The Zapruder Film and NPIC/Hawkeyeworks Mysteries

Jeremy Bojczuk · Saturday at 09:38 AM

Chuck Schwartz writes:

Quote

I think Brugioni actually saw debris extending vertically above JFK's head.

Thank you, Chuck. Yes, I think so too.

The presence of vertical debris in the film which Brugioni viewed on the Saturday evening has three implications:

The vertical debris cannot have been added to the film later.
The debris must have come from a wound somewhere in the upper part of JFK's head. A good candidate would of course be the wound above JFK's right ear that is shown in the Zapruder film and in some of the autopsy photos.
Descending debris would account for the brain matter which the police motorcyclists rode into.

Summary: the visible wound produced the vertical debris; the wound and the debris were captured by the Zapruder film; and the descending debris struck the motorcyclists.

Conclusion: there's nothing to see here.

Jeremy Bojczuk · Saturday at 09:42 AM

Paul Rigby writes:

Quote

when did mass ownership of affordable portable film cameras occur? In America, the wealthiest country on earth, the 1950s.

People have been carrying portable cameras for well over a century. The first type to become really popular was the Vest Pocket Kodak, introduced in 1912. According to http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Vest_Pocket_Kodak, which features a photo of a dapper fellow cheerfully popping a VPK into his jacket pocket, more than 200,000 units of the original model were sold, along with around two million units of later models between 1915 and 1926.

Since 1912, and even in the 70 years or so since home movie cameras caught on, there have been numerous public assassinations and attempted assassinations of political figures.

In all of these events, how many members of the public have had their films and photographs altered as part of a cover-up? Is there even a single credible case? Apparently not.

What is alleged to have happened to the Zapruder film would seem to be unique. Because what is alleged is not an everyday occurrence, strong evidence is required to support the allegation. When one also takes into consideration the extreme difficulty of doing what has been alleged in the limited time available and with the limited equipment available, evidence as unreliable as eye-witness testimony is hopelessly inadequate.

Quote

as for Life keeping the film "largely" hidden, I do like that adverb. I assume it means something akin to "a bit pregnant." That is, it means the opposite

The meaning of "keeping the film largely out of public view" should be obvious to anyone with a reasonable command of English. The film was retained by Life, who were reluctant even to allow individual frames to be published. Bootlegs of the complete home movie circulated, but reached only a small proportion of the US population. Thus, the film was kept largely out of public view. This isn't difficult to understand, or at all controversial. There's a good account of the pre-1975 circulation of the film on pages 55-66 of David Wrone's The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK's Assassination.

Keeping the film largely out of public view until the immediate fuss had died down was all that needed to be done to prevent the public at large becoming aware of those aspects of the film which contradicted the lone-nut interpretation. There was never any need to alter the film, which is the primary reason no-one even attempted to alter it. The other reason, of course, was the practical impossibility of altering it, given the limited time available and the lack of appropriate equipment.

Keven Hofeling · Sunday at 07:11 PM

On 8/9/2024 at 2:27 AM, Greg Doudna said:

In this autopsy photo I believe the massive gaping wound is visible at the top of the head, behind the hair. It definitely is at the top of the head in this photo. This is the same photo that Mantik says had some hair added in the back of the head, but that does not explain the gaping massive hole in JFK's head very visible at the top over the hair, unless you are going to claim a second alteration of the photograph to put that gaping wound in, after the alteration to remove it from two or three inches lower. The gaping hole at the top of JFK's head (looks like the rear of the top of the head) looks like it starts at the right, above the ear, and goes across much of the back part of the top of the head, just a massive huge hole of missing skull across the top of the head near the back of the head.

https://archive.org/details/jfk-autopsy-photos-hd_202204/Back wound (B%26W 11 %26 12) (uncropped) (JFK Absolute Proof).jpg

If that gaping gigantic wound with missing skull that one could look right down into to see inside the skull cavity is the true gaping head wound of JFK--and its right there in the photo so it looks like it is--the BOH photos have not disappeared the huge gaping wound, and one of them actually really shows it. It is a little higher than where some of the witnesses indicated, but not by a huge amount. Could the witnesses hand photos range of locations be understood as true within margin of error, in agreement with where the gaping wound IS in this photo? And no need to suppose the autopsy photos were altered (only that a few might be missing)?

As for why some of the Parkland witnesses were puzzled by the BOH photos, one possibility is they were responding to BOH photos that had that top cropped or cut off, which is the case with some published versions of those photos. I don't recall any of the witnesses looking at that BOH photo and saying, "well I see it shows a gigantic gaping wound, about the right size as I remember but I thought it was a little lower". No, the reactions of puzzlement were "where is the gaping wound??" As if it is not in the BOH photos at all. When its actually there at the top in the BOH photo linked above if the top of that photo has not been cut off.

Also, I found a video on the autopsy photos that sounds like the views of Pat Speer, except its not by Pat Speer. Claims to show the gaping wound in the autopsy photos can be seen in 3-D on this video if one has the glasses.

On 8/9/2024 at 2:27 AM, Greg Doudna said:

In this autopsy photo I believe the massive gaping wound is visible at the top of the head, behind the hair. It definitely is at the top of the head in this photo. This is the same photo that Mantik says had some hair added in the back of the head, but that does not explain the gaping massive hole in JFK's head very visible at the top over the hair, unless you are going to claim a second alteration of the photograph to put that gaping wound in, after the alteration to remove it from two or three inches lower. The gaping hole at the top of JFK's head (looks like the rear of the top of the head) looks like it starts at the right, above the ear, and goes across much of the back part of the top of the head, just a massive huge hole of missing skull across the top of the head near the back of the head.

https://archive.org/details/jfk-autopsy-photos-hd_202204/Back wound (B%26W 11 %26 12) (uncropped) (JFK Absolute Proof).jpg

I do not see a "massive gigantic gaping head wound -- missing skullbone" on JFK's head in this autopsy photo. From the little that we can see at the top edge of this photograph, on the right hand side next to the prosector's forearm, I see part of the "batwing" that we see in some autopsy photographs but not in others, and to the immediate left of it, my best guess is that we are seeing what HSCA autopsy tech James Jenkins has identified as "fatty tissue" (which looks like folds of brain in the top of the head autopsy photos).

https://archive.org/details/jfk-autopsy-photos-hd_202204/Back wound (B%26W 11 %26 12) (uncropped) (JFK Absolute Proof).jpg

For several reasons, which I will outline in the following, I find this photograph to be highly confusing.

In the following back of the head autopsy photograph which presents a better view of the area in question, and was arguably taken almost immediately before or after the photograph above, we see all the way to the top of the "batwing," but we don't see any of the fatty tissue, or anything else associated with a wound. Some have speculated that the prosector's hand is holding up a "flap" of scalp concealing the large avulsive wound attested to by roughly fifty witnesses, and I suppose you could argue that this is what is obscuring the large wound that you believe you see at the top of the photo above, but this doesn't make any sense as the purpose of autopsy photographs is to reveal and document the wounds, not to conceal and disguise them. One could speculate that there may be other autopsy photographs of similar views, but with the "flap" or "flaps" moved aside to show the large wound which have not been released to the public as bootlegs, but surely that would have been reported by Doug Horne or Cyril Wecht or any one of the many others who have been granted permission to view the original autopsy photographs at the National Archives, yet no such reports have been made.

On the basis that I set forth below, I am suspicious that the autopsy photograph in question is fraudulent, either due to photographic falsification or due to having been deceptively staged, but as we can see from the following listing of the Fox collection of bootleg autopsy photographs, there is a pair of photographs taken closely together which would have allowed Dr. David Mantik to conduct stereoscopic analysis of the photo, which I'm sure he did, and he did not report detecting a soft matte insert in this photograph as he did with back of the head autopsy photographs 42 and 43 above. This is not dispositive, of course, as a different photographic alteration technique could have been used.

