Pat Speer Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 (edited) Since not everyone knows that a bone fragment explodes downward in the Z-film, I thought I'd post a GIF I created last night showing just where this fragment can be seen in the film. Note: this is not a thread on the nature of the head wounds, or the authenticity of the Z-film, etc. It is merely pointing out a fact, that may or may not be relevant. That is, the forward explosion of this fragment may be suggestive of the authenticity of the film, or the fakery of the film. But that's not what this post is about. It's about simply noticing what has been before us for decades. Edited February 28 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Gram Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 Nick Nalli did that questionable calculus-heavy jet effect paper where he calculated the exit velocity of the “particles” i.e. fragments seen in the Z-film, but he didn’t include this one. Nalli’s model of a deforming spherical projectile passing through a head also had the maximum temp cavity occurring before the midpoint in his 11cm HSCA-derived bullet path, but Nalli contradicted his own model by saying that JFK’s exit wound occurred at the region of maximum cavitation later in the paper: Here it is seen that the KE transfer from the projectile to the soft tissue (brain) is maximized before the midpoint, which arises primarily from the increased presented area and the associated rate of deceleration from high initial speeds. This large deposit of energy is propagated away from the projectile path via a separated flow field and pressure wave known as temporary cavitation… … Here the large wound inflicted on the President's head was not a bullet exit wound, but rather the region of maximum temporary cavitation associated with KE transfer… https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5934694/ If you look at his plot in Fig 4 the model actually has the max temp cavity occurring right by the entrance at the 2cm point in the bullet path, well “before the midpoint”. I’m bringing up Nalli because he, nor anyone else to my knowledge, has proposed a mechanism for the physical separation and ejection of skull fragments from the head and scalp at high velocity due to temporary cavity expansion. The skull would need to fracture in a way that isolated the fragments; and the explosion would need to separate and eject those fragments from the scalp somehow. Is that possible? I have no idea, but if you could somehow compare skull fragment ejection scenarios of tangential impact vs. temp cavity expansion that could be pretty interesting. Just looking at this gif, it is hard to image an EOP entrance doing that type of damage and ejecting those fragments. It looks like an impact, but guys like Nalli and Sturdivan will always come up with a way to rationalize a single shot to the back of the head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted February 28 Author Share Posted February 28 3 minutes ago, Tom Gram said: Nick Nalli did that questionable calculus-heavy jet effect paper where he calculated the exit velocity of the “particles” i.e. fragments seen in the Z-film, but he didn’t include this one. Nalli’s model of a deforming spherical projectile passing through a head also had the maximum temp cavity occurring before the midpoint in his 11cm HSCA-derived bullet path, but Nalli contradicted his own model by saying that JFK’s exit wound occurred at the region of maximum cavitation later in the paper: Here it is seen that the KE transfer from the projectile to the soft tissue (brain) is maximized before the midpoint, which arises primarily from the increased presented area and the associated rate of deceleration from high initial speeds. This large deposit of energy is propagated away from the projectile path via a separated flow field and pressure wave known as temporary cavitation… … Here the large wound inflicted on the President's head was not a bullet exit wound, but rather the region of maximum temporary cavitation associated with KE transfer… https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5934694/ If you look at his plot in Fig 4 the model actually has the max temp cavity occurring right by the entrance at the 2cm point in the bullet path, well “before the midpoint”. I’m bringing up Nalli because he, nor anyone else to my knowledge, has proposed a mechanism for the physical separation and ejection of skull fragments from the head and scalp at high velocity due to temporary cavity expansion. The skull would need to fracture in a way that isolated the fragments; and the explosion would need to separate and eject those fragments from the scalp somehow. Is that possible? I have no idea, but if you could somehow compare skull fragment ejection scenarios of tangential impact vs. temp cavity expansion that could be pretty interesting. Just looking at this gif, it is hard to image an EOP entrance doing that type of damage and ejecting those fragments. It looks like an impact, but guys like Nalli and Sturdivan will