN. If you'd been following this forum for more than a minute before you decided to fly in and litter it with your propaganda, you'd know that I am long-time CT, who is respected by many on both sides of the fence...because I refuse to swallow and recycle garbage. Now, I'm still waiting... You seem to be one who exists primarily to attack, and pretend everyone who disagrees with you is part of some conspiracy. Since it appears you believe the images have been faked, it appears you believe the photographic evidence has been altered and not the body. Or is it both? In any event, what do you make of Aguilar's dismissal of Horne and body alteration? Do you agree with him that all this talk of body alteration has been a huge distraction? Quote At quick glance it looks like you are doubling down on all your nonsense, including that I am a LN. If you'd been following this forum for more than a minute before you decided to fly in and litter it with your propaganda, you'd know that I am long-time CT, who is respected by many on both sides of the fence...because I refuse to swallow and recycle garbage. As for your "propaganda" allegation, all one need do is compare your work and mine and note which one of us is posting links to publicly available media and text and providing proper source information, and which one of us is libeling and maligning reputable individuals like Robert McClelland, and which one of us is disseminating pure speculation and blatant attempts to gaslighting people into believing something completely opposite of what the source information demonstrates. It's an easy comparison to make (hint: all you need do is to look in the mirror to see the actual source of the propaganda you are purporting to complain about). Quote Now, I'm still waiting... You seem to be one who exists primarily to attack, and pretend everyone who disagrees with you is part of some conspiracy. Since it appears you believe the images have been faked, it appears you believe the photographic evidence has been altered and not the body. Or is it both? Per Dr. David Mantik's testing of the "original" autopsy photographs and X-rays at the National Archives, there is no question that at least the BOH autopsy photographs have been altered, and all of the X-rays are copies, with several very obvious signs of falsification. Incidentally, I am well aware of your resentments against Mantik due to him having so thoroughly schooled you on his work, so save me the rant about that: ____________ Dr. David Mantik subjected the "original" back-of-the-head autopsy photographs to stereoscopic testing at the National Archives and found that there is a soft matte insert covering the occipital-parietal wound, thus we are dealing with photographic forgery in this photograph and not a body substitution. RE: Dr. David Mantik's stereoscopic testing of the extant "original" back-of-the-head autopsy photographs at the National Archives. In particular, see Dr. Mantik in the video linked below. See in this video: https://youtu.be/btPXzX1DtJE ----------------------------------------------------- Dr. David Mantik wrote: "...While at the National Archives, I performed stereo viewing of the autopsy photographs [8]. This is possible because each view is represented by two separate photographs, taken close together in time and space. Such a pair is what makes stereo viewing possible. I performed this procedure for the original generation of photographs (4” x 5” transparencies), for the color prints, and also for the black and white copies. I did this for many of the distinct views in the collection. But the bottom line is this: the only abnormal site was the back of the head—it always yielded a 2D image, as if each eye had viewed precisely the same image. Of course, that would have been expected if someone (illicitly in a dark room) had inserted the same image into that anatomic site for each member of the photographic pair. I discussed this issue with Robert Groden, who served as the photographic consultant for the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) during 1976-1979. He concurred with my observations, i.e., only the back of the head looked abnormal during his stereo viewing for the HSCA. Although the large posterior hole is often cited as evidence for a frontal shot, a second issue, perhaps equally as important, should not be overlooked: the severe discrepancy between the photographs and the witnesses—all by itself— strongly suggests manipulation of this photograph. In other words, whoever altered this photograph likely recognized that the large posterior defect loudly proclaimed a frontal shot, so much so in fact, that it became critical to cover that hole. Pathologist J. Boswell (many decades later) speculated that the scalp had merely been stretched so as to cover the hole. In fact, to have done so, and to have succeeded so seamlessly, would have defeated the sole purpose of the photographs, which presumably was to capture reality. If ever a photograph existed of this large defect, then that one has disappeared. Some witnesses do recall seeing such a photograph immediately after the autopsy, and we know (from the autopsy photographer himself) that other autopsy photographs have disappeared. Furthermore, we