The Zapruder Film and NPIC/Hawkeyeworks Mysteries

[Allen Lowe]

Just now, Keven Hofeling said:

Your challenge that Roger "cite one source - ANY SOURCE - who cited the Zapruder in the period between the assassination and the reveal on Geraldo, or who said it was incriminating or urgent to release it" is easily satisfied. There were many books and articles prior to the 1975 showing of the Zapruder film on Geraldo Rivera Good Night America show which were critical of the lack of public availability of the film and called for a change in that status quo, but the one example I am going to provide you was likely the most well publicized of all of them:

"Six Seconds in Dallas" by Josiah Thompson, published in 1967, was a best seller not just in the United States but also internationally. The book gained widespread acclaim for its thorough investigation of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, particularly focusing on the events that took place in Dealey Plaza in Dallas on November 22, 1963.

Thompson's meticulous research and attention to detail, as well as his background as a former professor of philosophy and investigator for the House Select Committee on Assassinations, added credibility to his work. The book presented a critical analysis of the Warren Commission's report on the assassination and raised questions about the official narrative of the events surrounding Kennedy's death.

"Six Seconds in Dallas" was well-received by both critics and readers for its compelling narrative, insightful commentary, and groundbreaking investigative work. It shed new light on the assassination and sparked further interest in the case, contributing to the ongoing debate and conspiracy theories surrounding Kennedy's death.

Overall, the book's commercial success and critical acclaim solidified its status as a best seller and established Josiah Thompson as a prominent figure in the JFK assassination research community.

The exact total number of copies of "Six Seconds in Dallas" by Josiah Thompson that have been sold is not publicly available. However, the book was an immediate best seller, has been in print for over five decades, and has maintained a steady readership, making it one of the enduring classics in the field of Kennedy assassination research. It has been through multiple editions and reprints, both in the United States and internationally, indicating a significant level of popularity and ongoing interest in the subject matter. While the specific sales figures may not be available, the book's status as a best seller and its longevity in the marketplace suggest that it has sold a substantial number of copies over the years.

The book commenced with "A Note From The Publisher," Bernard Geis, which highlighted and underscored the problems Josiah Thompson encountered due to the tight controls exercised over the Zapruder film by Life, and his problems were just beginning at that point because Time, Inc. sued Thompson and his publisher for infringement of copyright because of Zapruder frames sketched in the book. A federal court gave summary judgment to Thompson and his publisher ten months later in a landmark decision stressing fair use rights. "Time Inc. v. Bernard Geis Assoc., 293 F. Supp. 130 (S.D.N.Y. 1968)" https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/293/130/1982339/

Clearly, the CIA Operation Mockingbird captured Time/Life publication attempted to suppress the Zapruder film and everything about it, just as the CIA front, The Sixth Floor Museum, continues to do today by threatening litigation against all who attempt to use the film in virtually every context.

Sorry, but you have proved my point for me - if it had been destroyed right after the assassination, Thompson would not have seen it or written a book with it, Life Magazine would not have seen it and editorialized. There would have been nothing but silence because no one would know how important it was.

To quote some writer, Case Closed.

 

[Keven Hofeling]

Just now, Allen Lowe said:

Sorry, but you have proved my point for me - if it had been destroyed right after the assassination, Thompson would not have seen it or written a book with it, Life Magazine would not have seen it and editorialized. There would have been nothing but silence because no one would know how important it was.

To quote some writer, Case Closed.

 

Your speculations about how the CIA should have dealt with the situation aside, obviously they didn't decide to implement the Allen Lowe strategy of the future. The reality is simply the reality and you have no choice but to accept it as "what is" as opposed to what you feel should have been, or would have been. Coulda, woulda shoulda is just nonsense speculation. Deal with it.

[Keven Hofeling]

2 hours ago, Allen Lowe said:

nonsense - they have lost other films and documents - and if you answer, well, this was something that was much more graphic and valuable, well, virtually no one knew it at the time and no one could have, in the aftermath, proved it. It would have been simply forgotten. The logic of the alterationist position is beyond bizarre - given a choice between altering something that STILL convinced everyone of a conspiracy, and destroying the evidence, they would have destroyed the evidence. What a lot of alterationists don't really get is how different the world was in 1963. A lost film would simply have faded from evidence - think about something - the actual film didn't surface publicly for about 10 years, so it was essentially lost - and NO ONE complained or noticed in that time, in any way that effected public opinion. I challenge you to cite one source - ANY SOURCE - who cited the Zapruder in the period between the assassination and the reveal on Geraldo, or who said it was incriminating or urgent to release it. Really - find me one citation, one quote that really had an impact on public opinion. There is not one, because public opinion isn't effected until the film - supposedly altered - is shown on national television. Which completely proves that if the Zapruder film had disappeared no one would have made that much of its absence.

It is fine if you can prove me wrong, but you have to come up with evidence.

And with regard to the current efforts to suppress the Zapruder film from research and analyses we have the following conduct of the Sixth Floor Museum -- the successor to Time/Life as the deep state guardian of the Zapruder film:

____________

In November 2010, Sidney Wilkinson encountered a problem with the Sixth Floor Museum -- that should raise some eyebrows -- which derailed her production plan for her documentary. The short version of that story is told by Dr. David Mantik in the following video:

VIDEO IS QUEUED TO 27:46 WHERE DR. DAVID MANTIK TELLS THE STORY OF SYDNEY WILKINSON AND THEIR VISITS TO THE SIXTH FLOOR MUSEUM TO EXAMINE THE 5 x 7 TRANSPARENCIES FROM THE ORIGINAL ZAPRUDER FILM https://youtu.be/hlGaFMvZEI8?t=1666

____________

Doug Horne, Dr. David Mantik, and Sydney Wilkinson on apparent fraud in Zapruder film transparencies committed while in the custody of the Sixth Floor Museum:

'MASQUERADE AT THE MUSEUM'

Excerpt from 'THE JFK ASSASSINATION DECODED: Criminal Forgery in the Autopsy Photographs and X-rays' by David Mantik, MD, PhD.

April 15, 2013

Revised November 2021

David W. Mantik (DM) and Sydney Wilkinson (SW)

 

INTRODUCTION (DM)

 

Within several years of the JFK assassination, David Lifton had been captivated by the Zapruder images81 following frame Z-313 " ...because the back of the head seemed all blacked out."82 Curiously, this was several years before he began to suspect that the entire film had been (illegally) edited. He recalls that when Wesley Liebeler (in 1967) had ordered the 4x5 inch transparencies from LIFE magazine for his class (see further discussion of these below) the back of the head still lacked detail.83 In June 1970, under the ruse of a possible purchase, Time-Life permitted Lifton and colleagues to examine multiple film items at their Beverly Hills office. These included 4x5 inch transparencies, an 8 mm film, a 16 mm film and a 35 mm film.84 The back of the head still seemed blacked out to Lifton, which was also consistent with the LIFE magazine images.