always come up with a way to rationalize a single shot to the back of the head. As you know, I discuss a lot of stuff on my website, including the Jet Effect. it's amazing that it ever got any traction. Amazing and sad, IMO. A jet is created when a highly-pressurized substance is emitted through a small hole. Heck, Alvarez knew this was a problem, and taped up his melons to assure the hole spewing melon goo was a small one. Only then did he get the Jet Effect to work. Only then did he get his melons to fly backwards after being struck. The large skull defect is proof this did not happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Willis Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 16 minutes ago, Pat Speer said: As you know, I discuss a lot of stuff on my website, including the Jet Effect. it's amazing that it ever got any traction. Amazing and sad, IMO. A jet is created when a highly-pressurized substance is emitted through a small hole. Heck, Alvarez knew this was a problem, and taped up his melons to assure the hole spewing melon goo was a small one. Only then did he get the Jet Effect to work. Only then did he get his melons to fly backwards after being struck. The large skull defect is proof this did not happen. We seem to be getting somewhere... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Gram Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 (edited) 4 hours ago, Pat Speer said: As you know, I discuss a lot of stuff on my website, including the Jet Effect. it's amazing that it ever got any traction. Amazing and sad, IMO. A jet is created when a highly-pressurized substance is emitted through a small hole. Heck, Alvarez knew this was a problem, and taped up his melons to assure the hole spewing melon goo was a small one. Only then did he get the Jet Effect to work. Only then did he get his melons to fly backwards after being struck. The large skull defect is proof this did not happen. Oh I agree. An interesting point is even Nalli conceded that the “jet effect”, through his questionable calculations, could not explain the full back/left acceleration of JFK in the Z-film, so he said there were two separate movements: the “jet effect” basically just stopped the forward motion caused by the bullet impact; and the rest was a “neuromuscular reaction”: The delayed observed forward momentum of this jet (or spray) of material, occurring well after the projectile had passed, was then quantitatively shown to be associated with a short-lived recoil effect that imparted a backward change in velocity (i.e., deceleration) on the President's head from the initial ≈+2 in/frame forward head snap to ≈0 to −3 in/frame (≈0 to −8 cm/frame) over the following shutter cycle (again depending upon uncertainties in parameters). Finally, it was shown that a second delayed backward acceleration (delayed relative to the impulse and recoil, but still rapid by everyday experience) is detectable in data published previously by [9], and this acceleration occurs on the President's entire upper body (not just his head). The most plausible forcing mechanism for this second distinct backward acceleration (i.e., one that would act on the body's CM and is consistent with the observed time scale) would be a nervous system reaction to massive brain injury as proposed by earlier investigators [50]. This neuromuscular effect causes the large torso muscles to undergo a delayed involuntary contraction, straightening the torso and thus torquing the entire upper body backward from its seated posture. For the jet effect, Nalli also just assumed a cone of generic ejected brain mass, and did NOT attempt to calculate the actual exit velocities expected from a cavitation-induced explosion. He just assumed a range of velocities and ejecta masses and back-calculated the displacement of JFK’s head. I suspect the reason he did that was he did not want to deal with “nozzle” sizes from the large head wound - and that his ballistics model placed the max temp cavity right next to the entrance instead of the exit. This is part of why I’m curious about the fragments. Nalli avoided dealing with any dynamics of the actual exit from JFK’s head. The alleged temp cavity would need to generate enough pressure to fracture the skull into separate fragments and blast those fragments out through the scalp at high speed. I’m skeptical that’s even possible, but I’d be curious to see someone try to make it work. Edited February 28 by Tom Gram Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Bacon Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 Pat, I know you said this is not about film alteration, but that bone fragment just appears out of nowhere--obviously a sign of frame removal. I'll bet it co-incided with Greer's miraculous head turn. How did you find out about this bone fragment? It's not something easily seen.