know from Boswell’s sketch on a skull model, that the bone under this apparently intact scalp was in fact missing [9]. So which is more decisive: missing scalp—or missing bone? Some have argued that the Parkland physicians have authenticated this photograph, and that we should therefore accept its authenticity. However, what they said was more like this: If the scalp had been stretched in this fashion, then they could not take issue with that photograph. Absent such a peculiar maneuver, however, they were dubious. Their doubt was further accentuated in a very recent documentary: “The Parkland Doctors” [10]. Seven Parkland physicians met to discuss their recollections. They were profoundly troubled by autopsy images of the posterior scalp. To describe these images, they readily used words like “manipulated” and “altered.”..." 'JFK Assassination Paradoxes: A Primer for Beginners' Journal of Health Science & Education | David W. Mantik, MD https://escires.com/articles/Health-1-126.pdf Mantik DW (2018) JFK Assassination Paradoxes: A Primer for Beginners. J Health Sci Educ 2: 126. ____________ As for body alteration, David Lifton reached some good conclusions given that he had no access to crucial HSCA evidence due to it being classified it "top secret" for 50 years. When the ARRB released the HSCA files in the early 1990's it was Doug Horne who saw the need to follow up on the testimony of Tom Robinson and Ed Reed who had made mention of a craniotomy being conducted during the Bethesda autopsy. And indeed, the ARRB interviews of Robinson and Reed elicited further information from them to the effect of a bone saw being used on JFK's skull, evidently prior to the start of the "official" autopsy. We know this with a reasonable degree of certainty because primary autopsy witnesses such as James Jenkins and Paul O'Connor insist that there was no craniotomy performed at the autopsy, and we have pathologist James Humes swearing to the WC, HSCA and ARRB that no bone saw was necessary -- that the brain just magically rolled out of the skull into his hands. Does clandestine head sawing and brain removal off the record and prior to the start of the "official" autopsy constitute body alteration? Well if it does, then based upon the testimony of Tom Robinson and Ed Reed -- and not something that Horne or I or anyone else made up -- that is what happened, and is the explanation for why the brain so effortlessly rolled out into Humes's hands, and why FBI Agents Sibert and O'Neil noted Humes's comment during the autopsy that there was an "incision" on JFK's head (which we know was not made at Parkland Hospital). ____________ There is simply no way to get around this... Dr. Humes always insisted that he never had to perform a craniotomy (skull cap removal surgery) to remove the President’s brain. * Humes maintained this lie, under oath, for 33 years --- before the Warren Commission, the HSCA, and the ARRB. * He also informed Army pathologist Pierre Finck, who arrived late at Bethesda to assist with the autopsy, that “no sawing of the skull was necessary” in order to remove President Kennedy’s brain (per Dr. Finck’s 1965 report to his Commanding Officer, General Blumberg). --------------------------------------------- DR. DAVID MANTIK ON DOUG HORNE'S ACCOUNT OF THE BETHESDA AUTOPSISTS CLANDESTINELY ALTERING JFK'S HEAD WOUNDS WITH A BONE SAW: "...So why does Horne conclude that H&B illicitly removed (and altered) the brain shortly after 6:35 PM, before any X-rays were taken, and before the official autopsy began? He here introduces two intriguing witnesses – the two R's, namely Reed and Robinson. Edward Reed was assistant to Jerrol Custer (the radiology tech), while Tom Robinson was a mortician. Rather consistently with one another, but quite independently, both describe critical steps taken by H&B that no one else reports. (Horne documents why no one else reported these events – almost everyone else had been evicted from the morgue before this clandestine interlude.) After the body was placed on the morgue table (and before X-rays were taken), Reed briefly sat in the gallery.18 Reed states19 that Humes first used a scalpel across the top of the forehead to pull the scalp back. Then he used a saw to cut the forehead bone, after which he (and Custer, too) were asked to leave the morgue. (Reed was not aware that this intervention by Humes was unofficial.) This activity by Humes is highly significant because multiple witnesses saw the intact entry hole high in the right forehead at the hairline. On the other hand, the autopsy photographs show only a thin incision at this site, an incision that no Parkland witness ever saw. The implication is obvious: this specific autopsy photograph was taken after Humes altered the forehead – thereby likely obliterating the entry hole. Reed's report suggests that Humes deliberately obliterated the right forehead entry; in fact, the autopsy photograph does not show this entry site. Paradoxically, however, Robinson (the mortician) recalls20 seeing, during restoration, a wound about 1/4º inch across at this very location. He even recalls having to place wax at this site. So the question is obvious: If Humes had obliterated the wound (as seems the case based