 

On that occasion, Lifton viewed the frames after Z-334 (the last one published by the Warren Commission) and discovered that the supposed right facial wound of JFK (not seen by anyone at Parkland) was enormous-and that it appeared merely to be artwork. Provoked by this, Lifton then studied "Insert Matte Photography" and suggested that the "blacking out" effect might also be artwork.

 

The blacked-out posterior skull was radically inconsistent with the recollections of the Parkland physicians. More to the point, though, it was also thoroughly inconsistent with their contemporaneous notes, which are included in the Warren Report. These professionals uniformly recalled a right posterior skull defect about the size of an orange. These doctors also (uniformly) disagreed with the autopsy photographs, which, like the Zapruder film, showed no posterior skull defect. In fact, this disagreement (about the hole in the back of the head) was so scandalous that I listed sixteen Parkland physicians85 who stated that the autopsy photographs86) were distinctly different from what they recalled. On the contrary, no physician who saw the autopsy photographs (of the back of the head) immediately recognized them.

 

Based on my own viewing of the autopsy photographs and X-rays on multiple occasions at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), and greatly assisted by optical density measurements made directly on JFK's X­ rays at NARA, I proposed a skull reconstruction87 with a large upper occipital defect. In addition, an adjoining site just to the right of this defect) appeared to be a bone flap that could swing open or closed, which was consistent with the recollections of Dr. Robert McClelland. In fact, McClelland had approved a sketch for Josiah Thompson, which was accompanied by his own pertinent quotation about the bone flap.88 Based on these considerations, even if one accepted an intact (or nearly intact) posterior scalp (i.e., just the soft tissue), a fairly large posterior skull defect could no longer be denied. Curiously enough, such a bony defect was in fact, also consistent with the drawings by autopsy pathologist J. Thornton Boswell.89

 

So now the question became obvious: How could the scalp appear so intact in the Zapruder film (and in the autopsy photographs), while an obvious defect was seen at Parkland Hospital (at least in the bone, but probably also in the scalp)? Actually, the problem lay even deeper than that: The ancillary autopsy personnel (at Bethesda) agreed with the Parkland witnesses-they also recalled a large hole in the posterior skull.90 Photographs of these witnesses--from both Parkland and Bethesda--consistently illustrated the hole and were compiled by Robert Groden.91

 

The issue of a posterior skull defect is not a mere curiosity--on the contrary, it goes to the very heart of the JFK assassination case. Such a defect clearly implies a frontal shot, and therefore unavoidably means conspiracy. If the forensic evidence had to be altered (to cover-up a conspiracy), then this posterior defect was an indispensable target for alteration.

 

The remainder of this essay is a first-person account of our mutual attempts to decipher this paradox of JFK s posterior skull especially as seen in the Zapruder film.

 

A BRIEF HISTORY OF OUR 35MM DUPLICATE NEGATIVE OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM (SW)

 

In 2008, my partner (and husband), Thom Whitehead, sold our startup editing company to Deluxe Film Labs. Thom was hired to oversee their newly created editorial department in Burbank, and I chose a new path. After spending over twenty years in sales and development in the post-production industry, I was ready for a new challenge.

 

I have been interested in the JFK assassination history for decades. In 1978, I spent a memorable college semester in Washington, D.C., working as a congressional intern and studying the activities of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). One of the key subjects that piqued my interest was the iconic Zapruder film. In 2008, I rekindled my interest and began to read about the film with a renewed vigor. I was surprised to discover there were serious concerns about its authenticity. Most notably, there had never been a truly independent, forensic, imaging study---one that was not connected to a government or private entity. It suddenly dawned on me that I might have a golden opportunity to delve deeper into the film imagery by utilizing the resources of Deluxe Labs92--one of the largest and most prestigious professional film labs in history. We knew they would allow us to use any/all of their state-of-the-art film and digital technology. Additionally, considering that Thom and I had spent years working with the top film restoration and post-production experts in the world, I felt confident we would be able to solicit their professional, unbiased guidance. With the absolute best technology and talent available at the time, all we needed was the best possible film element to study.

 

In November 2008, we purchased a 35mm duplicate negative (dupe neg) of the "forensic version' of the Zapruder "camera original" 8 mm film housed at NARA. It is a US government authorized and certified, third generation film copy. To our surprise, and to the best of our knowledge (as of 2018), it is the only third generation 35mm dupe neg acquired for the purpose of an independent, expert evaluation since NARA made such elements available to the public in 2003.

 

The following is a brief timeline of the steps I had to take to acquire our 35 mm dupe neg from NARA. It took eight months, and they certainly did not make it convenient, or cost effective in 2008. I hope they have simplified the process since then.

1. I called NARA in March 2008 and was referred to James Mathis, PhD Archivist, Special Access and FOIA Staff. I asked him about access to the original Zapruder film for a potential documentary film project, and what I needed to do in order to purchase the best possible film copy for research purposes. I was baffled when he informed me that the first step (for some forever unexplained reason) was to purchase a copy of the (Roland) Zavada Report93 that had been commissioned by the Assassination Records and Review Board (ARRB) during its tenure. He said NARA considered the report to be the definitive work on the authenticity of the Zapruder film and only after I had carefully read it, and still had questions would they consider moving forward with my request. I did not know any better at the time, so I paid $553.50 for a photocopy of the Zavada Report94 and read all of it--well, at least, the pages that were legible. (The black and white photographic prints of versions of the Zapruder film were useless.)

2. A few months later, I called Leslie Waffen, who at the time was Branch Chief of the Sound and Motion Picture Branch at Archives II, in College Park, Maryland. I introduced myself and told him I had read the Zavada Report and would like to move forward with purchasing a 35mm duplicate negative film copy of the original Zapruder film. To my surprise, he said he had no idea why I had been told I needed to buy, and read, the Zavada Report before moving forward. Really? He explained that my next step was to get written permission from the Sixth Floor Museum95 who owned the copyright to the Zapruder film.

3. In August, I contacted the Sixth Floor Museum and spoke with Gary Mack, who referred me to Megan Bryant. I explained to her that, presently, we were going to use the 35mn dupe neg for research purposes only but were hoping to eventually include it in documentary project sometime in the future. I understood that she would send me the licensing fees if that came to fruition. I followed her instructions on how to obtain their official authorization by completing the 'Formal Reproduction Request" form on their web site, followed by multiple phone conversations with Ms. Bryant.

4. In October, the Sixth Floor Museum approved my request and Ms. Bryant faxed an authorization letter directly to Mr. Waffen at NARA.

5. A few days later, Mr. Waffen96 gave me the names of three ARA­ authorized post-production facilities from which to order our film element directly. I contacted all three, but only one facility (Colorlab film transfers. I paid $795 directly to them and received our film via FedEx a few weeks later.

According to NARA, the film element used to complete my transfer was their 35mm Intermediate (or "reproduction") copy, which is an interpositive,97 silent, color film descended from the direct blow-up 35mm Internegative. NARA considered it to be a "preservation master." At that time, they offered two versions to the public: (1) a "forensic” version--a 35mm, direct optical blow-up Internegative (without any image improvement) from Zapruder's 8mm camera "original,"98 and (2) a “de-scratched" version--a 35mm film element that has been "cleaned up" to look visually appealing. The latter effectively removes dirt and scratches via "a diffused light source in analog printing instead of using a traditional wet-gate method.99 We chose the forensic version because we wanted to work with unadulterated images--as close to the "original" as possible--where nothing had been done to enhance or improve them in any way.