What I find to be deeply troubling about Fox 5 and 6 is that they depict JFK's hair cowlick, which we see high up on JFK's head in the back of the head photos, as being much lower on the back of the head, and something about this just doesn't look right.

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10157338428660318&set=pcb.1632575760238700

To further illustrate my point, take note of the curled tufts of hair that we see in Fox 5 and 6 in the following, and how these appear to be at about midline on the back of JFK's head in the photos:

Now look at the same tuft of hair curled over the prosector's index finger in the back of the head autopsy photograph which appears to be at the top of JFK's head. It just doesn't appear to be consistent. There is something wrong with these two photographs, particularly considering that we are seeing only hair where approximately fifty witnesses -- most of them medical and law enforcement professionals -- reported the presence of a large avulsive wound.

With all due respect, I think you would have more effectively made your point by presenting the following autopsy photographs which depict a mess of blood-soaked fatty tissue at the top of JFK's head. My answer to your two questions with regard to these two photographs is yes. I see the large wound in the top of the head, and I believe that these two autopsy photographs are genuine.

But the question is, does this mean that the large avulsive wound reported by nearly fifty witnesses to be in the back of JFK's head was actually in the top of his head consistent with these photographs? My answer to that is no, because we have a clear explanation as to the cause of the top of the head wound, and it is not a gunshot, it is the result of a craniotomy and removal of shrapnel by the prosectors.

There is simply no way to get around this...

* Dr. Humes always insisted that he never had to perform a craniotomy (skull cap removal surgery) to remove the President’s brain.

* Humes maintained this lie, under oath, for 33 years --- before the Warren Commission, the HSCA, and the ARRB.

* He also informed Army pathologist Pierre Finck, who arrived late at Bethesda to assist with the autopsy, that “no sawing of the skull was necessary” in order to remove President Kennedy’s brain (per Dr. Finck’s 1965 report to his Commanding Officer, General Blumberg).

---------------------------------------------
DR. DAVID MANTIK ON DOUG HORNE'S ACCOUNT OF THE BETHESDA AUTOPSISTS CLANDESTINELY ALTERING JFK'S HEAD WOUNDS WITH A BONE SAW:

"...So why does Horne conclude that H&B illicitly removed (and altered) the brain shortly after 6:35 PM, before any X-rays were taken, and before the official autopsy began? He here introduces two intriguing witnesses – the two R's, namely Reed and Robinson. Edward Reed was assistant to Jerrol Custer (the radiology tech), while Tom Robinson was a mortician. Rather consistently with one another, but quite independently, both describe critical steps taken by H&B that no one else reports. (Horne documents why no one else reported these events – almost everyone else had been evicted from the morgue before this clandestine interlude.) After the body was placed on the morgue table (and before X-rays were taken), Reed briefly sat in the gallery.[18] Reed states[19] that Humes first used a scalpel across the top of the forehead to pull the scalp back.

[18]. Horne, supra, Volume I at Figure 40, shows a sketch of the morgue floor plan, including the gallery.

[19]. Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1035, 1163-1171 and Volume II at 426 and 437.

Then he used a saw to cut the forehead bone, after which he (and Custer, too) were asked to leave the morgue. (Reed was not aware that this intervention by Humes was unofficial.) This activity by Humes is highly significant because multiple witnesses saw the intact entry hole high in the right forehead at the hairline. On the other hand, the autopsy photographs show only a thin incision at this site, an incision that no Parkland witness ever saw. The implication is obvious: this specific autopsy photograph was taken after Humes altered the forehead – thereby likely obliterating the entry hole.
⁠
Reed's report suggests that Humes deliberately obliterated the right forehead entry; in fact, the autopsy photograph does not show this entry site. Paradoxically, however, Robinson (the mortician) recalls[20] seeing, during restoration, a wound about 1/4º inch across at this very location.

[20]. Fetzer (2000), supra, at 250.

He even recalls having to place wax at this site. So the question is obvious: If Humes had obliterated the wound (as seems the case based on the extant autopsy photograph), how then could Robinson still see the wound during restoration? This question cannot be answered with certainty, but two options arise: (1) perhaps the wound was indeed obliterated (or mostly obliterated) and Robinson merely suffered some memory merge – i.e., even though he added wax to the incision (the one still visible in the extant photograph), he was actually recalling the way it looked before Humes got to it, or (2) the photograph itself has been altered – to disguise the wound that was visible in an original photograph. The latter option was seemingly endorsed by Joe O'Donnell, the USIA photographer,[21] who said that Knudsen actually showed him such a photograph.

[21]. Ibid. at 242.

Regarding Robinson, Horne concludes that he arrived with the hearse that brought the body (i.e., the first entry). After that, Robinson simply observed events from the morgue gallery; contrary to Reed's experience, he was not asked to leave. Just before 7 PM, Robinson[22] saw H&B remove large portions of the rear and top of the skull with a saw, in order to access the brain. (Robinson was not aware that this activity was off the record.)...

[22]. Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1005.

...Contrary to Reed and Robinson, Humes[25] declared that a saw was not important:

[25]. Warren Commission Hearings, Volume II at 354.
⁠
"We had to do virtually no work with a saw to remove these portions of the skull, they came apart in our hands very easily, and we attempted to further examine the brain."

⁠Although James Jenkins (an autopsy technician) does not explicitly describe the use of a saw, he does recall that damage to the brain (as seen inside the skull) was less than the corresponding size of the cranial defect; this indirectly implies prior removal of some of the skull.[26]...

[26]. Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1042-1043.

...The reader might well ask why Reed and Robinson (and Custer, too) were permitted to observe (at least briefly) this illegal surgery by H&B. Horne proposes that the morgue manager that night (Kellerman) was not present for the first casket entry – that's because he was riding with Jackie and the bronze casket. Therefore, before he arrived (most likely that was shortly after 7 PM), there was no hands-on stage manager in the morgue ... Robinson, on the other hand, dressed in civilian clothing, may have seemed to Kellerman a lesser threat, so Robinson stayed...."

⁠https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/horne-douglas-inside-the-arrb-part-iv

______________

MD 180 - ARRB Meeting Report Summarizing 6/21/96 In-Person Interview of Tom Robinson:

http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md180/html/md180_0001a.htm

"...PAGE 2:

...- [mortician Tom Robinson] said he saw the brain removed from President Kennedy's body, and that a large percentage of it was gone "in the back" from the "medulla," and that the portion of the brain that was missing was about the size of a closed fist. He described the condition of the brain in this area as the consistency of "soup." He said that the brain was "not cut up" at the autopsy....

...-Visible damage to skull caused by the bullet of bullets (as opposed to damage caused by the pathologists): Robinson described 3 locations of wounds:

-he saw 2 or 3 small perforations or holes in the right cheek during embalming, when formaldehyde seeped through these small wounds and slight discoloration began to occur...

...-he described a "blow-out" which consisted of a flap of skin in the right temple of the President's head, which he believed to be an exit wound based on conversations he heard in the morgue amongst the pathologists (and executed two drawings of this right temporal defect on both a photocopy of a right lateral photograph of the President, and on a right lateral anatomy diagram of the human skull);

-he described a large, open head wound in the back of the President's head, centrally located right between the ears, where the bone was gone, as well as some scalp. He related his opinion that the wound in the back of the President's head was an entry wound occurring from a bullet fired from behind, based upon conversations he heard in the morgue among the pathologists. (Robinson executed two drawings of the hole in the back of the President's head, one on an anatomy drawing of the posterior skull, and one on an anatomy drawing of the lateral skull. On the annotated lateral skull drawing, the wound in the rear of the head is much larger than the wound in the right temple.)..."