on the extant autopsy photograph), how then could Robinson still see the wound during restoration? This question cannot be answered with certainty, but two options arise: (1) perhaps the wound was indeed obliterated (or mostly obliterated) and Robinson merely suffered some memory merge – i.e., even though he added wax to the incision (the one still visible in the extant photograph), he was actually recalling the way it looked before Humes got to it, or (2) the photograph itself has been altered – to disguise the wound that was visible in an original photograph. The latter option was seemingly endorsed by Joe O'Donnell, the USIA photographer,21 who said that Knudsen actually showed him such a photograph. Regarding Robinson, Horne concludes that he arrived with the hearse that brought the body (i.e., the first entry). After that, Robinson simply observed events from the morgue gallery; contrary to Reed's experience, he was not asked to leave. Just before 7 PM, Robinson22 saw H&B remove large portions of the rear and top of the skull with a saw, in order to access the brain. (Robinson was not aware that this activity was off the record.) He also observed ten or more bullet fragments extracted from the brain. Although these do not appear in the official record, Dennis David recalls23 preparing a receipt for at least four fragments.24 Contrary to Reed and Robinson, Humes25 declared that a saw was not important: "We had to do virtually no work with a saw to remove these portions of the skull, they came apart in our hands very easily, and we attempted to further examine the brain." Although James Jenkins (an autopsy technician) does not explicitly describe the use of a saw, he does recall that damage to the brain (as seen inside the skull) was less than the corresponding size of the cranial defect; this indirectly implies prior removal of some of the skull.26... ...The reader might well ask why Reed and Robinson (and Custer, too) were permitted to observe (at least briefly) this illegal surgery by H&B. Horne proposes that the morgue manager that night (Kellerman) was not present for the first casket entry – that's because he was riding with Jackie and the bronze casket. Therefore, before he arrived (most likely that was shortly after 7 PM), there was no hands-on stage manager in the morgue. It is even possible that Kellerman himself ejected Reed and Custer as soon as he arrived. Robinson, on the other hand, dressed in civilian clothing, may have seemed to Kellerman a lesser threat, so Robinson stayed...." https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/horne-douglas-inside-the-arrb-part-iv ____________ Quote In any event, what do you make of Aguilar's dismissal of Horne and body alteration? Do you agree with him that all this talk of body alteration has been a huge distraction? Unfortunately, some feel that the issues of the clandestine craniotomy at autopsy, and Zapruder film alteration are too "radioactive" to stake their professional reputations on. I cut them some slack about this, understanding that individuals like yourself would press the matter and make them pay a price for risking their reputations in that way; and I appreciate the good work they do on issues such as alteration of the autopsy photographs, even when they don't dare to come straight out and say that is what they believe. Edited January 10 by Keven Hofeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted January 10 Author Share Posted January 10 On 1/4/2024 at 11:59 AM, Pat Speer said: Oh my, from taking another quick glance, I see you are presenting a 2018 drawing by James Jenkins as support for the accuracy of the McClelland drawing. This is nonsense of the worst kind. As I've been saying since you got here, do the research. Jenkins pointed out the wound location on camera for Harrison Livingstone in 1991, and William Law in 1998, and pointed to the top of his head on both occasions. He then attended the JFK Lancer conference with Law, in 2013, and declared under repeated questioning that the back of the head was NOT blown out--that it was shattered beneath the scalp--but not blown out. A few years later, moreover, he attended another Lancer Conference, where I talked with him in the presence of Matt Douthit. He told us what he'd said before--that the back of the head was not blown out. When I pointed out to him that those championing him at the conference, such as Mantik, believed otherwise, and were insistent that the back of the head was missing when Jenkins viewed Kennedy, he said "What can I say? People will believe what they want to believe." He was then befriended by Chesser, and convinced to change his claims from there being a hole at the top of the head, and shattered skull on the back, to there being shattered skull on the top of the head, and a hole on the back. It's a shame. You are here doing pretty much the same hatchet job on James Jenkins as you have on your website. What I think is most telling is that you have posted images on your website which you claim are Jenkins indicating the wound was on the top of JFK's head (which I don't trust given the cherry-picking I have discovered you did with the screenshot of Dr. McClelland), but you have omitted the most relevant