 

TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF OUR 6K SCANS (SW)

 

We scanned our 35mm dupe neg directly to 6k files using a Northlight film scanner. At the time, the Northlight scanner was instrumental in the production of Hollywood films and was considered state-of-the-art technology in post­ production.100 It created digital files from the optical image of a film. Great care was accorded to this process in a post-production environment because the introduction of any artifacts or discontinuities could ruin the day for a film director or director of photography. The digital file that is created must replicate exactly the image on the film and reveal all the information present on each film frame.

 

Due to the relatively small size of the original 8mm Zapruder film (when viewing the entire 35 mm frame on the dupe neg) we decided to scan at Northlight’s maximum available scan size of 6k. The 6k refers to a size of 6144 x 4668 pixels with an effective size of 114.7 Mb of digital data per frame. To put this into perspective, a home HDTV only presents 1920 x 1080 pixels with about 9.7 Mb per frame. Therefore, our scans have more than ten times the resolution and data size as an HD television image. This additional resolution allowed us to electronically zoom into the image without any apparent loss of detail or fidelity. Finally, we could see down to the grain of the 8mm film with complete sharpness and detail--including all of the inter-sprocket and edge areas. As far as we know, the Zapruder film had never been reproduced or studied at this level of digital resolution.

 

Another important aspect of our scanning process was the use of logarithmic color space, rather than linear color space. This is critical because the use of logarithmic color allows all the color information of the image to be present in the scans, preserving all of the highlight and shadow information. Linear color is what we are accustomed to seeing on TV and computer screens. Although linear color looks correct/normal and lifelike to our eyes, very bright and dark areas of the image must be "clipped" in order to make the majority of the image appear correctly. Logarithmic color, although looking to the untrained eye as "muddy" or "flat," is actually the best way to retain all of the color information in the film.

 

Finally we used the film industry standard "DPX" (Digital Picture eXchange)101 format to allow easy transfers between various professional workstations. One of the state-of-the-art workstations we continue to use is an Autodesk product called Smoke.102

 

THE MPI IMAGES (DM)103

 

In 1997 with Douglas Home of the ARRB staff serving as a neutral observer, MPI's designated film contractor, Mccrone Associates, photographed each frame of the extant Zapruder film at the NARA, using large format (4 x 5 inch) Kodak 6121 color positive transparency duplicating film. Those MPI transparencies constituted first generation copies of each frame in the extant film. The extant film is considered to be generation zero. This MPI process had its own shortcomings104 but following their creation these images should have been the best available to the public. (Later, MPI digitized, manipulated, and reassembled the in1ages as a motion picture, creating a product titled "Image of an Assassination" on both VHS tape and DVD, which has been available for purchase by the public since 1998.) The so-called “MPI transparencies" created by McCrone associates were physically transferred to the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas in January of 2000. This followed the donation and legal transfer of the film's copyright, and the LMH Company's film elements, from LMH Co. to the Museum in December of 1999. From 2000 through 2009, upon appropriate request, these MPI transparencies--true first-generation copies (of the extant film), in large format-were available for public viewing at the Museum.

 

INSIDE THE ARRB, A 5-VOLUME MASTERPIECE BY DOUGLAS HORNE (DM)

 

Appearing in late November 2009, this five-volume encyclopedic work by a former staff member of the ARRB contained images of several Zapruder frames--based on Wilkinson's 6k scans. In particular, Figure 88 in Volume I (an image of Z-317) showed a black geometric patch over the back of JFK's head. (See the image below.) Even in the low-resolution format of a paperback, its borders were preternaturally sharp and well defined, far more than would be expected of a normal shadow.

 

Several months before publication of his book, Home advised me that he planned to visit Thom and Sydney in Los Angeles, so in August 2009, he invited me to their joint viewing.105 While in the film laboratory for several hours, they explained their 6k scans to us. Horne had also viewed them on a prior occasion with three Hollywood professionals. I was particularly fascinated by how unnatural the black patch looked:

 

• After frame Z-313, this area was clearly darker than before Z-313; before Z-313, JFK's hair looked auburn.

 

• The edges of the patch were unnaturally sharp.

 

• Before and after frame Z-313, the back of Connally's head (in a similar shadow as JFK's head) did not show anything like a black patch.

 

SYDNEY SEES THE MPI TRANSPARENCIES AT THE SIXTH FLOOR MUSEUM (SW)

 

On Friday, November 20 2009, during the weekend of the annual JFK symposium meetings, David Mantik and I met for an appointment at the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas. I was very excited because we were going to view the first generation Ektachrome transparencies created by MPI in 1997. We were told they were made directly from Zapruder's 8mm camera "original," which meant they were first generation and should have been sharper than our 35mm dupe neg (third generation). According to the Museum, these MPI transparencies were included in a deed of gift from the Zapruder family in December of 1999, along with the copyright to the Zapruder film (and other important Zapruder film elements) from Time-Life, Inc. My primary goal was to determine if the MPI transparencies showed the same anomalies seen on our scans. I was prepared for either outcome.

 

David and I were given a loupe and light box to carefully look at each transparency. Words cannot describe how stunned I was when I viewed the head shot, frame Z-313, and the frames immediately following. The resolution was beyond anything I expected. Especially, in frames Z-317, Z-321, Z-323, Z-335 and Z-337, the solid, black' patch" that is clearly seen on our 6k scans--covering the right rear area of JFK's head--was even more egregious on the MPI transparencies. It was all I could do to muzzle my emotions. There was no doubt the MPI transparencies corroborated the obvious anomalies seen on our scans. Most importantly, they clearly depicted what should be on the extant Zapruder film housed at NARA.

 

DAVID REPORTS ON THE SAME VISIT (WITH SYDNEY) IN 2009 (DM)

 

While Gary Mack sat nearby, my first impression was the same as Sydney's--the resolution and color were so incredible that I felt as if I were seeing these frames for the very first time. But the greatest emotional impact came on seeing the black patch in Z-317. It was so blatant, so childishly done, that I almost laughed aloud. Whether I did or not is in some doubt, but I retain an image of clapping my hand over my mouth to prevent such a laugh.106 I was also easily able to verify the other abnormalities that Home had reported in his book, published just a week later in November 2009.

 

SYDNEY RETURNS TO THE MUSEUM IN 2010 (SW)

 

The following year, in November 2010, I returned to the newly finished Sixth Floor Museum reading room in order to view the same MPI transparencies. Thom was able to join me and I was excited to show him the stunning clarity of the back of JFK's head i.e., the "black patch," on the frames we had been studying for months. This time, I was definitely not prepared for what I saw when I looked through the loupe. Not only were the transparencies much larger in size physically, than the ones I had viewed the previous year with David, but none of them were as clear and sharp. Not even close. Most importantly, and suspiciously, the flagrant image of the black "patch" was gone. Instead, the back of JFK s head appeared to show a natural shadow--what Thom called "fuzzied up"--without the straight and well-demarcated edges I had seen in 2009. We were both stunned. Furthermore the black patch was not nearly so obvious in this supposed first generation copy as it was in our third generation 6k copy. That made no sense whatever to me. Despite being assured by the museum they were the same transparencies that David and I saw the previous year, there is absolutely no doubt that they were not. To this day, Thom and I wonder if those transparencies had been altered.