"...REMOVAL OF THE PRESIDENT'S BRAIN: ROBINSON DREW DOTTED LINES ON THE DRAWING HE EXECUTED OF THE POSTERIOR SKULL WHICH SHOWS THE WOUND BETWEEN THE EARS. WHEN ASKED BY ARRB STAFF WHAT THE DOTTED...

PAGE 3:

"...LINES REPRESENTED, HE SAID "SAW CUTS." HE EXPLAINED THAT SOME SAWING WAS DONE TO REMOVE SOME BONE BEFORE THE BRAIN COULD BE REMOVED, AND THEN WENT ON TO DESCRIBE WHAT IS A NORMAL CRANIOTOMY PROCEDURE, SAYING THAT THIS PROCEDURE WAS PERFORMED ON JFK. HE SEEMED TO REMEMBER THE USE OF A SAW, AND THE SCALP BEING REFLECTED FORWARD (emphasis in this paragraph not in original)..."

"...FOX AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHS:

After completing his four drawings of head wounds and describing those wounds, ARRB staff showed Mr. Robinson a set of what is alleged to be the Fox autopsy photographs to see whether they were consistent with what he remembered seeing in the morgue at Bethesda. His comments follow, related to...

PAGE 5:

https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md180/html/md180_0005a.htm

...various Fox photos:

-Right Superior Profile (corresponding to B & W #s 5 and 6); He does not see the small shrapnel holes he noted in the right cheek, but he assumes this is because of the photo's poor quality.

-Back of Head (corresponds to B & W #s 15 and 16): Robinson said; "You see, this is the flap of skin, the blow-out in the right temple that I told you about, and which I drew in my drawing." WHEN ASKED BY ARRB WHERE THE HOLE IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD WAS IN RELATION TO THE PHOTOGRAPH, ROBINSON RESPONDED BY PLACING HIS FINGERS IN A CIRCLE JUST ABOVE THE WHITE SPOT IN THE HAIRLINE IN THE PHOTOGRAPH AND SAID "THE HOLE WAS RIGHT HERE, WHERE I SAID IT WAS IN MY DRAWING, BUT IT JUST DOESN'T SHOW UP IN THIS PHOTO." (emphasis not in original)

-Top of Head/Superior View of Cranium (corresponds to B & W #'s 7-10): ROBINSON FROWNED, AND SAID WITH APPARENT DISAGREEMENT, "THIS MAKES IT LOOK LIKE THE WOUND WAS IN THE TOP OF THE HEAD." HE EXPLAINED THAT THE DAMAGE IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH WAS "WHAT THE DOCTORS DID," AND EXPLAINED THAT THEY CUT THIS SCALP OPEN AND REFLECTED IT BACK IN ORDER TO REMOVE BULLET FRAGMENTS (THE FRAGMENTS HE HAD OBSERVED IN A GLASS VIAL). ARRB STAFF MEMBERS ASKED ROBINSON WHETHER THERE WAS DAMAGE TO THE TOP OF THE HEAD WHEN HE ARRIVED AT THE MORGUE AND BEFORE THE BRAIN WAS REMOVED; HE REPLIED BY SAYING THAT THIS AREA WAS "ALL BROKEN," BUT THAT IT WAS NOT OPEN LIKE THE WOUND IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD (emphasis not in original)...."

______________

TESTIMONY OF EDWARD F. REED:

"...Q: Where you present during the time of the first incision.

A: Yes.

Q: What was the first incision?

A: The cranium. The scalp, right here.

Q: And can you describe how that procedure -

A: Commander Humes made an incision. After we brought all the X-rays back, we were all allowed to sit up in the podium and observe. And Commander Humes made an incision - that I could see from my vantage point - an incision in the forehead, and brought back the scalp.

Q: Okay.

A: Like this.

Q: And you were making a line first across the top of your forehead, roughly along the hairline -

A: With a scalpel.

Q: -and then pulling the scalp back.

A: That's correct. Just like this.

Q: And were you able to see the size of the wound when the scalp -

A: Not from my - not from where I was, no. The podium was a good 20 feet away.

Q: What else did you observe from where you were with regard to any incisions or operations on the head?

A: WELL AFTER ABOUT 20 MINUTES, COMMANDER HUMES TOOK OUT A SAW, AND STARTED TO CUT THE FOREHEAD WITH THE BONE - WITH THE SAW. MECHANICAL SAW. CIRCULAR, SMALL, MECHANICAL - ALMOST LIKE A CAST SAW, BUT IT'S MADE -

Q: Sure.

A: - SPECIFICALLY FOR BONE. (emphasis not in original)

Q: And what did you see next?

A: We were asked to leave at that time. Jerry Custer and myself were asked to leave.

Q: Do you know why you were asked to leave?

A: Because we were - No more assistance - our assistance was not needed. X-rays were done. And someone decided that we weren't needed, and they asked us to leave...."

In The Matter Of: PDF https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Reed_10-21-97.pdf
Assassination Records Review Board
In Re: President John F. Kennedy, J1:
Deposition of Edward E. Reed
October 21, 1997

______________

Dr. Paul Peters on JFK Head Incision -- A Vince Palamara Video

Small wound(s) in the front of JFK's head - PART 1.3 https://www.reddit.com/r/JFKeveryday/comments/jz5sec/small_wounds_in_the_front_of_jfks_head_part_13/

In the photos showing the outside of the scalp, there are some points of interest on the right front of the head.

There is a semi-circular dark spot in the forehead, above the right eye. It is not clear whether this could be a piece of hair, a shadow, a bullet hole, or an artifact of photo-manipulation (NSFW): https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1aVqhS6WrvKXHdJjWfDXadtpCVhlQ5feN

...What made the v-shaped defect? On the 1988 PBS Nova program Who Shot President Kennedy?, Parkland's Dr. Paul Peters was given a chance to look at the official autopsy photos. Peters said afterward "I would have to say, honestly, in looking at these photos, they're pretty much as I remember President Kennedy at the time [gestures at right front of head], except for that little incision that seems to be coming down in the parietal area. In looking at the photographs, I could envision that an incision might have been made in order to pull the scalp back to expose this bone to make a photograph of that area" (Video, 47:57).

From The Third Decade newsletter, Volume 7, Issue 3, March, 1991:

[...p. 9, New Evidence of Body Tampering by Joanne Braun]

My next step was to write to the Dallas doctors, or to most of them, about fifteen in all, enclosing copies of the High Treason photo of the right side of the head. To Dr. Peters I quoted what he had said on Nova and asked him why he thought the V-shaped irregularity coming down on the right forehead was a surgical incision. In my letters to the other doctors I simply directed their attention to this feature and asked if they had seen it at Parkland. Eight of them replied.

Dr. Peters wrote, "It appeared to me, in reviewing the photos, that the incision was very sharp, as if cut by a knife, and I thought at the time that the prosector might have made it to enhance the removal of the brain and contents. I suppose it could have been an extension of the tear from the wound, but I did not notice it at the time we operated on President Kennedy."[37] (He also drew an arrow of the photo pointing to the "incision" and noted that he had meant to say it was in the "fronto-parietal" region.)

[37]. Letter from Paul C. Peters, M.D., dated August 25, 1989

Of the others, five of them, Drs. Curtis, Giesecke, Jones, Salyer and White merely said that they did not see this V-shaped feature at Parkland Hospital.[38]

[38]. Letter from Don T. Curtis, D.D.S., dated September 8, 1989; undated letters from Drs. Adolph H. Giesecke, Ronald C. Jones, Kenneth E. Salyer and Martin G. White.

Dr. Perry's answer was "there was no incision or indentation" in the right forehead.[39]

[39]. Letter from Malcolm O. Perry, M.D., dated August 29, 1989. Dr. Perry went on to say, “One of the problems was that there was so much damage to the skull and the scalp that the entire scalp and hair were displaced, sagging slightly forward and to the side, and of course this made it appear that there was something really there. (?) You must recognize that the parietal occipital bone was shattered and parts of it were missing which allowed the scalp to be displaced anteriorly.”