indicia of all, Jenkins's earliest identification of the location of the large avulsive back-of-the-head wound in his sketch for the HSCA, dated 8/24/1977, as follows: Moreover, on page 4 of the HSCA interview we find the following: He said he saw a head wound in the "... middle temporal region back to the occipital." That Jenkins mentioned "occipital" places some limitations on where this wound could be. And on 9/23/1979 Jenkins told David Lifton that the wound was "parietal and occipital" as follows: Clearly therefore, Jenkins's earliest reports of the dimensions of the large avusive head wound, in 1977 and 1979, those reports being most credible due to being earliest in time, were that the wound was occipital-parietal, and you have omitted these facts both from your website and from your commentary on this forum. How are we to trust Pat Speer when he omits such important and probative information from his project? Subtract the Pat Speer hatchet job and we have a valid and reliable sketch of the wounds on a skull model as follows: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 3 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: You are here doing pretty much the same hatchet job on James Jenkins as you have on your website. What I think is most telling is that you have posted images on your website which you claim are Jenkins indicating the wound was on the top of JFK's head (which I don't trust given the cherry-picking I have discovered you did with the screenshot of Dr. McClelland), but you have omitted the most relevant indicia of all, Jenkins's earliest identification of the location of the large avulsive back-of-the-head wound in his sketch for the HSCA, dated 8/24/1977, as follows: Moreover, on page 4 of the HSCA interview we find the following: He said he saw a head wound in the "... middle temporal region back to the occipital." That Jenkins mentioned "occipital" places some limitations on where this wound could be. And on 9/23/1979 Jenkins told David Lifton that the wound was "parietal and occipital" as follows: Clearly therefore, Jenkins's earliest reports of the dimensions of the large avusive head wound, in 1977 and 1979, those reports being most credible due to being earliest in time, were that the wound was occipital-parietal, and you have omitted these facts both from your website and from your commentary on this forum. How are we to trust Pat Speer when he omits such important and probative information from his project? Subtract the Pat Speer hatchet job and we have a valid and reliable sketch of the wounds on a skull model as follows: Oh my. For those confused by all this, this character is citing a James Jenkins drawing showing a wound on the back, top and side of the head which stretches to the front...as evidence for a comparatively small blowout wound on the far back of the head. No matter what you think the head wound looked like when first viewed at Bethesda, this is clearly the wound as observed after the removal of the brain, and not the wound as first viewed. The least bit of research, moreover, would have proved what I have claimed for roughly a decade...that Jenkins told Livingstone and later Law and eventually a roomful of researchers, including myself, that the far back of the head at the level of the ear--the occipital bone--was shattered but still extant beneath the scalp. Still, he doesn't dispute that, really, does he? No, he makes out instead that the only evidence for this is my say-so. That's not research. That's whining. "I don't like what you say, so I'm gonna tell everyone you're a xxxx, without even checking out what you've said against the multiple sources you provide." What a crock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micah Mileto Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 Isn't the red blob on the Zapruder film meant to be the inner surface of the skull flap, not brains? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted January 10 Author Share Posted January 10 Because Sydney Wilkinson and Thom Whitehead are professionals working within the film industry, they have been able to enlist true Hollywood experts in cinematography and post production who have performed content analysis of the extant Zapruder film. Among them are genuine cinematography professionals such as Ned Price (https://studentfilmreviews.org/?p=17707 ) and Paul Rutan, Jr. (https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0751876/ ) who had the following to say about the Zapruder film. Look them up, they are the real deal. ------------------------------------------------ FILM INDUSTRY PROFESSIONALS COMMENTING ABOUT Z-317 ------------------------------------------------ "...This extreme close-up from the HD scan of Zapruder frame 317 is what prompted one noted Hollywood expert in post production -- Ned Price, the Head of Restoration at a major motion picture studio -- to say: "Oh that's horrible, that's just terrible. I can't believe it's such a bad fake." His film industry colleague, Paul Rutan, Jr., proclaimed we are looking at artwork in this frame (i.e., aerial imaging) -- not at "opticals" (i.e., traveling matte)...." Horne's "Inside the ARRB," Vol. 4, p. 1361. Even Rollie Zavada has acknowledged the black