 

INTO THE FRAY: DAVID RETURNS TO THE MUSEUM IN 2012 (DM)

 

Shortly after her 2010 visit to the Museum, Sydney telephoned me, sounding anguished and upset. She described the overwhelming shock caused by her most recent visit. I assured her that I stood by the impressions we had both received in 2009, particularly of the black patch. I promised to visit again--to assess her most recent impressions. During this several-year hiatus (2009-2012) at least two other individuals visited the Museum and saw no black patch. The Museum will not disclose the names of any visitors, but Sydney had met retired Kodak film chemist Roland Zavada outside the viewing room on that same day in 2010. (Zavada had lectured at a JFK symposium that day.107) And author Josiah Thompson reported on his visit, which occurred at about that same time--if not the same day.

 

My second opportunity finally arrived during the annual JFK symposia meetings in November 2012. On the chance that the black patch might re-appear I asked author Peter Jaruley to accompany me on November 16, so that he could serve as another witness. (Sydney was not in Dallas at the time.) The verdict came quickly-the patch in Z-317, and conspicuously present in other frames such as Z- 321 and Z-323, had vanished. Neither Peter nor I saw it. The back of JFK's head appeared little different from all those images I had seen before (excepting for Sydney's 6k images). The powerful emotional response of 2009 did not recur. Furthermore, the back of JFK's head did not show the patently obvious patch I had seen on Sydney's 6k scans. Unlike Sydney, I did not perceive the transparencies I viewed in 2012 to be larger in size than those I viewed in 2009; my impression is that they were simply displayed differently, i.e., in different mountings. The important thing is that we both noted that the anomalies present in 2009 had disappeared in the MPI transparencies we viewed in 2010 and 2012. Before leaving the Museum, I pointedly asked Megan Bryant (Gary Mack was absent) if these were the same images that she had shown me in 2009. She claimed they were.

 

MPI SUMMARY (SW and DM)

 

It is most likely that the images shown to Josiah Thompson and Roland Zavada were the same ones that Sydney and Thom saw in 2010 and that David saw in 2012. If so, then neither of these men has ever viewed the images that Sydney and David saw together at the Museum in 2009. It would have been most enlightening if either Thompson or Zavada could have joined us in 2009.

 

Of course, the relationship between the release date of Horne's book (late November 2009), and our Museum visit in late November 2009 is most peculiar. Our 2009 visit had occurred about one week before the release of Horne's book! In retrospect, this timing appears noteworthy (if not ominous): Was the Museum caught off guard by our visit? Was the Museum's staff oblivious to the purpose of our visit-possibly because they were still unacquainted with Sydney and Thom's research and because they had not yet seen Figure 88 (Z-317) in Horne's book? Even more to the point: It is our impression that we were the first to see these MPI images at the Museum.

 

What strikes both of us as most anomalous is the wonderful clarity of Sydney's 6k scans--which are only a third generation--versus the (currently) less impressive "first generation" MPI images now housed at the Museum (but present only after our 2009 visit). This discrepancy makes no sense to either of us. It would be most useful if Sydney's 6k scans could be taken into the Museum viewing room to be compared side by side with the MPI images, but that is not allowed. Nor were we permitted to record any images of the MPI transparencies, either via camera or scanner--so we have only our memories.

 

A POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE -- THE TIME/LIFE TRANSPARENCIES (DM)

 

The Time-Life transparencies might resolve this paradox. Josiah Thompson had worked with these images and had photographed them while working for LIFE magazine. He used them as models for the sketches in his book, Six Seconds in Dallas. He was kind enough to loan these negatives to me, which I converted into prints. Oddly, Z-317 is missing from my set,108 although Thompson has posted an image of Z-317 online, presumably from his own set. The other images in my Thompson set do not show an obvious black patch.

 

On January 26, 2000, the Dallas Morning News published an article, "Zapruders Donate JFK Film, Rights," written by reporter Mark Wrolstad, who stated:

Gary Mack, the Museum’s Archivist, was all but whistling Tuesday as he examined what may be the gem of the bunch--oversized transparencies of each Zapruder film frame believed to have been made in 1963 or 1964.

The article notes that Mack was actually (contemporaneously) examining these images--not that he expected to do so at a later time. Mack also stated:

These may be in better condition than the original film is today. We may have something better or sharper, Who knows?

Now, however, we are left to wonder: Had Wrolstad merely invented this story?109 We are confronted with this bizarre question because the Museum (see e­ mail below) explains what supposedly happened: "From [a] misunderstanding, the Museum issued an inaccurate press release on January 25, 2000." Curiously, Mark Wrolstad has not responded to Doug Horne's two written attempts in 2011 to clarify this critical misunderstanding.

 

So here is the problem: the Museum now claims that they never received the 1963/1964 Time/Life transparencies--and also that they don't know where they are now. Here are responses that I received from Megan Bryant (at the Museum). It is my impression that the following statements are for public consumption.

Subject: Time/Life Transparencies

Friday, Nov 16, 2012, 12:59 PM, Megan Bryant<MeganB@jfk.org> wrote: Dr. Mantik,

After your visit today I checked my files to see if we had previously communicated regarding the question of the Time-Life 1963/64 transparencies. It does not appear that we have, so allow me to clarify our conversation from this morning:

The Sixth Floor Museum does not have-and never did have-4"x5" color transparencies prepared by Time-LIFE in 1963/1964 from the 8mm original Abraham Zapruder film of the Kennedy assassination. The collection donated to the Museum in December 1999 by the Zapruder family did include the 4x5 color transparencies made in March 1997 for the MPI Media video project titled Image of an Assassination. Documentation from late December 1999 and early January 2000 confirms the Museum expected to, and did, receive these MPI transparencies from the Zapruder family.

Just prior to the December 1999 acquisition, an inventory provided to the Museum listed an additional 27 4x5 color LIFE transparencies. That, in combination with a verbal comment by Zapruder family lawyer Jamie Silverberg, was misinterpreted to mean the collection would include, simply, LIFE transparencies. From that misunderstanding, the Museum issued an inaccurate press release on January 25, 2000. Museum curator Gary Mack repeated the information to Dallas Morning News reporter Mark Wrolstad and his article appeared the next day. Soon after receiving the donation, but after the press release appeared, Mr. Mack confirmed that the Museum did in fact receive the MPI 1997 transparencies. They included unique reference numbers added by MPI photographers in 1997 to identify specific frames of the film.

Recently, with the assistance of retired Kodak scientist Roland Zavada, the Museum learned that the other 4x5 transparencies in the donation were made on film stock manufactured in 1965 or possibly 1966. Whether they were part of a complete series of frames is unknown, as the donation did not include any explanatory Time-LIFE records.