Dr. McClelland replied, "I did not see any such incisions at the time of examination in the Emergency Room at Parkland. I would imagine the incisions shown in the copy of the photograph you sent me were made during the autopsy in Bethesda and do not find them mysterious or any reason for concern."[40]...

[40]. Letter from Robert N. McClelland, Md.D., dated August 29, 1989

Parkland Hospital’s Dr. Kenneth Salyer appeared on the 1993 documentary JFK: The Case For Conspiracy. While looking at copies of the autopsy photos, Salyer said:

A: This wound is not correct, this isn't right.

Q: That is not right?

A: No. See, this- this has been doctored right here, this is laying open [gestures to right side of the head]. See, the way- the way you have him, the way they've got him here is- skinflaps have been have been cut, or altered, or pushed up, or changed, and isn't the way he looked. This- He looked- Here, this was wide open with brain open here. This is scalp that's pushed back, and it's all distorted.

[...]

A: Something's been done right here [points to v-shape], and the way he was on the- on the emergency table is this is open, and this whole area is an open wound.

(Video, 1:02:41)...

...So, at least 9 Parkland witnesses indicated they didn’t remember such a defect visible in the right forehead – Drs. Paul Peters, Don Curtis, Adolph Giesecke, Ronald Jones, Kenneth Salyer, Martin White, Malcolm Perry, Robert McClelland, and Nurse Diana Bowron. Was there any explanation from the autopsy pathologists from Bethesda?

______________

FBI Report "Surgery to the Head" - Nurse Audrey Bell - Wound 5 Times Larger than in Dallas -- Nova

______________

Bethesda Tech Paul O'Connor Questions if a Craniotomy was Performed at Parkland in Best Evidence Video

______________

James Jenkins and Dr. Michael Chesser discuss JFK's brain and Humes saying "it fell out into my hand"

Former Bethesda Autopsy Tech James Jenkins discussing condition of JFK's brain with Dr. Michael Chesser, including Humes saying "it fell out into my hand."

______________

Bethesda Tech Paul O'Connor -- No Craniotomy at Autopsy --

______________

James Jenkins at 2018 Dallas Conference Tells Dr. David Mantik that a Craniotomy was not Needed

Former Bethesda Autopsy Tech James Jenkins tells Dr. Mantik that a standard skull cap (craniotomy) had not been needed due to pre-existing damage (AND INCISIONS) to JFK's skull. The significance is that there is much evidence that a bone saw WAS used to perform a craniotomy at Bethesda, including the testimony of mortician Tom Robinson and Bethesda Autopsy Tech Ed Reed.

______________

James Jenkins Tells Dr. Chesser No Bone Saw Used After Chesser Mentions Seeing Saw Cuts in Brain Autopsy Photographs

Former Bethesda Autopsy Tech James Jenkins tells Dr. Chesser there was no bone saw used after Chesser mentions seein saw cuts in autopsy photos of brain. The significance is that there is much evidence that a bone saw WAS used to perform a craniotomy, including the testimony of mortician Tom Robinson and Bethesda Autopsy Tech Ed Reed.

______________

PARKLAND DOCTOR MALCOLM PERRY DISAVOWS JAGGED THROAT WOUND

From Robert Groden’s appearance at a 2003 conference:

[…] As far as alteration of the body goes, the only evidence of that is the fact that when I interviewed Dr. Perry, he told me that he did not create that wound, he said- he stood up shocked and he pointed- pointed at the photograph, which I- again, I had shown him for the first time, he said I didn't do that. He said that's a butcher job. A tracheotomy hole is the size of a pencil to put a tube down there. If it leaks, it defeats the purpose. This hole is large enough to stick a fire hose down. It didn't work that way at all. It- it's sad but that's the case. […]

From another conference with Robert Groden, undated, uploaded to Youtube 9/28/2021 by the Lone Gunman channel UCAG--Ai7Xh56gr6nxnX-24A:

As far as alteration of the President's body goes, I believe that there’s there's- it's unquestionable that something was done to the president's throat. I interviewed Dr. Perry in 1978 and I showed him the autopsy photographs which he had never seen before, and he took a look at the throat wound in the photographs and he stood up at his desk and he was just shocked. He was silent for a moment, then he said ‘I didn't do that’, he said ‘that's a butchered job’. He said ‘I didn't do that’, and then he relived the entire tracheotomy, he stood up and he had his- what was supposed to be a- a scalpel in his hand and he showed doing it- doing the- the incision and said it was only about a little over an inch long he says- he just went on and on about why that couldn't have been what he had done. [...]

______________

On 8/9/2024 at 2:27 AM, Greg Doudna said:

If that gaping gigantic wound with missing skull that one could look right down into to see inside the skull cavity is the true gaping head wound of JFK--and its right there in the photo so it looks like it is--the BOH photos have not disappeared the huge gaping wound, and one of them actually really shows it. It is a little higher than where some of the witnesses indicated, but not by a huge amount. Could the witnesses hand photos range of locations be understood as true within margin of error, in agreement with where the gaping wound IS in this photo? And no need to suppose the autopsy photos were altered (only that a few might be missing)?

To me, you appear to be attempting to salvage the legitimacy of your government's fraudulent evidence in support of the long-discredited cover-story that Lee Harvey Oswald shot President Kennedy from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository.

The evidence of the fraudulent autopsy, and the craniotomy which is set forth above soundly debunks the fraudulent autopsy photographs, and though true that it is not the equivalent of a set of signed confessions by the conspirators, the reality is it is unrealistic to expect that we are ever going to have those kinds of schematics of the conspiracy when the ruling political hierarchy of this nation is the direct product of the 1963 coup de tat, and is actively maintaining the cover-up, such as by infiltrating these assassination discussion forums with disinformation operatives and trolls.

Furthermore, the evidence that the large avulsive head wound was in the occipital-parietal region of the right side of the back of President Kennedy's head, and low enough for there to have been extruding cerebellar brain tissue is dispositive, based upon the earliest official reports of the physicians who attempted to resuscitate the President, as I shall demonstrate below. But first, the location in the head of the cerebellar region of the brain should be noted, which one of the smoking guns demonstrating the low location of the large avulsive back of the head wound, and proves also that the fraudulent photographic evidence calculated to cover that wound up and posit the myth that the wound was instead on the top of the head is categorically false.

The Parkland Hospital first day Admission Notes for President Kennedy that were filed by Drs. Kemp Clark, Charles Carrico, Malcolm Perry, Charles Baxter, Robert McClelland and Marion Jenkins immediately after their efforts to resuscitate President Kennedy on November 22, 1963 have the greatest probative value and evidentiary weight out of all of the medical evidence. None of these reports support the existence of the frontal head wound depicted by the fraudulent autopsy photographs and Zapruder film imagery, and all but one of them reference the occipital-parietal wound in the right rear quadrant of the President's head, and report that cerebellar brain tissue was extruding from the wound:

COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 392: APPENDIX VIII - MEDICAL REPORTS FROM DOCTORS AT PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, DALLAS, TEXAS: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/jfkinfo/app8.htm

Summary (By Dr. Kemp Clark)

The President arrived at the Emergency Room at 12:43 P. M., the 22nd of November, 1963. He was in the back seat of his limousine. Governor Connally of Texas was also in this car. The first physician to see the President was Dr. James Carrico, a Resident in General Surgery.

Dr. Carrico noted the President to have slow, agenal respiratory efforts. He could hear a heartbeat but found no pulse or blood pressure to be present. Two external wounds, one in the lower third of the anterior neck, the other in the occipital region of the skull, were noted. Through the head wound, blood and brain were extruding. Dr. Carrico inserted a cuffed endotracheal tube. While doing so, he noted a ragged wound of the trachea immediately below the larynx.