patch and conceded that "...it certainly looks like a patch; it looks like it could be an alteration...." Although Rollie Zavada is not and never claimed to be an expert on film alteration or cinematography. Zavada was a Kodak employee with expertise in Kodachrome II film, and thus is not qualified to evaluate the Zapruder film for content falsification, and the ARRB mandate that Zavada had did not include "content analysis" for which he is not qualified. Zavada authenticated that the extant Zapruder film is on Kodak Kodachrome II film -- which is no surprise given that Hawkeyeworks plant was a joint CIA/Kodak facility -- and then went beyond his expertise to claim that the film had not been altered. But as you can see below, even Rollie Zavada, viewing an inferior copy of Z-317, admitted that the black patch looks like an alteration, but not being an expert in film alteration, simply said he refused to believe it because he hadn't seen evidence of how it could have been done.... "It certainly looks like a patch; it looks like it could be an alteration. But I haven't seen evidence of how it was done, so I refuse to believe it." Having no expertise in film alteration whatsoever he resorted to blind faith in a sacred cow instead of following the evidence wherever it leads even though the Heavens may fall... -------------------------------------------------------------- DOUG HORNE TAKES ROLLIE ZAVADA TO TASK OVER ZAPRUDER FRAME 317 [THE BLACK PATCH SUPERIMPOSED OVER JFK'S OCCIPITAL BLOW OUT WOUND]: https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10709.html "...In the breakout session, when Josiah Thompson asked him to display the controversial frame 317 and comment on whether the black object covering the rear of JFK's head was a natural shadow or evidence of alteration, Rollie [Zavada] put up the slide (a very dark, muddy image of 317 with much contrast present---an image greatly inferior to the Hollywood scans of the forensic copy), and then said words to the effect: "It certainly looks like a patch; it looks like it could be an alteration. But I haven't seen evidence of how it was done, so I refuse to believe it." [This is very close to a verbatim quote---guaranteed to be accurate in its substance.] I and several others, including Leo Zahn of Hollywood, then suggested---demanded, actually---that Rollie display ALL of frame 317---not just the portion showing JFK's head. When this slide was finally displayed, I asked everyone present in the room what explanation those who were against alteration had for the extreme difference in density between the shadow on Governor Connally's head, and the extremely dense and dark (almost D-max) "anomaly" on JFK's head in that same frame. The two so-called "shadows" have absolutely no relation or similarity to each other, yet both men were photographed in the same frame, at the same instant in time, on the same planet, with the same light source (i.e., the sun). The ensuing silence was more profound than that inside the whale that swallowed Jonah. Rollie and Tink had no explanation for this. Nor does anyone else, who believes that the Zapruder film is an unaltered film. The most reasonable, and currently the only known explanation for this paradox in frame 317, is alteration---the blacking out of the true exit wound on the back of JFK's head in that frame, and in many others, with crude animation...." 'JOSIAH THOMPSON AND ROLLIE ZAVADA AT JFK LANCER: A CRITICAL REPORT' by Douglas P. Horne, author of Inside the Assassination Records Review Board. https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10709.html The following are 6k stills from Sydney Wilkinson and Thom Whitehead's copy of the "Forensic Zapruder Film" that they purchased from the National Archives which are even sharper than your copy. The deep black hexagram shaped black patch with sharp edges covering the occipital-parietal region in the lower right back side of JFK's head is even sharper in these copies of Z-317; indeed, sharp enough to see the hexagram shaped black patch with sharp edges. I'm wondering what exactly you think that patch is? When I ask this question of Zapruder film authenticity apologists (both of the LN and CT denominations), without fail the answer that comes back is that it is "a shadow." The problem with this answer, however, as demonstrated by the following GIF showing the transformation of the actual shadow on the back of JFK's head in Z-312 to the deep black hexagram shaped black patch with sharp edges that we see at Z-317, only 5/18ths of one second later, is that within that micro second of time a perfectly natural looking shadow has acquired unnatural characteristics, such as sharp edges and the hexagram shape. I'm wondering if you have an explanation for this peculiarity. The following set of stills are from Sydney Wilkinson and Thom Whitehead's 6k copies of selected Zapruder film frames Z-312 through Z-335. Notice how the black patch is present in all of the frames in which you can see the back of JFK's head, and notice how the deep black patch with sharp edges radically morphs from frame to frame, in fractions of seconds between each, and tell me if you have ever seen a "natural shadow" behave in such a manner? Do you think