The whereabouts today of the 1963/1964 Time-LIFE transparencies is not known to The Sixth Floor Museum. Time-LIFE may have records indicating what happened to them.

I believe this should address your question on that particular matter. Thank you,

Megan

Megan P Bryant

Director of Collections & Intellectual Property The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza 411 Elm Street

Dallas, TX 75202-3308

Phone: 214.747.6660ext. 5519

Fax: 214.747.6662

Website: www.jfk.org

On 12/13/12, Megan Bryant<Megan8@jfk.org> wrote:

Dear Dr. Mantik,

While the information provided below regarding the Time-LIFE transparencies isn't intended as an official statement of any kind, by all means, if you can help clarify any misperceptions in the research community about the whereabouts of the transparencies, please do feel free to share the information with other researchers-but only in its entirety please. We, as much as you, are interested in knowing the whereabouts of the 63/64 Time-LIFE transparencies, and if clarifying that they are not in the Museum's holdings can help that along, we're all for it.

Regards,

Megan P Bryant

Director of Collections & Intellectual Property The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza 411 Elm Street

Dallas, TX 75202-3308

Phone: 214.747.6660 ext. 5519

Fax: 214.747.6662

DM: So today no one knows where these Time/Life transparencies are located. On April 10, 1997, Doug Home saw a large stack of 4 x 5-inch color positive transparencies of the Zapruder film (with each frame surrounded by a black border) in the office of Jamie Silverberg,110 while working for the ARRB. The transparencies sighted by Doug Home in 1997 were not on Silverberg's typed inventory list of film elements and were only produced after persistent inquiries by Home about their possible existence. But now none of these men--not Home, not Zavada, not Thompson, nor even Gary Mack--can point to their location. 111

 

Before surrendering, I wanted to ascertain whether or not the Time/Life transparencies had, after all, been donated to the Museum. So, I asked the Museum one last question: Could I see the Deed of Gift (circa December 30, 1999) or the complete inventory (or catalog), which was probably prepared in 2000-or any copies of these two items? The Museum, however, responded that these were private documents and were therefore not available for my review-nor could I see copies!

 

CONCLUSIONS (DM and SW)

 

Even if both of us had suddenly lost our senses (oddly at the same moment) in 2009 Sydney's 6k scans still exist--and so does the quite obvious "Mask of Death" in Z-317. Furthermore, anyone can still purchase their own copy via NARA. To our knowledge, at least two other documentarians have done so. Sydney has graciously shown her 6k scans to friend and foe alike. Alarmingly some foes have unexpectedly declined to view them saying that they already know what they will see! This reminds us of Galileo's enemies, who likewise refused to look through his telescope,112 but instead chose to believe that theological reasoning, based on texts of Scripture (a la the Warren Report), was the only road to reality. In effect, the truth was out there, but they preferred blindfolds.

 

In short, this mindset persists today--even though we oxymoronically (and self­ referentially) label ourselves as Homo sapiens.

-------------------------------------------------------

WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?

Douglas Horne 113

 

What is at stake here is nothing less than historical truth. When an institution that presents itself as a museum--purportedly a guardian of history-­ replaces vital film evidence of President Kennedy's assassination (which apparently contained prima facie evidence of that film's blatant alteration) with substitute evidence (in which the blatant alterations have disappeared), a willful attempt has been made to alter history. The authentic MPI transparencies were available to the public from 2000 until late 2009, a long interval during which the museum's staff was apparently oblivious to what they owned. Following the publication of my five-volume set, Inside the ARRB, in late November of 2009, just one week after David Mantik and Sydney Wilkinson examined the MPI transparencies, the public (and presumably key members of the Museum's staff) awoke to what was at stake here. Here is what likely triggered this aggressive Museum response: Just prior to publication, I had added an addendum to my Zapruder film chapter about the anomalies discovered in Sydney Wilkinson's scans and had actually included an image of Z-317 in my book, as well. (See this image below.)

Was the Sixth Floor Museum, the unapologetic and ardent defender of the Warren Commission's conclusions (that a lone malcontent murdered President Kennedy), going to keep on display powerful evidence of the alteration of the single most important assassination record, the Zapruder film? This was the operative question after my book was published. The implications of the obvious alterations found in the 6k scans, and in the MPI transparencies in 2009 were clear: the true exit wound on President Kennedy's head (in the right rear, just where the Parkland Hospital treatment staff had reported it) had been intentionally obscured in the Zapruder film (likely during 1963), in an attempt to hide evidence of crossfire in Dealey Plaza and therefore of conspiracy. (An exit wound in the rear of JFK's head pointed to a fatal shot from the front and therefore multiple shooters, i.e., conspiracy.) Powerful evidence that the Zapruder film had been altered for the purpose of hiding this exit wound-anomalies in the film that provided virtual proof of the Zapruder film's alteration-would also constitute evidence of a cover-up of major proportions soon after the assassination occurred, something almost as disturbing as the assassination itself.

 

Restating the question above, “Was this institution, the Sixth Floor Museum, willing to display powerful evidence that would invalidate the Museum's own conclusions about the assassination, or would they instead abandon the interests of historical truth and pursue their own longstanding bias?"

 

In 2010 and in 2012 Sydney Wilkinson and David Mantik received the answer to this question. The events described in this essay call into serious question the true purpose of the Museum, and cause us to ask "Is the Museum a repository of truth, or an agent of political and historical spin, i.e., a mere disseminator of propaganda?"

 

Two specific Museum employees (Gary Mack114 and Megan Bryant) were in charge of the Museum's film holdings and were in responsible positions when the MPI transparencies and other film elements from the LMH Co. were received in January of 2000 (as evidenced by the Mark Wrolstad article in the Dallas Morning News). Those same two employees were present in 2009 when Sydney and David both observed the same anomalies in the MPI transparencies that were present in the 6k scans. In 2010 and 2012, while Gary Mack apparently no longer felt a need to be present, after what I shall call the "big switch," Megan Bryant was again present.

 

Is it truly plausible that Gary Mack 'misunderstood' the contents of the Deed of Gift to the Sixth Floor Museum from the LMH Company, in addition to "misinterpreting" a verbal comment from Zapruder lawyer, Jamie Silverberg and then carelessly released an inaccurate press release? Sadly, it's unlikely we will ever know. This release had been exhibited on the Sixth Floor Museum website until Doug Home began questioning Mark Wrolstad in 2011 and David Mantik began corresponding with Megan Bryant about it in 2012.

 

What do the events described above say about these two Sixth Floor Museum employees and their integrity?

 

As each reader answers to this question for himself, keep in mind that the best evidence outside of NARA that corroborated the stunning image content in the 6k scans has now disappeared. It has been switched out. We don't know who switched if out, but we certainly know where the switch took place. Meanwhile, this substitute evidence has been shown to two of the foremost defenders of the Zapruder films authenticity: Roland Zavada and Josiah Thompson. And the sanitized images in the substitute MPI transparencies have reinforced the longstanding opinions of these two men-namely, that the film has not been altered. Now both Thompson and Zavada are more certain than ever, based on their viewing of the altered MPI transparencies, that nothing is amiss with the Zapruder film.