At this time, Dr. Malcolm Perry, Attending Surgeon, Dr. Charles Baxter, Attending Surgeon, and Dr. Ronald Jones, another Resident in General Surgery, arrived. Immediately thereafter, Dr. M. T. Jenkins, Director of the Department of Anesthesia, and Doctors Giesecke and Hunt, two other Staff Anesthesiologists, arrived. The endotracheal tube had been connected to a Bennett respirator to assist the President's breathing. An Anesthesia machine was substituted for this by Dr. Jenkins. Only 100% oxygen was administered.

A cutdown was performed in the right ankle, and a polyethylene catheter inserted in the vein. An infusion of lactated Ringer's solution was begun. Blood was drawn for type and crossmatch, but unmatched type "O" RH negative blood was immediately obtained and begun. Hydrocortisone 300 mgms was added to the intravenous fluids.

Dr. Robert McClelland, Attending Surgeon, arrived to help in the President's care. Doctors Perry, Baxter, and McClelland began a tracheostomy, as considerable quantities of blood were present from the President's oral pharynx. At this time, Dr. Paul Peters, Attending Urological Surgeon, and Dr. Kemp Clark, Director of Neurological Surgery arrived. Because of the lacerated trachea, anterior chest tubes were place in both pleural spaces. These were connected to sealed underwater drainage.

Neurological examination revealed the President's pupils to be widely dialted and fixed to light. His eyes were divergent, being deviated outward; a skew deviation from the horizontal was present. Not deep tendon reflexes or spontaneous movements were found.

There was a large wound in the right occipito-parietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring. 1500 cc. of blood were estimated on the drapes and floor of the Emergency Operating Room. There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound.

Further examination was not possible as cardiac arrest occurred at this point. Closed chest cardiac massage was begun by Dr. Clark. A pulse palpable in both the carotid and femoral arteries was obtained. Dr. Perry relieved on the cardiac massage while a cardiotachioscope was connected. Dr. Fouad Bashour, Attending Physician, arrived as this was being connected. There was electrical silence of the President's heart.

President Kennedy was pronounced dead at 1300 hours by Dr. Clark

Kemp Clark, M. D.
Director
Service of Neurological Surgery
KC:aa

cc to Dean's Office, Southwestern Medical School
cc to Medical Records, Parkland Memorial Hospital

______________________________________________________________________________________

PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

ADMISSION NOTE

J. F. KENNEDY

DATE AND HOUR 11/22/63 1620 DOCTOR: Carrico

When patient entered Emergency room on ambulance carriage had slow agonal respiratory efforts and scant cardiac beats by auscultation. Two external wounds were noted. One small penetrating wound of ant. neck in lower 1/3. The other wound had avulsed the calvarium and shredded brain tissue present with profuse oozing. No pulse or blood pressure were present. Pupils were dilated and fixed. A cuffed endotracheal tube was inserted and through the laryngoscope a ragged wound of the trachea was seen immediately below the larynx. The tube was passed past the laceration and the cuff inflated. Respiration using the resp assistor on auto-matic were instituted. Concurrently an IV infusion of lactated Ringer solution was begun via catheter placed in right leg and blood was drawn for type and crossmatch. Type O Rh negative blood was obtained as well as hydrocortisone.

In view of tracheal injury and decreased BS an tracheostomy was performed by Dr. Perry and Bilat. chest tubes inserted. A 2^nd bld infusion was begun in left arm. In addition Dr. Jenkins began resp with anethesia machine, cardiac monitor, and stimulator attached. Solu cortef IV given (300mg), attempt to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue via packs instituted. Despite these measures as well as external cardiac massage, BP never returned and EKG evidence of cardiac activity was never obtained.

Charles J. Carrico M.D.

PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

ADMISSION NOTE

J. F. KENNEDY

DATE AND HOUR 22 Nov 1963 DOCTOR: PERRY

Staff Note

At the time of initial examination, the pt. was noted as non-responsive. The eyes were deviated and the pupils were dilated. A considerable quantity of blood was noted on the patient, the carriage and the floor. A small wound was noted in the midline of the neck, in the lower third anteriorly. It was exuding blood slowly. A large wound of the right posterior cranium was noted, exposing severely lacerated brain. Brain tissue was noted in the blood at the head of the carriage.

Pulse or heartbeat were not detectable but slow spasmodic respiration was noted. An endotracheal tube was in place and respiration was being assisted. An intravenous infusion was being placed in the leg.

At this point I noted that respiration was ineffective and while additional venisections were done to administer fluids and blood, a tracheostomy was effected. A right lateral injury to the trachea was noted. The tracheostomy tube was put in place and the cuff inflated and respiration assisted. Closed chest cardiac massage was instituted after placement of sealed drainage chest tubes, but without benefit. Electrocardiographic evaluation revealed that no detectable electrical activity existed in the heart. Resuscitation attempts were abandoned after the team of physicians determined that the patient had expired.

Malcolm O. Perry, M.D.
1630 hr 22 Nov 1963

PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

ADMISSION NOTE

DATE AND HOUR NOV 22, 1963 DOCTOR: BAXTER

Note of Attendance to President Kennedy.

I was contacted at approx 12:40 that the President was on the way to the emergency room having been shot. On arrival there, I found an endotracheal tube in place with assisted respirations, a left chest tube being inserted and cut downs going in one leg and in the left arm. The President had a wound in the mid-line of the neck. On first observation of the remaining wounds the rt temporal and occipital bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table, with .extensive lacerations and contusions. The pupils were fixed and deviated lateral and dilated. No pulse was detectable and respirations were (as noted) being supplied. A tracheotomy was performed by Dr. Perry and I and a chest tube inserted into the right chest (2^nd intercostal space anteriorally). Meanwhile, 2 pts of O neg blood were administered by pump without response. When all of these measures were complete, no heart beat could be detected. Close chest message was performed until a cardioscope could be attached which revealed no cardiac activity was obtained. Due to the excessive and irreparable brain damage which was lethal, no further attempt to resuscitate the heart was made.

Charles R. Baxter M.D.
Associate Prof of Surgery
Southwestern Medical School

PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

ADMISSION NOTE

JOHN F. KENNEDY

DATE AND HOUR 22 Nov 1963 DOCTOR: [KEMP CLARK]

12:20pm to 13:00 hrs

Called by EOR while standing in (illegible) Laboratory at SWMS. Told that the President had been shot. I arrived at the EOR at 1220 - 1225 ~~and~~ .The President was bleeding profusely from the back of the head. There was a large (3 x 3cm) amount of cerebral tissue present on the cart. There was a smaller amount of cerebellar tissue present also.

A tracheostomy was being performed by Drs. Perry, Baxter and McClelland. Exam of the President showed that an endotracheal tube was in place and respiratory assistance was being given by Dr. Akins and Jenkins. The pupils were dilated, fixed to light and his eyes were deviated outward and the right one downward as as well .

The trach was completed and I adjusted the endotracheal tube a little bit. Blood was present in the oral pharynx. Suction was used to remove this. Levine Catheter was passed into the stomach at this time.

He was (illegible) that I (illegible) no carotid pulse. I immediately began closed chest massage. A pulse was obtained at the carotid and femoral pulse levels.

Dr. Perry then took over the cardiac massage so I could evaluate the head wound.

There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region. Much of the skull appeared gone at brief examination . The previously described lacerated brain was present.

By this time an EKG was hooked up. There was no electrical activity of the heart and no respiratory effort - He was pronounced dead at 1300 hrs by me.