it all unusual that the black patch -- or shadow, if you insist --morphs so perfectly to obscure the right side of the back of JFK's head where up to 50 or more witnesses reported that we should be seeing a large avulsive blow out wound? And why are Wilkinson and Whitehead's 6k scans superior even to the 1998 MPI "Images of an Assassination" stills? The answer has to do with the distinction between and utility of logarithmic color versus standard colorization. The scratches and mold that you can see on the film are because the 6k scans were made in log color. Sydney Wilkinson explained this to Doug Horne in a letter that he read while being interviewed on the 1/7/2019 Midnight Writer News, Episode 107, https://midnightwriternews.com/mwn-episode-107-douglas-horne-on-the-zapruder-film-alteration-debate/ as follows: ---------------------------------------------------- SYDNEY WILKINSON WROTE: "Our scans show everything in the frame, the good, the bad, and the ugly." By that they mean the scratches and the mold on the film. They wrote "There is so much detail that individual grains of 8mm film stock are evident in the 6k logarithmic scans. It's hardly pretty, but the images are glaringly sharp. That is why we see all the scratches, mold, dirt, stains, and other film anomalies. Linear color is what we view on our TVs and computers, the color looks right to us. The versions of the Zapruder film we see on television documentaries or DVDs like "Images of an Assassination" sold in 1998 or on YouTube have been cleaned up and color corrected. Much of the scratches, dirt, mold, etc., have been removed along with color correcting each scene to create a much richer looking element. The processes used to do this can be grueling and take a long time depending upon how much money and how much time the producers want to spend on it. But we did not want to make our images look prettier. We did not want to touch anything because our goal was to conduct a forensic scientific study of the film. We wanted to see what was really there in every frame not what might have been hidden or obscured by cleaning or color correcting. So logarithmic color, or log color for short, is what professionals use when coming from or going to film because it brings out much more detail in blacks and mid-blacks by stretching the blacks into grays. However, without color correction, which we have not done, the image looks a little washed out, but the amount of information in the blacks is substantially increased. The primary reason we want log color space was to see all the information in the shadows, and what we saw was astounding. If our transfer was linear color we never would have seen the patch on the back of the head in frame 317 or it would have looked like a shadow. Most importantly, log shadow space does not make a shadow look like a patch." ---------------------------------------------------- 'JFK - THE FAKE ZAPRUDER FILM VIDEO' International School History Teacher | Mar 1, 2022 | https://youtu.be/JVXTvtBfLfE?si=kUUZ6bUyXlzM8yXr "Little known fact in the JFK cover-up - the Zapruder Hoax and how it aided the longstanding cover-up to this day. There is no question that the Zapruder film was a contrived document designed by the CIA/NSA to aid the cover-up." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted January 10 Author Share Posted January 10 7 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said: Isn't the red blob on the Zapruder film meant to be the inner surface of the skull flap, not brains? Author and JFK assassination researcher Harrison Livingstone was very interested in that object you are referencing -- as am I -- and called it "The Blob:" It is not real. An object like that hanging from a blown-out forehead with a hole the size of a cantaloupe was not reported in Dealey Plaza, at Parkland Memorial Hospital, or at the Bethesda autopsy... ------------------------------------------------- HARRISON LIVINGSTONE ON "THE BLOB": Harrison Livingstone writes: "If the [Zapruder] film shows a huge wound to the right side of the face, as it does, then all the witnesses who saw the dying or dead President and all the autopsy photographs are wrong. Common sense tells us they can't all be wrong (Livingstone, High Treason 2, 362).... "Common sense, therefore, tells us that the film is wrong. That it is a fake." (Ibid.).... He continues, "I have long wondered about a large apparent effusion of brain matter or flesh that spills from the right side of the face and temple region just after the President receives a shot to the head. . . . The material spewing forth from the head appears to stick out several inches and be about half a foot wide. It is spread all across the face. One would assume that it is an exploded face or brain, and it cannot be an optical illusion from reflections of sunlight off Jackie's hat and from the small flap of bone that evidently opens up at that point, as Groden has led us to believe. . . . (Ibid.).... "We see a small flap of bone with scalp attached on the right side of the head in some of the autopsy photographs but not in others. Trouble with the flap is, it changes orientation in relation to the rest of the head as the camera moves around the head. And it does not