 

A former high-level official at Archives II in College Park, Maryland (Leslie Waffen) informed Sydney Wilkinson (circa 2008) that the extant film in cold storage "would never be removed from the freezer again" and there it sits today, further deteriorating with the passage of time. In view of the events described above this policy must change. There is only one way to definitively determine the authenticity of the 6k scans commissioned by Sydney Wilkinson and studied by so many in the Hollywood film industry: compare the 6k scans with the extant film at NARA.

 

A travesty has occurred in Dallas, and it has historical repercussions. The extant 8mm Zapruder film at NARA must be compared to both the 6k scans of the 35mm dupe negative in Hollywood and with the MPI transparencies (currently available for viewing) at the Sixth Floor Museum.

 

Sydney and David and I are not afraid to conduct this test--in fact, we insist on it. The American people should insist on it. Let's do the three-way comparison, with ample witnesses present, movie cameras running, and let the chips fall where they may. The American people deserve to know their true history not a falsified story. END

Edited June 6 by Keven Hofeling

[Ron Bulman]

8 hours ago, Allen Lowe said:

McBride's theory that Mary Ferrell revealed the acoustic evidence in order to destroy the conspiracy community

That's not his theory.  He interviewed her, attempted to a second time but because of his answers to what questions he would be asked was refused.  Rereading the part in ITTNM tonight.  The Gate Keeper, per Dallas researcher Greg Lowery.

Member of David Phillips CIA retirement organization, suspected FBI contacts.  She was dirty.  A republican Dallas oil company secretary who "hated Kennedy" that also worked in the Democratic Governors office 

[Denise Hazelwood]

On 6/2/2024 at 11:25 AM, Keven Hofeling said:

When properly placed on the skull, the metal fragment on the Harper fragment is just forward and above Kennedy's right ear. James Curtis Jenkins, we should recall, told writer Harrison Livingstone that "just above the right ear there was some discoloration of the skull cavity with the bone area being gray and there was some speculation that it might be lead." That's no coincidence, IMO. A bullet broke up at that location.

Hofeling is quoting Speer here, I believe.

 There has never been a universal consensus on where on the head the Harper fragment came from. Dr. Angel, I believe, placed it here, at the “front of the head” blow-out, where Speer asserts it must have come from. Dr. Mantik places it as “occipital.” The Methodist Hospital pathologists who physically examined the fragment described it as “occipital.” The Parkland doctors who treated Kennedy described an “occipital” (or sometimes “occipital-parietal”) hole at the back of the head.

In many ways, the JFKA has been like a “choose your own adventure.” I believe the “occipital” placement for the Harper fragment. Speer believes the Angel placement, which is supported by the (altered) autopsy photos. Speer isn’t making up his placement out of whole cloth. Nevertheless, I am certain that he is wrong. (His error doesn’t make him a liar, however. It just makes him wrong.)

[Denise Hazelwood]

Sorry, I meant to add in my last comment that Jenkins did describe a wound high in the head above the right ear. William Madden Law shows a picture of Jenkins indicating the wound’s location (I think he is placing it a bit too high, but he was placing it by “feel,” not by looking in a mirror or indicating on a mannequin.) He was actually describing a “hole” (not a blow-out) hat he thought was an entrance, due largely to the influence of a previous autopsy he had attended when there’s was a bullet entrance at about this same location. Jenkins’s observation is supported by Dr. Michael Chesser, in his chapter of Jenkins’s book, where he describes a small hole above the ear in the lateral X-ray. I believe that this is the exit point for the AR-15 bullet. Speer (mistakenly) thought that Jenkins was describing the front of the head “blow-out”—which (again) is depicted in the (altered) autopsy photos. So again, Speer was telling his “truth”—but he was wrong/mistaken (not deliberately lying).

[George Govus]

Calvinball. The JFK assassination has become a variation of Calvinball. From Sam Watterson's brilliant comic strip, Calvin and Hobbes.

Quote

There is only one rule: it can't be played the same way twice. Rules cannot be used twice (except for the rule that rules cannot be used twice), and any plays made in one game may not be made again in any future games.

You pick the ball up where you find it. Never mind how the ball got there. You can run in any direction.

This is my general observation, off topic and not referencing the controversy of this thread per se. I haven't done my homework enough to weigh in.

Edited June 7 by George Govus
spelling, clarity, deleting not being an option

[Denise Hazelwood]

Since the point of this thread is Pat Speer’s honesty or lack thereof, I just want to go back and say a few more things.

 I think that Speer was not being deliberately dishonest but that he fell prey to something like a sunk cost fallacy. Having initially decided that the blow-out was at the front of the head, he continued to maintain that belief and tended to misinterpret witness accounts in order to continue maintaining that belief, despite any sort of cognitive dissonance he might have experienced when reviewing those accounts. And after all, there were the (altered) autopsy photos and X-rays to support his initial belief. Speer’s failure, more than anything else, was in his refusal to adjust his initial mistakes, and continuing to make his assertions based upon what he THOUGHT the witnesses said, rather than on what they ACTUALLY said. 

After all, who wants to acknowledge that they were wrong? Who wants to believe that one’s government engaged in a deliberate deception by altering photos and X-ray images? 

Those who rebutted Speer did a good thing by posting the witness accounts and videos that refute Speer’s claims. However, Speer has made many great contributions to the JFKA body of knowledge (for example, I had not heard of Alan Smith until I read about him on Speer’s website). So while his conclusions might be greatly flawed, his contributions have been invaluable. We can (and should) point out what the witnesses actually said, and might or might not ever get him to reconsider his flawed conclusions, but let’s not turn him into a pariah in the process. 

[Jonathan Cohen]

9 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Member of David Phillips CIA retirement organization, suspected FBI contacts.  She was dirty.  A republican Dallas oil company secretary who "hated Kennedy" that also worked in the Democratic Governors office 

"She was dirty" ? Did you ever meet Mary? I did. Did you ever work with her? I did. Do you have a shred of a clue about her contributions to the JFK research community?

[Jonathan Cohen]

It's pretty rich that Keven Hofeling is utilizing Josiah Thompson and "Six Seconds in Dallas" to support his claims on this thread, considering that Prof. Thompson is one of the most, if not THE most, vocal critics of the "every film and photograph and photo in Dealey Plaza was massively altered" nonsense.

[Keven Hofeling]

48 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

It's pretty rich that Keven Hofeling is utilizing Josiah Thompson and "Six Seconds in Dallas" to support his claims on this thread, considering that Prof. Thompson is one of the most, if not THE most, vocal critics of the "every film and photograph and photo in Dealey Plaza was massively altered" nonsense.

Mr. Cohen, are you claiming that Dr. Thompson's current opinion that the extant "original" Zapruder film is authentic somehow invalidates the fact that LIFE magazine made every conceivable effort to suppress his use of the film to demonstrate that there were at least three shooters executing a crossfire ambush of President Kennedy?