W. Kemp Clark
22 Nov 1963
1615 hrs -

PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

ADMISSION NOTE

DATE AND HOUR Nov. 22, 1963 4:45 P.M. DOCTOR: Robert N. McClelland

Statement Regarding Assassination of President Kennedy

At approximately 12:45 PM on the above date I was called from the second floor of Parkland Hospital and went immediately to the Emergency Operating Room. When I arrived President Kennedy was being attended by Drs Malcolm Perry, Charles Baxter, James Carrico, and Ronald Jones. The President was at the time comatose from a massive gunshot wound of the head with a fragment wound of the trachea. An endotracheal tube and assisted respiration was started immediately by Dr. Carrico on Duty in the EOR when the President arrived. Drs. Perry, Baxter, and I then performed a tracheotomy for respiratory distress and tracheal injury and Dr. Jones and Paul Peters inserted bilateral anterior chest tubes for pneumothoracis secondary to the tracheomediastinal injury. Simultaneously Dr. Jones had started 3 cut-downs giving blood and fluids immediately, In spite of this, at 12:55 he was pronounced dead by Dr. Kemp Clark the neurosurgeon and professor of neurosurgery who arrived immediately after I did. The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple. He was pronounced dead after external cardiac message failed and ECG activity was gone.

Robert N. McClelland M.D.
Asst. Prof. of Surgery
Southwestern Med.
School of Univ of Tex.
Dallas, Texas

PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

ADMISSION NOTE

DATE AND HOUR Nov. 22, 1963 4:45 P.M. DOCTOR: BASHOUR

Statement Regarding Assassination of the President of the U.S.A., President Kennedy.

At 12:50 PM, we were called from the 1st floor of Parkland Hospital and told that President Kennedy was shot. Dr. D ?? and myself went to the emergency room of Parkland. Upon examination, the President had no pulsation, no heartbeat, no blood pressure. The oscilloscope showed a complete standstill. The president was declared dead at 12:55 P.M.

F. Bashour M.D.
Associate Professor of Cardiology
Southwestern Medical School
Dallas, Texas.

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS
SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL SCHOOL
DALLAS

November 22, 1963
1630

To: Mr. C.J. Price, Administrator Parkland Memorial Hospital

From: M.T. Jenkins, M.D., Professor and Chairman Department of Anesthesiology

Subject: Statement concerning resusciative efforts for President John F. Kennedy

Upon receiving a stat alarm that this distinguished patient was being brought to the emergency room at Parkland Memorial Hospital, I dispatched Doctors A . H. Giesecke and Jackie H. Hunt with an anesthesia machine and resuscitative equipment to the major surgical emergency room area, and I ran down the stairs . On my arrival in the emergency operating room at approximately 1230 I found that Doctors Carrico and/or Delaney had begun resuscitative efforts by introducing an orotracheal tube, connecting it for controlled ventilation to a Bennett intermittent positive pressure breathing apparatus . Doctors Charles Baxter, Malcolm Perry, and Robert McClelland arrived at the same time and began a tracheostomy and started the insertion of a right chest tube, since there was also obvious tracheal and chest damage . Doctors Paul Peters and Kemp Clark arrived simultaneously and immediately thereafter assisted respectively with the insertion of the right chest tube and with manual closed chest cardiac compression to assure circulation.

For better control of artificial ventilation, I exchanged the intermittent positive pressure breathing apparatus for an anesthesia machine and continued artificial ventilation . Doctors Gene Akin and A . H. Giesecke assisted with the respiratory problems incident to changing from the orotracheal tube to a tracheostomy tube, and Doctors Hunt and Giesecke connected a cardioscope to determine cardiac activity.

During the progress of these activities, the emergency room cart was elevated at the feet in order to provide a Trendelenburg position, a venous cutdown was performed on the right saphenous vein, and additional fluids were begun in a vein in the left forearm while blood was ordered from the blood bank . All of these activities were completed by approximately 1245, at which time external cardiac massage was still being carried out effectively by Doctor Clark as judged by a palpable peripheral pulse. Despite these measures there was no electrocardiographic evidence of cardiac activity .

These described resuscitative activities were indicated as of first importance, and after they were carried out attention was turned to all other evidences of injury . There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound. There were also fragmented sections of brain on the drapes of the emergency room cart . With the institution of adequate cardiac compression, there was a great flow of blood from the cranial cavity, indicating that there was much vascular damage as well as brain tissue damage .

It is my personal feeling that all methods of resuscitation were instituted expeditiously and efficiently . However, this cranial and intracranial damage was of such magnitude as to cause the irreversible damage . President Kennedy was pronounced dead at 1300 .

Sincerely,
/s/ M. T. Jenkins
M. T. Jenkins, M.D.

Either all of these doctors -- as well as the other witnesses composing the group of approximately fifty who have attested to the occipital-parietal wound -- were suffering from a simultaneous mass hallucination, or the photographic evidence which contradicts that massive body of testimony is fraudulent. In my opinion, you can't have it both ways without engaging in magical thinking.

On 8/9/2024 at 2:27 AM, Greg Doudna said:

As for why some of the Parkland witnesses were puzzled by the BOH photos, one possibility is they were responding to BOH photos that had that top cropped or cut off, which is the case with some published versions of those photos. I don't recall any of the witnesses looking at that BOH photo and saying, "well I see it shows a gigantic gaping wound, about the right size as I remember but I thought it was a little lower". No, the reactions of puzzlement were "where is the gaping wound??" As if it is not in the BOH photos at all. When its actually there at the top in the BOH photo linked above if the top of that photo has not been cut off.

The diagrams of the occipital-parietal wound executed by various primary witnesses over the years demonstrate that rationalization supporting the fraudulent government photographic evidence are unsound. Moreover, the sketches corroborate each other, as well as falsify the fraudulent photographic evidence upon which you are relying.

Moreover, according to the law enforcement professionals assigned by the FBI to prepare an official report of the autopsy of President Kennedy, James W. Sibert and Francis X. O'Neil Jr., the back of the head autopsy photograph appears "reconstructed" or "altered."

Also highly worthy of consideration is the impact the evidence resulting from the investigation of the Assassination Records Review Board has upon the issue:

And if you are still unsatisfied, we also have the results of the stereoscopic testing that Dr. David Mantik conducted on the "original" autopsy photographs at the National Archives which resulted in scientific verification that the back of the head autopsy photograph is fraudulent:

"...While at the National Archives, I performed stereo viewing of the autopsy photographs[8].

[8]. “Twenty Conclusions after Nine Visits” [to the Archives]: https://assassinationresearch.com/v2n2/pittsburgh.pdf

This is possible because each view is represented by two separate photographs, taken close together in time and space. Such a pair is what makes stereo viewing possible. I performed this procedure for the original generation of photographs (4” x 5” transparencies), for the color prints, and also for the black and white copies. I did this for many of the distinct views in the collection. But the bottom line is this: the only abnormal site was the back of the head—it always yielded a 2D image, as if each eye had viewed precisely the same image. Of course, that would have been expected if someone (illicitly in a dark room) had inserted the same image into that anatomic site for each member of the photographic pair. I discussed this issue with Robert Groden, who served as the photographic consultant for the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) during 1976-1979. He concurred with my observations, i.e., only the back of the head looked abnormal during his stereo viewing for the HSCA.

⁠ Although the large posterior hole is often cited as evidence for a frontal shot, a second issue, perhaps equally as important, should not be overlooked: the severe discrepancy between the photographs and the witnesses—all by itself— strongly suggests manipulation of this photograph. In other words, whoever altered this photograph likely recognized that the large posterior defect loudly proclaimed a frontal shot, so much so in fact, that it became critical to cover that hole.

⁠ Pathologist J. Boswell (many decades later) speculated that the scalp had merely been stretched so as to cover the hole. In fact, to have done so, and to have succeeded so seamlessly, would have defeated the sole purpose of the photographs, which presumably was to capture reality. If ever a photograph existed of this large defect, then that one has disappeared.

⁠ Some witnesses do recall seeing such a photograph immediately after the autopsy, and we know (from the autopsy photographer himself) that other autopsy photographs have disappeared. Furthermore, we know from Boswell’s sketch on a skull model, that the bone under this apparently intact scalp was in fact missing[9].