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Coleman Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 (edited) Thought the second instance could have been his foot rising, showing the tip of his shoe, but he was wearing black shoes that day. Bone or flesh looking good… Edited April 10 by Sean Coleman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted February 29 Author Share Posted February 29 4 hours ago, Paul Bacon said: Pat, I know you said this is not about film alteration, but that bone fragment just appears out of nowhere--obviously a sign of frame removal. I'll bet it co-incided with Greer's miraculous head turn. How did you find out about this bone fragment? It's not something easily seen.... In 313 there is a blurry mass but in 314 the forward moving fragment becomes apparent. When I first got sucked into this rabbit hole some 20 years ago I spent a lot of time reading the web pages of LNers to balance against what I read on conspiracy web pages and the threads of this forum. One of these was the web page of Paul Seaton. I'm not sure when he first published it or when I first became aware of it but it would have to have been somewhere between 2004 and 2008 that I first came across a GIF on his website pouting out the fragment in 314. Since I came across this so long ago, I assumed most everyone knew about it, but realized the other day that not everyone did. In looking back at his GIF, moreover, I realized that it failed to point out that the fragment appears to bounce back up into frame around Z-323, which makes sense when you think about it. I mean, a bone fragment of that size would have a lot of momentum after exploding from a skull and wouldn't just go plop on the floor. So, in short, I'm crediting Seaton with the discovery it goes forward in 314, and myself for the realization it bounces back into frame a half sec later. But it would't surprise me at all if this was first discussed on the McAdams Forum 20 years ago, and if someone like Anthony Marsh or John Canal was the first to bring it up. FWIW, here's Seaton's GIF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 Oddly, the object appears out of nowhere. If it originated as part of the blob, then it disappears for a few frames and then reappears. Also odd is that, rather than falling inside the car, it lands on top of the door and melts into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 This is Z-314 from the 1997 MPI "Images of an Assassination" release of the Zapruder film struck directly from the extant "original" film that is housed at NARA. Most Zapruder film anti-alteration apologists claim that what we are seeing in this image is the "flap" that the First Lady supposedly held down during the frantic journey to Parkland Hospital which was dried in to place via coagulated blood, hermetically sealing it in to place so perfectly, that the huge frontal head wound was rendered miraculously invisible to a room full of seasoned metropolitan doctors and nurses accustomed to treating gunshot wounds on a daily basis, which in itself is of course a ridiculous claim, but in the rendition you are here proposing, this supposed saucer plate sized skull fragment detached, hair intact, and fell into the presidential limo. This GIF Pat Speer provided from Paul Seaton's site is also very useful for gaining an appreciation of the huge dimensions of the supposed detachable saucer plate sized skull fragment: Setting aside the issue presented by the fact that the Parkland doctors and nurses observed no frontal head damage, when we refer to the bootleg autopsy photograph of the region of the President's head which is depicted by Zapruder frame 314 as being dispossessed of a saucer plate sized skull fragment, we see no such thing, nor is it ever made a finding in the autopsy proceedings that there existed a huge retractable frontal head "flap" that had previously been so perfectly hermetically sealed with dried blood that all such frontal head damage was magically concealed from the Parkland Hospital trauma team. And our dilemma is highlighted and underscored when we refer to the Zapruder film headshot sequence in motion to see that when Z-314 is placed in context, what the extant film is actually depicting is a huge cavernous hole in JFK's forehead the size of a cantaloupe which NONE of the head wound witnesses at Dealey Plaza, Parkland Hospital, the Bethesda autopsy or anywhere else ever reported. The headshot sequence culminates in frames Z-335 and Z-337 in which we find ourselves looking at the First Lady's pink shoulder patch where JFK's face and forehead should be, and asking ourselves "what is wrong with these pictures?" Z-335 Z-337 Interestingly, the issues about which these particular photographs are suggestive were addressed by Josiah Thompson and Doug Horne in 2013, and in my opinion, Horne nailed it: "...BUT WHAT I DID HAVE A PROBLEM WITH WAS WHAT JOSIAH THOMPSON WAS SAYING ABOUT Z-FILM IMAGES FROM FRAME 328 THROUGH 337. He showed many slides depicting how the top of JFK's head is apparently missing, and where you can actually see Jackie Kennedy's shoulder (in the pink Chanel suit) through what appears to be a huge golf-type "divit" of missing cranium in the top of JFK's skull. It was easy to see how Tink had connected the