exist at all in the autopsy photograph of the right side of the head. There is a bat-wing-shaped structure on the head in the general area, but much too large to be the flap, and in the wrong place (Ibid.).... "Groden claims that Mrs. Kennedy closed up the alleged flap on the way to the hospital, where it was not seen. But the autopsy staff say the flap we see in the picture is not in the right place either, or did not exist at all" (Ibid., 363-65).... Livingstone quotes Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman: ". . . I saw nothing in his face to indicate an injury, whether the shot had come through or not. He was clear" (Ibid., 365, citing 2 H 82).... Livingstone goes on, "There are many other statements that there was no damage at all to any part of the President's face, and none to the contrary" (Ibid.). He is correct: From Dealey Plaza to Parkland to Bethesda to the White House, where family members privately viewed the body, not a single person noted any damage to the face except a cracked supraorbital ridge, which caused the right eye to protrude slightly.... "Corresponding to the gigantic wound in the right front of the face and forehead-temple area is a total loss of bone in the X-ray alleged to be of President Kennedy's head. We know that this would be impossible without the face being blown away, if it represents a shot from behind. If the bone had fallen in during transport to Bethesda, it would show somewhere in the X-rays. It does not. If it had fallen in, the face would have fallen in with the body on its back, and there is no sign of the bone anywhere in the skull. The face shows no sign of being unsupported by bone, and in fact looks perfectly undamaged. No doctor I have spoken to said that a face would remain normal if the underlying bone was gone (Ibid.).... "The missing bone in the skull X-rays has to represent a blow-out of the face, which did not in fact happen (Ibid.).... If the exit wound was in the rear of the head, where most eyewitnesses place it, or at the top or side of the head, as the autopsy photographs would indicate, then we should see "the blob coming out there if the [Zapruder] film was on the up and up, and not on the face, as we now see it in the film (Ibid.).... "It is my opinion, therefore, that the Zapruder film has some animated special effects: The large effusion we see sticking out from the head is painted in for those few frames before the head falls into Jackie's lap" (Ibid., pp. 365-66). (He later clarified that he didn't mean it was painted *directly* onto the film [Livingstone, Killing Kennedy, 159]).... ". . . We see the strange blob for more than twenty-five frames, far too long for it to be any sort of defect in the film. . . . it cannot be an artifact, because it is quite clear and distinctive for those twenty-five frames (High Treason 2, 366).... "What is not clear and distinctive is the President's head, which seems to disintegrate and disappear by the time it is drawn into Jackie's lap. In one frame there is no face or head at all to the right of the line extending upward from the President's ear, and I see Jackie clearly to the right of and beyond the ears, where the rest of the head should be" (Ibid.).... Not one frame -- two: 335 and 337, cf. color photo insert in High Treason 2; or Groden's The Killing of a President, pp. 38-39 and 188-89.... Livingstone speculates that "the purpose of this special effect is to encourage the idea in Earl Warren's head that the President was shot from behind" (High Treason 2, 366).... Look closely at color reproductions of frames 335 and 337 (it's nearly impossible to discern in black and white unless you already know what you're looking for). Page 38 of The Killing of a President has a gigantic blow-up of 337. Mentally draw a line straight up from the middle of Kennedy's ear; on the left is the back of his head; on the right is the pink sleeve of Jacqueline Kennedy's left arm where JFK's face should be. The "blob" also obscures the entire lower right of his face. Same thing for 335. Look closely -- is that John F. Kennedy's face's? IS there a face in these frames? Or is there only a shadow across the front of Jackie's dress, curving along a contour that almost approximates the shape of a face?.... And it's not just those two frames -- those are just the only two *clear* frames. All of the surrounding frames, however blurry, show that the President's face -- the entire front half of his head -- is missing. The edge of the front half also sometimes appears to be strangely blacked out.... Was the President's face actually blown away?Not only is this contrary to every single word of the eyewitness testimony; not only is it contrary to every other piece of photographic evidence (and I would not exclude the autopsy X-rays); not only is it contrary to any and all conclusions the government has put forth -- neither the autopsy report, the Warren Commission, the HSCA, nor anyone has concluded that the entire front half of Kennedy's head was blown off.... Not a single witness of the dozens and dozens who saw JFK's body in between Dealey Plaza and the time he was buried reported anything seriously wrong with the face -- much less that it was gone, as it appears in these frames.