[9]. See photographs, in Figure 8B of my e-book, JFK’s Head Wounds, of this skull model (located at the Archives).

So which is more decisive: missing scalp—or missing bone?

Some have argued that the Parkland physicians have authenticated this photograph, and that we should therefore accept its authenticity. However, what they said was more like this: If the scalp had been stretched in this fashion, then they could not take issue with that photograph. Absent such a peculiar maneuver, however, they were dubious. Their doubt was further accentuated in a very recent documentary: “The Parkland Doctors”[10] [THIS WAS RETITLED TO "WHAT THE DOCTORS SAW," AND WAS RECENTLY RELEASED BY PARAMOUNT +].

[10]. https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8phoyx⁠

Seven Parkland physicians met to discuss their recollections. They were profoundly troubled by autopsy images of the posterior scalp. To describe these images, they readily used words like “manipulated” and “altered.”..."

⁠ 'JFK ASSASSINATION PARADOXES: A PRIMER FOR BEGINNERS' Journal of Health Science & Education | David W. Mantik, MD

https://escires.com/articles/Health-1-126.pdf |Mantik DW (2018) JFK Assassination Paradoxes: A Primer for Beginners. J Health Sci Educ 2: 126.

In short, I do not believe that you have overcome the best evidence (which trumps and falsifies the fraudulent evidence from the government).

Edited Sunday at 07:22 PM by Keven Hofeling

Kevin Balch · Sunday at 07:53 PM

What location is the origin of the shot that exited the right-rear of the skull and where did it enter the skull?

Keven Hofeling · Sunday at 08:29 PM

18 minutes ago, Kevin Balch said:

What location is the origin of the shot that exited the right-rear of the skull?

24 minutes ago, Kevin Balch said:

where did it enter the skull?

Evidence of a Frontal Shot --- Part I / The Entry Wound -- By Gil Jesus

THOMAS EVAN ROBINSON INTERVIEW - ARRB MD 63 - Robinson-Purdy HSCA Interviews (1/12/77) https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=327⁠
⁠
"...PURDY: Did you notice anything else unusual about the body which may have been artificially caused, that is, caused by something other than the autopsy?
⁠
ROBINSON: Probably, a little mark at the temple in the hairline. As I recall, it was so small, it could be hidden by the hair. It didn't have to be covered with make-up. I thought it probably a piece of the bone or a piece of the bullet that caused it.
⁠
PURDY: In other words, there was a little wound.
⁠
ROBINSON: Yes.
⁠
PURDY: Approximately where, which side of the forehead or part of the head was it on?
⁠
ROBINSON: I believe it was on the right side.
⁠
PURDY: On his right side?
⁠
ROBINSON: That's an anatomical right, yes...
⁠
PAGE 3
⁠
PURDY: You say it was in the forehead region up near the hair line?
⁠
ROBINSON: Yes.
⁠
PURDY: Would you say it was closer to the hair?
⁠
ROBINSON: Somewhere around the temples.
⁠
PURDY: Approximately what size?
⁠
ROBINSON: Very small, a quarter of an inch.
⁠
PURDY: Quarter of an inch is all the damage. Had it been closed up by the doctors?
⁠
ROBINSON: No, he didn't have to close it. If anything I just would have probably put a little wax on it.
⁠
PURDY: Were you the one that was responsible for closing these wounds in the head?
⁠
ROBINSON: Well, we all worked on it. Once the body was embalmed arterially and they brought a piece of heavy duty rubber, again to fill the area (area in the back of the head) I remember treating the . . . organs, like I said, we all tried to help one another.
⁠
PURDY: O.K., you had to close the wound in the back of the head using the rubber, what other work had to be done on the head?
⁠
ROBINSON: It had to be all dried out, packed and the rubber placed in the hair and the skin pulled back over it as much as possible and stitched into that piece of rubber. They were afraid again of leaks, once the body is moved or shaken in the casket and carried up the Capitol steps and opened again, we had to be very careful, there would have been blood on the pillow.
⁠
PURDY: Was there any other work that you had to do on the head?
⁠
ROBINSON: I did the make up, cosmetic.
⁠
PURDY: Were there any other wounds on the head other than the little one in the right temple area, and the big one in the back?
⁠
ROBINSON: THAT'S ALL (emphasis not in original).
⁠
PAGE 4
⁠
PURDY: Did you have to shave the head so you could tell if there were other wounds?
⁠
ROBINSON: No. In fact, we wanted the hair there to hide as much as possible. Putting the head into the pillow of the head of the casket would have hidden everything.
⁠
PURDY: Do you think it was possible that there was some other wound under the hair? Did you look for other wounds?
⁠
ROBINSON: Oh yes, we would have found that.
⁠
PURDY: So you are satisfied in your professional experience that there were no other significant wound of the head?
⁠
ROBINSON: I stayed on the left side of the body throughout the whole thing.
⁠
PURDY: Did you get a good look at that wound on the right temple area?
⁠
ROBINSON: Oh yes, I worked right over for some time.
⁠
PURDY: What did you feel caused that wound?
⁠
ROBINSON: I think either a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet. Or a very small piece of shrapnel...."

Kevin Balch · Monday at 01:06 AM

4 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

Evidence of a Frontal Shot --- Part I / The Entry Wound -- By Gil Jesus

THOMAS EVAN ROBINSON INTERVIEW - ARRB MD 63 - Robinson-Purdy HSCA Interviews (1/12/77) https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=327⁠
⁠
"...PURDY: Did you notice anything else unusual about the body which may have been artificially caused, that is, caused by something other than the autopsy?
⁠
ROBINSON: Probably, a little mark at the temple in the hairline. As I recall, it was so small, it could be hidden by the hair. It didn't have to be covered with make-up. I thought it probably a piece of the bone or a piece of the bullet that caused it.
⁠
PURDY: In other words, there was a little wound.
⁠
ROBINSON: Yes.
⁠
PURDY: Approximately where, which side of the forehead or part of the head was it on?
⁠
ROBINSON: I believe it was on the right side.
⁠
PURDY: On his right side?
⁠
ROBINSON: That's an anatomical right, yes...
⁠
PAGE 3
⁠
PURDY: You say it was in the forehead region up near the hair line?
⁠
ROBINSON: Yes.
⁠
PURDY: Would you say it was closer to the hair?
⁠
ROBINSON: Somewhere around the temples.
⁠
PURDY: Approximately what size?
⁠
ROBINSON: Very small, a quarter of an inch.
⁠
PURDY: Quarter of an inch is all the damage. Had it been closed up by the doctors?
⁠
ROBINSON: No, he didn't have to close it. If anything I just would have probably put a little wax on it.
⁠
PURDY: Were you the one that was responsible for closing these wounds in the head?
⁠
ROBINSON: Well, we all worked on it. Once the body was embalmed arterially and they brought a piece of heavy duty rubber, again to fill the area (area in the back of the head) I remember treating the . . . organs, like I said, we all tried to help one another.
⁠
PURDY: O.K., you had to close the wound in the back of the head using the rubber, what other work had to be done on the head?
⁠
ROBINSON: It had to be all dried out, packed and the rubber placed in the hair and the skin pulled back over it as much as possible and stitched into that piece of rubber. They were afraid again of leaks, once the body is moved or shaken in the casket and carried up the Capitol steps and opened again, we had to be very careful, there would have been blood on the pillow.
⁠
PURDY: Was there any other work that you had to do on the head?
⁠
ROBINSON: I did the make up, cosmetic.
⁠
PURDY: Were there any other wounds on the head other than the little one in the right temple area, and the big one in the back?
⁠
ROBINSON: THAT'S ALL (emphasis not in original).
⁠
PAGE 4
⁠
PURDY: Did you have to shave the head so you could tell if there were other wounds?
⁠
ROBINSON: No. In fact, we wanted the hair there to hide as much as possible. Putting the head into the pillow of the head of the casket would have hidden everything.
⁠
PURDY: Do you think it was possible that there was some other wound under the hair? Did you look for other wounds?
⁠
ROBINSON: Oh yes, we would have found that.
⁠
PURDY: So you are satisfied in your professional experience that there were no other significant wound of the head?
⁠
ROBINSON: I stayed on the left side of the body throughout the whole thing.
⁠
PURDY: Did you get a good look at that wound on the right temple area?
⁠
ROBINSON: Oh yes, I worked right over for some time.
⁠
PURDY: What did you feel caused that wound?
⁠
ROBINSON: I think either a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet. Or a very small piece of shrapnel...."