dots: "The Z-film shows a huge portion of the top of the head missing, just like the autopsy photos, so therefore the Z-film is authentic." But wait---Tink was clearly dodging an important issue: the same day treatment notes, and same-day and same-weekend statements to the media, of the Parkland doctors and nurses. NONE OF THEM MENTIONED ANY DAMAGE TO THE TOP OR RIGHT SIDE OF THE HEAD IN 1963. In 1964 when they all testified under oath, only one Parkland witness, Dr. Giesecke, mentioned damage to the top of the head and side of the head, and he said it was the top and left side of the head (the wrong side). His testimony is so anomalous that it can, and should be, discarded. Just go back and read the same-day treatment notes from the Warren Report, and the sworn testimony of all of the other Parkland doctors and nurses from 1964. They repetitively and definitively describe a wound in the BACK OF THE HEAD, not the top or right side of the head, using these phrases: "posterior; occipital, occipital-parietal; and occipital-temporal" (which is still behind the right ear if you check the skull drawings in an anatomy text). Jackie Kennedy told the Warren Commission in her testimony: "From the front there was nothing," indicating she could see no damage to her husband's head when looking at JFK from the front. Presumably she saw him from the front when he was removed from the limousine at Parkland, and also observed him lying supine on the gurney inside Trauma Room One. When Jeremy Gunn and I interviewed nurse Audrey Bell and Dr. Crenshaw in 1997, face-to-face, and specifically asked them if they saw any damage at Parkland to the top or right side of President Kennedy's head, they emphatically said "no," and looked at us like we were crazy. Dr. Ronald Jones volunteered to the ARRB under oath in August of 1998 that he saw no evidence of missing bone in the top of the head, nor did he see bones protruding from the right side of the head. His clear intent was to impugn the bootleg autopsy photos that he had seen in many books, as not representing what he saw in Trauma Room One. In a recent article Dr. Don Teal Curtis, another Parkland witness, was quoted as saying the autopsy photographs do not accurately depict the damage to President Kennedy's head that he saw in Trauma Room One; he specified that the head wound he saw was strictly posterior, not superior. Here is the link to that article: http://www.myplainview.com/canyon/news/article_f6555d0a-48c4-11e3-bbd1-001a4bcf887a.html Finally, the four Parkland doctors who saw cerebellum protruding from the head wound onto the treatment cart have provided compelling evidence that the head wound they observed was in THE BACK OF THE HEAD, NOT THE TOP. Cerebellum could only have been protruding from the wound if that wound was in the back of the head, vice the top, as shown in the Z-film. Furthermore, Josiah Thompson knows this. He published medical illustrator Philip Johnson's depiction of the damage described by Dr. McClelland in his book in 1967. It shows no visible damage to the top of the head or to the right side. And I am confident that in 1966 and 1967 he read the same-day treatment notes, and the sworn Warren Commission testimony, of the members of the Parkland emergency room treatment staff who attempted to save JFK's life. Beginning in 1998, the Parkland Hospital wound sketches drawn for the ARRB by nurse Audrey Bell, and Dr. Charles Crenshaw---both depicting a wound localized to only the right rear quadrant of the head, thus confirming the 1967 drawing approved by Dr. McClelland---have been available to the public via the JFK Records Collection, and have been published in more than one book. So he is intentionally dodging the issue, which I do not at all respect. This is egregious and inexplicable behavior for someone who was both a philosophy professor, and a "private eye." He should have raised the issue himself and declared his position. Does Josiah Thompson believe the remarkably consistent wound descriptions of the Parkland doctors and nurses, or not? Did he think we were all so stupid that we would not think of this just because we were so captivated by his own line of reasoning? Tink is a smart man; I'm sure he was aware of this major weakness in his continuing argument for Z-film authenticity. He was just attempting to dodge it. Buy the Lancer recording of his lecture, and see for yourself. Ask yourself this: "What is more likely, that the Zapruder film is an authentic and unaltered film, and therefore matches what is seen in two thirds of the autopsy photos---and that ALL the Parkland doctors and nurses were either lying, or were wrong, and consistently wrong, in the same way? Or that the Parkland doctors and nurses were all correct and telling the truth, and that the Zapruder film was altered at Hawkeyeworks on 11/24/63 in an attempt to make it "match" the autopsy photos developed on 11/23/63---the day before the film went to Hawkeyeworks---autopsy photos which depict the results of clandestine, illicit, post-mortem surgery performed at Bethesda