The following highlighted passages from "Bernard Geis's "A Note From The Publisher" appear to me to conclusively make the case that LIFE, targeting Dr. Thompson, attempted to sequester all information pertaining to the Zapruder film from the American public:

And then, after Six Seconds in Dallas was published, Time, Inc. even sued Dr. Thompson and his publisher for infringement of copyright merely because of the charcoal sketches of the Zapruder frames in the book. A federal court granted summary judgment to Thompson and his publisher ten months later in a landmark decision stressing fair use rights. "Time Inc. v. Bernard Geis Assoc., 293 F. Supp. 130 (S.D.N.Y. 1968)" https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/293/130/1982339/

Well Mr. Cohen, would you please kindly elaborate about your apparent position that Dr. Thompson's current views about Zapruder film authenticity somehow invalidate the above account of LIFE's efforts to suppress the Zapruder film from the American public? And while you are at it, perhaps as an exercise of your Lone Nutter bona fides you could explain to us in the spirit of cover-up and suppression that is so inherent to the Warren Report why the efforts of the CIA through its proxies, TIME/LIFE and the Sixth Floor Museum, are warranted, and a good thing for the American people?

 

Edited June 7 by Keven Hofeling

[Jonathan Cohen]

What does one thing have to do with the other? Yes, Life and Prof. Thompson were given the runaround. It doesn't change the fact that he examined the Zapruder film at great length and concluded then, as he does now, that it is authentic.

[Keven Hofeling]

Just now, Jonathan Cohen said:

What does one thing have to do with the other? Yes, Life and Prof. Thompson were given the runaround. It doesn't change the fact that he examined the Zapruder film at great length and concluded then, as he does now, that it is authentic.

You've suddenly elucidated the correct point -- that one thing has nothing to do with the other -- but you don't appear to understand how it applies to the point that you yourself seemed to be attempting to make in your initial post. Why might that be, Mr. Cohen?

[Keven Hofeling]

5 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

Sorry, I meant to add in my last comment that Jenkins did describe a wound high in the head above the right ear. William Madden Law shows a picture of Jenkins indicating the wound’s location (I think he is placing it a bit too high, but he was placing it by “feel,” not by looking in a mirror or indicating on a mannequin.) He was actually describing a “hole” (not a blow-out) hat he thought was an entrance, due largely to the influence of a previous autopsy he had attended when there’s was a bullet entrance at about this same location. Jenkins’s observation is supported by Dr. Michael Chesser, in his chapter of Jenkins’s book, where he describes a small hole above the ear in the lateral X-ray. I believe that this is the exit point for the AR-15 bullet. Speer (mistakenly) thought that Jenkins was describing the front of the head “blow-out”—which (again) is depicted in the (altered) autopsy photos. So again, Speer was telling his “truth”—but he was wrong/mistaken (not deliberately lying).

This is where James Jenkins himself sketched the location of what he believes to be an entrance wound in JFK's right temple...

[Keven Hofeling]

6 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

Hofeling is quoting Speer here, I believe.

 There has never been a universal consensus on where on the head the Harper fragment came from. Dr. Angel, I believe, placed it here, at the “front of the head” blow-out, where Speer asserts it must have come from. Dr. Mantik places it as “occipital.” The Methodist Hospital pathologists who physically examined the fragment described it as “occipital.” The Parkland doctors who treated Kennedy described an “occipital” (or sometimes “occipital-parietal”) hole at the back of the head.

In many ways, the JFKA has been like a “choose your own adventure.” I believe the “occipital” placement for the Harper fragment. Speer believes the Angel placement, which is supported by the (altered) autopsy photos. Speer isn’t making up his placement out of whole cloth. Nevertheless, I am certain that he is wrong. (His error doesn’t make him a liar, however. It just makes him wrong.)

______________

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30487-a-comprehensive-history-of-pat-speers-false-claims-about-former-bethesda-autopsy-tech-james-jenkins-on-the-education-forum/?do=findComment&comment=538049

______________

Denise, directly above you are responding to an excerpt from the "COMPREHENSIVE HISTORY OF PAT SPEER'S FALSE CLAIMS ABOUT FORMER BETHESDA AUTOPSY TECH JAMES JENKINS ON THE EDUCATION FORUM" which initiated this thread (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30487-a-comprehensive-history-of-pat-speers-false-claims-about-former-bethesda-autopsy-tech-james-jenkins-on-the-education-forum/), and it should be pointed out that my commentary about that excerpt in this particular instance (see below in bold red) was not that Mr. Speer was making a false claim about the Harper fragment. Rather, it was to point out that in 2012 Speer was treating James Jenkins's claim that he saw discoloration at JFK's tight temple -- which according to Jenkins indicated to him the existence of a wound of entrance at JFK's right temple -- as credible (something that Speer has more recently vigorously disputed). It is interesting, however, that Speer was using Jenkins's claim in this regard to support HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel member Dr. Lawrence Angel's placement of the Harper fragment at the right anterior region of JFK's head. But for the sake of clarification, this wasn't listed as an example of one of Speer's factual misrepresentations about the claims of James Jenkins about the JFKA medical evidence.

______________

1-14-2012 ED FORUM POST

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/18602-the-law-of-unintended-consequences/?do=findComment&comment=243833

Out of respect to you, Jim, I've been holding back on this, but since you bring it up...

OfABCsandxrays.jpg

When properly placed on the skull, the metal fragment on the Harper fragment is just forward and above Kennedy's right ear. James Curtis Jenkins, we should recall, told writer Harrison Livingstone that "just above the right ear there was some discoloration of the skull cavity with the bone area being gray and there was some speculation that it might be lead." That's no coincidence, IMO. A bullet broke up at that location.

Speer again asserting Jenkins's account of seeing an entrance wound at JFK's right temple(something about which in later years Speer will take the opposite position in the context of questioning Jenkins's credibility).

______________

But with regard to the identification of the Harper fragment as occipital bone, I completely agree with you that the evidence that it is in fact occipital bone rather than parietal bone (as claimed by Dr. Lawrence Angel) is of much greater probative value and evidentiary weight, and that this is primarily because of the initial identification of the actual fragment (which thereafter disappeared) by the Dallas pathologists. It is on this point that Mr. Speer disagrees, and attempts to spin the notion that those pathologists were less qualified than Dr. Angel to determine that the fragment was occipital bone, which you may recall, as it was, in pertinent part, in response to a post of yours dated May 5, 2024:

______________

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30206-the-significance-of-the-forward-moving-fragment/?do=findComment&comment=530123

______________

Note that in my March 10, 2024 response, which follows, I did not contend that Mr. Speer was making a factual misrepresentation. Rather, I demonstrated that the analysis on which he was basing his opinion about the supposed inferior qualifications of the Dallas Pathologists was flawed:

______________

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30206-the-significance-of-the-forward-moving-fragment/?do=findComment&comment=530656

This is a prime example of the issue acute confirmation bias poses to fundamental logic:

Let’s analyze the important issues relevant to the comparison of evidentiary weight between a hospital chief pathologist’s identification of a bone fragment as occipital bone and a contrary identification made by a forensic anthropologist or a neuroanatomist based on x-rays of the fragment without having the fragment itself:

1. Expertise and Background:

   • Hospital Chief Pathologist:
     • Typically a medical doctor with expertise in pathology.
     • Familiar with human anatomy, including bone structures.
     • May have practical experience handling and examining human remains.
   • Forensic Anthropologist / Neuroanatomist:
     • Forensic Anthropologist:
       • Specializes in the study of human skeletal remains.
       • Trained to analyze bones from an anthropological perspective.
       • May not have direct experience with clinical pathology or handling fresh specimens.
     • Neuroanatomist:
       • Specializes in the study of the nervous system and brain anatomy.
       • May have expertise in interpreting radiographic images related to neuroanatomy.
       • May not have direct experience with handling skeletal remains.