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted January 10 Author Share Posted January 10 (edited) 2 hours ago, Pat Speer said: Oh my. For those confused by all this, this character is citing a James Jenkins drawing showing a wound on the back, top and side of the head which stretches to the front...as evidence for a comparatively small blowout wound on the far back of the head. No matter what you think the head wound looked like when first viewed at Bethesda, this is clearly the wound as observed after the removal of the brain, and not the wound as first viewed. The least bit of research, moreover, would have proved what I have claimed for roughly a decade...that Jenkins told Livingstone and later Law and eventually a roomful of researchers, including myself, that the far back of the head at the level of the ear--the occipital bone--was shattered but still extant beneath the scalp. Still, he doesn't dispute that, really, does he? No, he makes out instead that the only evidence for this is my say-so. That's not research. That's whining. "I don't like what you say, so I'm gonna tell everyone you're a xxxx, without even checking out what you've said against the multiple sources you provide." What a crock. What is truly telling about these earliest accounts of the large avulsive "occipital-parietal" wound in the back of JFK's head from James Jenkins is that you leave them out of your narrative about Jenkins. You quote some of the 1979 Lifton interview, but the sketch Jenkins made for the HSCA in 1977 showing the BOH wound is NOWHERE to be found on your website. Why not? It's the most probative piece of evidence we have from Jenkins, given that it is the earliest in time, and you have buried it. Now exactly why is that Mr. Speer? IF Jenkins's description of the head wound changed from his first accounts of it being occipital-parietal to the HSCA and David Lifton, then he may have been influenced by CE 388: I concede that later modifications of his initial account to the HSCA and David Lifton, if true, present evidentiary problems for the 2018 skull model wound markings being accepted as solid evidence, but his earliest accounts retain their exemplary evidentiary value. Earliest in time is always the evidentiary standard. As to whether the screen shots you have on your website of Jenkins placing his hand on the top of his head are accurate, or are deceptive cherry picked screen shots like the one you did for McClelland, I don't know, and would like access to those film clips if you would be so kind as to provide me with links. But the bottom line, is that the 1977 HSCA drawing and testimony, and the 1979 Lifton interview are the strongest pieces of evidence from Jenkins regarding the large avulsive head wound, and they would be accorded the greatest weight in any Federal District Court in the United States. 8/24/1977 HSCA SKETCH OF JFK'S WOUNDS BY JAMES JENKINS JENKINS'S 9/23/1979 DESCRIPTION OF OCCIPITAL-PARIETAL WOUND DURING DAVID LIFTON INTERVIEW Edited January 10 by Keven Hofeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Bojczuk Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 Quote Big conspiracy, all photos altered, body altered, bad guys really powerful, really big conspiracy! Angry! Someone disagrees, angry! Lone nut! Cointelpro! ANGRY! ANGRY! LONE NUT! COINTELPRO! Boldface is useful when applied in moderation. It's an effective way to emphasise individual words, phrases or sentences. But using boldface all the time is counter-productive. It's the online equivalent of shouting. To be more precise, it's like hearing someone in the distance who is shouting. It acts as a warning. You can't yet make out the words, but you sense that you'd probably be better off not getting any closer. Many people will assume that someone who cannot express himself or herself without resorting to permanent boldface, someone who feels compelled to shout at strangers, probably isn't worth bothering with. Using boldface all the time not only limits the writer's audience but it also limits the writer's options. He or she is depriving himself or herself of a handy tool. What happens when the writer needs to emphasise a word, phrase or sentence? He or she can't use boldface, because everything is in boldface already! What can you do? I suppose you could make the text larger or give the text a different colour, such as bright red or blue. But that would be even more counter-productive. It would make the warning even more obvious, wouldn't it? A distant glimpse of big text or red text, and the needle on the audience's fanatic-o-meter would be almost off the scale! When presented with a lengthy post containing boldface almost throughout, along with large text and bright red and blue passages, what are most people likely to think? Would they think: "This looks like someone with a well thought-out argument, who is open to constructive criticism and willing to admit that he may have got some details wrong. I'm eager to find out what he has to say!" Or would they think: "Uh-oh! Angry crackpot alert! Let's back out of here slowly before he accuses everyone who disagrees with him of being a paid-up CIA disinformation agent!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now