Naval Hospital to remove from JFK's body all evidence of shots fired from the right front?" After all, the new 6k digital scans of frame 317 and many other frames (currently the subject of an ongoing scientific investigation in California) appear to depict evidence of gross, crude alteration intended to black out the back of JFK's head. In view of this new evidence (written about by me in 2009 in Chapter 14 of my book), isn't it more likely that the Parkland treatment staff were all correct in their statements the weekend of the assassination, and that the Zapruder film has been altered? We need to show some intellectual rigor and apply Occam's Razor here. Which is more likely? That a film that is already suspect for good reason has been altered, or that all of the Parkland treatment staff was incompetent and didn't know what they saw or what they were talking about afterwards? This is the same dilemma that confronts any assassination researcher who wants to believe BOTH the Dallas doctors and nurses, and ALSO believe that the Zapruder film is an authentic, unaltered film. You can't have it both ways. As I said in my book, interpreting evidence in which there are so many conflicts requires that the researcher make judgments, and employ some critical thinking. In my long essay at the LewRockwell.com site about "The Two Zapruder Film Events at NPIC," I have thoroughly explored the broken chain-of-custody of the film the weekend of the assassination; its presence at the Hawkeyeworks R & D lab in Rochester, New York (at Kodak headquarters); and the apparent creation there (in an optical printer) of a new double 8 unslit film masquerading as an unslit out-of-camera original. Here is the link: https://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/ Study my long essay at LewRockwell, and consider the issues raised here in this essay. And then make up your own mind. Don't blindly defer to the presumed authority of a retired Kodak (!) film chemist, or of an author protecting a lifetime of intellectual turf. Sometime within the next 6 to 9 months you will be able to better assess the other side of the story using your own eyes, and your own mind---via a magnificent documentary being made in California. You will then learn the current state of this ongoing scientific investigation. Anyone who has any uncertainty about this issue right now, or who is interested in it at all, should keep an open mind, and reserve final judgment until that documentary is released. That concludes this report on some of the interesting things I heard at the JFK Lancer conference about the Zapruder film. END" '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 As Doug Horne so incisively points out above, there is only one way that this particular Zapruder film imagery can be reconciled with the reports of the Parkland Hospital doctors and nurses... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 On 2/29/2024 at 2:24 PM, Keven Hofeling said: As Doug Horne so incisively points out above, there is only one way that this particular Zapruder film imagery can be reconciled with the reports of the Parkland Hospital doctors and nurses... This is one of those cases where there is sufficient circumstantial evidence that one can "connect the dots" and arrive at precisely what happened. I love it! If researchers would only open their minds and shape their theories to fit the evidence rather than shaping the evidence to fit their theories, they would discover that it IS possible to discover the facts behind what some believe to be insurmountable mysteries in the case of the JFK assassination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 (edited) 23 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: This is one of those cases where there is sufficient circumstantial evidence that one can "connect the dots" and arrive at precisely what happened. I love it! If researchers would only open their minds and shape their theories to fit the evidence rather than shaping the evidence to fit their theories, they would discover that it IS possible to discover the facts behind what some believe to be insurmountable mysteries in the case of the JFK assassination. I thought we might see Pat Speer or one of his confederates at least attempt to explain this Grand Canyon sized discrepancy between the extant Zapruder film and ALL of the medical testimony and the autopsy photographs, but none of them seem to be up to the challenge... I mean, here we have this clearly discernable Zapruder film imagery (according to Pat Speer, from Paul Seaton's lone nutter site) of a huge portion of the frontal region of JFK's skull being blown downward from his head, showcased here in a manner that the vast majority of viewers of the Zapruder film have never seen... The detached skull plate (and not a mere small fragment) is obviously HUGE: It looks as if it may be as large as the top of Jackie Kennedy's pink hat, and the portion turned away from Zapruder's camera, once detached, would have to be populated with a good portion of the hair off of the top