2. Identification Methods:

   • Hospital Chief Pathologist:
     • Likely examined the actual bone fragment visually and manually.
     • Could assess texture, color, shape, and other physical characteristics.
     • May have considered context (where the fragment was found).
   • Forensic Anthropologist / Neuroanatomist:
     • Relying solely on x-rays (radiographs) lacks the full context.
     • Analyzed bone density, structure, and any visible features.
     • Did not physically handle the fragment.

3. Limitations and Considerations:

   • Hospital Chief Pathologist:
     • Direct examination provides tactile information.
     • May be influenced by contextual factors (e.g., location of discovery).
     • Subjective interpretation possible.
   • Forensic Anthropologist / Neuroanatomist:
     • X-rays provide objective evidence but lack the complete picture.
     • Missing information about the fragment’s physical condition.
     • Interpretation based on radiographic features alone.

4. Weight of Evidence:

   • Hospital Chief Pathologist:
     • Direct examination carries significant weight.
     • Personal handling and visual assessment enhance credibility.
     • Contextual factors strengthen the identification.
   • Forensic Anthropologist / Neuroanatomist:
     • X-rays provide objective evidence but are indirect.
     • Weight depends on the quality of x-ray analysis.
     • Lack of tactile information may weaken the identification.

5. Conclusion:

   • Both identifications contribute to the overall assessment.
   • Combining direct examination and radiographic analysis provides a more robust evaluation.
   • The missing fragment complicates the comparison, emphasizing the need for comprehensive evidence.

In summary, while both experts play crucial roles, the hospital chief pathologist’s direct examination holds greater evidentiary weight due to physical interaction with the bone fragment. 

An essential part of the analysis is that Dr. Angel's work was done within the context of the documented cover-up by the HSCA of the large wound in the back of President Kennedy's head. Dr. Angel faced a challenging and literally unsolvable puzzle due to the altered photographic and X-ray evidence that eliminated the most obvious solution, erasing the occipital-parietal wound from consideration. The Senate Select Committee's dedication to this task led to the suppression of interviews with Dr. Cairns and Dr. Harper, classifying the information as "top secret" for fifty years. The implications of this state of affairs were outlined in a Staff Memorandum of the Assassination Records Review Board, as follows:

STAFF MEMORANDUM

 

May 4, 1998 (Draft #5)

 

TO: JFK Research Community and Interested Citizens

 

FROM: Douglas P. Horne, Supervisory Analyst, ARRB T. Jeremy Gunn, General Counsel and Executive Director, ARRB

 

SUBJECT: ARRB Efforts to “Clarify the Record” Regarding the Medical Evidence in the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy

 

...(5) On Saturday, November 23, 1963, Billy A. Harper, a premedical student, found a piece of bone in the grass in the middle of Dealey Plaza (just south of Elm Street), and took it to his uncle, Jack C. Harper, M.D., who subsequently delivered it to A. B. Cairns, M.D., chief pathologist at the Methodist Hospital in Dallas, for examination. Two each color positive transparencies of both the convex and concave surfaces of the fragment, shown next to an inch ruler for scale, were exposed by M. Wayne Balleter, chief medical photographer at that hospital (and later picked up from Mrs. Jack Harper by the FBI on July 10, 1964).11 This piece of bone was subsequently delivered to Military Physician to the President, RADM George Burkley, MC, USN, on November 27, 1963.12 Dr. J. Lawrence Angel, an eminent physical anthropologist who served as a consultant to the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel of 9 pathologists, determined from examination of the photographic images alone (since the Harper fragment was by then missing), along with JFK autopsy cranial fragment x-rays 4, 5 and 6 (of four other skull fragments--also missing by the time of the HSCA’s investigation) that it was a portion of the right parietal bone of President Kennedy’s skull.13 However, nowhere in HSCA, volume 7 is it mentioned that an HSCA staff member interviewed Dr. Jack C. Harper and Dr. A. B. Cairns, who both personally examined and handled the piece of skull bone on the weekend following the assassination, and that Dr. Harper told staff interviewer Andy Purdy on August 8, 1977 that “...the consensus of the doctors who viewed the skull fragment was that it was part of the occipital region;” 14 nor is it mentioned anywhere in HSCA volume 7 that Dr. Cairns told HSCA staff member Andy Purdy that “...the piece of skull fragment came from an area approximately 2.5 to 3 inches above the spine area...it had the markings of a piece of skull fragment from the lower occipital area, specifically: suture and inner markings where blood vessels run around the base of the skull.” 15 Andy Purdy’s staff interview report summarizing his discussions with Drs. Harper and Cairns did not become public until 1993, following passage of the JFK Act. Failure by the HSCA to publish this interview report, or to mention in any way in its final report or accompanying volumes, this dissenting opinion of the head of the pathology department at a local hospital (that was contrary to Dr. Angel’s opinion), raised new doubts about the conclusions reached by the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel. Furthermore, given the location of the occipital bone (in the posterior skull), Dr. Cairns’ professional opinion (that the “Harper” bone fragment was occipital) seems to provide corroboration for the generally consistent Parkland Hospital Trauma Room One testimony that President Kennedy’s head wound was posterior (in the back of the head), vice superior and lateral (in the top and right side of the head), as shown in the autopsy photographs--making more problematic the disparity between Parkland and Bethesda descriptions of the large (exit) wound in President Kennedy’s head...."

________________________

11. HSCA volume 7, page 122.

 

12. Receipt for two bone fragments signed by RADM Burkley on 11/27/63, HSCA Record Number 10910385, Agency File No. 002631.

 

13. HSCA volume 7, pgs. 123 and 228-230.

 

14. Andy Purdy staff interview report dated August 17, 1977, page 1.

 

15. Ibid., page 2

 

FIFTEEN INDICATORS OF AN OCCIPITAL ORIGIN FOR THE HARPER FRAGMENT BY DR. DAVID MANTIK

______________

Just as often as he misrepresents the testimony of occipital-parietal wound witnesses, if not more often, Speer simply conducts flawed analyses which appear to me to be primarily calculated to support his own confirmation bias that all of the Parkland Hospital and Bethesda autopsy witnesses were wrong about their reported observations of a large gaping posterior wound on the right side of the back of JFK's head.

 

Edited June 7 by Keven Hofeling