of the President's head... And if there be any doubt, here we have a zoomed in image of Zapruder frame 314, making it clear that in the GIF above we really are seeing a saucer-plate sized segment of the President's head being detached from the skull, and that it is not just a mere optical illusion... What's more, when we look at a succession of the clearest frames between Z-314 and Z-337, we see that there is indeed a huge, cavernous hole being depicted in the frontal region of the President's head that has to be at least the size of a cantaloupe... But this makes no sense at all, for NONE of the witnesses (not at Dealey Plaza, Parkland Hospital or at the Bethesda autopsy) reported this type of a huge, cavernous hole in the frontal region of the President's head, and when we consult the autopsy photographs we see neither the huge, cavernous hole, nor the saucer-plate sized slice of skull that we see detaching from the head between frames Z-314 and Z-315. And there is no large plot of missing hair from the top of the head as Z-314 tells us there should be... Now one may wish to object to my interpretation of this autopsy photograph on the basis that I am not a medical doctor and am thus not qualified to do so. Fortunately, I have a video of Parkland Doctor Paul Peters interpreting the same region of this autopsy photograph as is at issue in relation to Z-314 and the saucer-plate sized portion of skull that appears to have been blown off of the President's head from the right-side forehead region, as follows: Note that Dr. Peters refers to "an incision" in the area at issue, and not to anything like a cantaloupe sized hole or a missing saucer-plated sized skull fragment missing therefrom, and that comes from a seasoned medical doctor accustomed to treating gunshot wounds on a daily basis at a busy metropolitan hospital... And when we examine the same area in the following "stare of death" autopsy photograph, we likewise do not see any huge holes or missing skull plates... In short, the above demonstrates HUGE discrepancies between the head wound depictions of the extant Zapruder film and the autopsy photographs (which former ARRB Analyst Doug Horne has assured us are virtually the same as the "originals" in the National Archives), and I would very much like to see any explanation from Pat Speer or his confederates that might put this controversy to rest. By the way, for anyone who wishes to offer an explanation for the mystery above, while you're at it, would you be so kind as to also explain the mysterious black patch that forms over the area in the back of the President's head (where some 50 or so Parkland and Bethesda witnesses reported the large avulsive wound to be) as it defies logic and reason that we are seeing it instead of the wound that should be there... For your convenience, here is a set of Zapruder film stills to allow you to fully appreciate how the D-Max black blob covering the back of the President's head morphs in shape from frame to frame following Z-313, which is certainly not characteristic of a "natural shadow." So what exactly is it? Z-317 Edited March 2 by Keven Hofeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Crane Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 The deciders wanted everything going towards the front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted March 3 Author Share Posted March 3 (edited) 16 hours ago, Michael Crane said: The deciders wanted everything going towards the front. It sounds like you're convinced that nothing actually traveled from back to front... How, then, do you explain... 1. The crack on the front windshield? 2. The bullet fragments found in the front section of the limo? 3. The bullet fragment striking the curb by Tague? 4. The skull fragment found on the floor of the limo? 5. The skull fragment shown flying skywards in the Z-film? Which appears to correlate with 6. The skull fragment found forward of the limo's location in the plaza? Edited March 3 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Crane Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 (edited) 8 hours ago, Pat Speer said: It sounds like you're convinced that nothing actually traveled from back to front... How, then, do you explain... 1. The crack on the front windshield? 2. The bullet fragments found in the front section of the limo? 3. The bullet fragment striking the curb by Tague? 4. The skull fragment found on the floor of the limo? 5. The skull fragment shown flying skywards in the Z-film? Which appears to correlate with 6. The skull fragment found forward of the limo's location in the plaza? You're way off base Pat. First of all,I have said on more than one occasion that President Kennedy was shot 4 times. 2 times from the front 2 times from the back Now Governor Conally was probably shot at least two times from the rear,more than likely 3. I'm on record on saying that there was probably 11 shots fired in the assassination,but more than likely only 10. Edited March 4 by Michael Crane 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