Is it correct to assume the blue line is the throat shot and the red line the head shot?

Keven Hofeling · Monday at 02:58 AM

1 hour ago, Kevin Balch said:

Is it correct to assume the blue line is the throat shot and the red line the head shot?

Yes. Watch the video, it covers all of that in minute detail.

Chris Bristow · Monday at 11:09 AM

I used to feel the south knoll throat shot through the windshield had a lot of merit. The trajectory from what looks like a hole in the windshield to JFK's throat lined up with the knoll very well. A shooter there would have the Sun and wind at their back. It would have been almost a level shot and the limo was heading almost straight towards the knoll around frame 224. But a couple things bothered me. The first problem is the bullet would have to have passed very close to Connally's left ear.
When I originally evaluated the trajectory I had JFK centered in his half of the back seat, the same as in the HSCA limo diagram. But JFK was not centered in his seat at all. He was tucked up against the edge of the seat with his center line/spine approx 9 inches in from the seats edge. He appears in that position in every motorcade image I have checked. This can be verified in frame 226. In that frame the left rear handhold can be seen just to the left of JFK's head. Z's line of sight to that handhold is such that for it to be visible JFK has to be sitting right up against the edge of the seat. In that configuration the bullet would pass right through Connally's head.
The second problem is the trajectory only works if you don't consider the downward deflection of the bullet as it passed through the windshield which sits at a 45 degree angle. The trajectory to JFK's throat from what looks like the bullet hole next to the rear view mirror doesn't allow for any downward deflection. Maybe some type of round or the velocity of it would negate the deflection. I don't know ballistics that well but it seems problematic.

Kevin Balch · Monday at 05:21 PM

I watched the South Knoll video. It answers some questions but raises new questions. I am going to view it again and present some questions.

However, the video casts a lot of doubt (@ 1:00:30) on Zapruder film alteration which is the very topic of this thread and which you believe took place.

How do you resolve this contradiction?

Chris Bristow · Tuesday at 01:19 AM

7 hours ago, Kevin Balch said:

I watched the South Knoll video. It answers some questions but raises new questions. I am going to view it again and present some questions.

However, the video casts a lot of doubt (@ 1:00:30) on Zapruder film alteration which is the very topic of this thread and which you believe took place.

How do you resolve this contradiction?

The narrator said the back splatter proves the film was not substantially altered. It still allows for a hole in the right occipital to have been covered up.
I think one possible scenario is shots fired from both the rear and front. Considering testimony like Greer's that placed the last two shots as "Almost simultaneous" the 4th shot may have come 1/3rd second or 6 frames after 313. In the Muchmore film JFK disappears behind Jean Hill after 6 frames. So the frontal shot may not have been recorded by Muchmore. This applies to the Moorman photo as well since it was taken at about 1/9th sec after 313.
They have the bullet passing by Nellie's right ear but she had turned almost 90 degrees to her right and maybe scooted forward toward J.C.. I also think JFK and Jackie were leaning forward more with their heads over the front edge of the seat.
It is interesting that the Muchmore line of sight continues past the gap between their heads and straight to the GK shooter theorized position. A shooter there would see the exact same gap between their heads as Muchmore did. This debunks the old claim that Jackie would have also been hit by a GK shooter.

Paul Rigby · Tuesday at 12:25 PM

On 8/10/2024 at 10:42 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

The meaning of "keeping the film largely out of public view" should be obvious to anyone with a reasonable command of English. The film was retained by Life, who were reluctant even to allow individual frames to be published. Bootlegs of the complete home movie circulated, but reached only a small proportion of the US population. Thus, the film was kept largely out of public view. This isn't difficult to understand, or at all controversial. There's a good account of the pre-1975 circulation of the film on pages 55-66 of David Wrone's The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK's Assassination.

Keeping the film largely out of public view until the immediate fuss had died down was all that needed to be done to prevent the public at large becoming aware of those aspects of the film which contradicted the lone-nut interpretation. There was never any need to alter the film, which is the primary reason no-one even attempted to alter it. The other reason, of course, was the practical impossibility of altering it, given the limited time available and the lack of appropriate equipment.

So now we know – you haven’t viewed CBS-TV’s coverage on Monday evening, 25 November, and thus haven’t a clue what it contains. But you are prepared, nevertheless, to insist it did not contain any Zapruder film footage, however truncated on the grounds of taste. This is dismally typical of adherents of the Department of Zapruderland Security, where ignorance is knowledge and the recitation of establishment orthodoxy is preferred to critical examination of evidence. We have a further example of both.

You cite Wrone, who, in his brief history of Z-fake dissemination post-Shaw trial, offers us a classic limited hang-out, conceding that there were, at bare minimum, hundreds of small public gatherings, most obviously and typically at colleges across the US, where the revised version was shown in the period 1969 to 1975.

By this assessment alone, viewers of the film, pre-ABC’s broadcast, ran, even allowing for repeat viewers and Wrone’s low-side figures for such gatherings, into the hundreds of thousands. What Wrone withholds from his readers is even more significant - the television showings, from the first, on Los Angeles’ KTLA-TV 5pm news in mid-February 1969, through those on a late night Chicago show, which subsequently syndicated it to stations in Philadelphia, Detroit, Kansas City & St Louis (1970-71), to its broadcast on small TV stations such as WITF (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania), which ran the film in late September 1973. The reach of these TV broadcasts has never been fully catalogued and explored, yet you again “know,” presumably via a hidden super-power, that which you cannot.

The available evidence is clear, even from the limited sample I’ve run across, much of it inadvertently, that Wrone’s pseudo-survey ignores the numbers of Americans who saw the revised version of the fake on local television prior to the film’s TV “debut” on a network in early March 1975. None of this should come as a surprise, for as Wayne Philips, Direct of Public-Affairs for Time-Life Inc., conceded as early as July 1971, “Life no longer has control over the film. It has been shown repeatedly throughout the country.”

“Largely out of public view”? Phooey: it was all over the place.

Roger Odisio · Tuesday at 05:49 PM

15 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

The narrator said the back splatter proves the film was not substantially altered. It still allows for a hole in the right occipital to have been covered up.
I think one possible scenario is shots fired from both the rear and front. Considering testimony like Greer's that placed the last two shots as "Almost simultaneous" the 4th shot may have come 1/3rd second or 6 frames after 313. In the Muchmore film JFK disappears behind Jean Hill after 6 frames. So the frontal shot may not have been recorded by Muchmore. This applies to the Moorman photo as well since it was taken at about 1/9th sec after 313.
They have the bullet passing by Nellie's right ear but she had turned almost 90 degrees to her right and maybe scooted forward toward J.C.. I also think JFK and Jackie were leaning forward more with their heads over the front edge of the seat.
It is interesting that the Muchmore line of sight continues past the gap between their heads and straight to the GK shooter theorized position. A shooter there would see the exact same gap between their heads as Muchmore did. This debunks the old claim that Jackie would have also been hit by a GK shooter.

The idea that there were two head shots close together is corroborated by Tink Thompson in Last Second in Dallas, published in '21, and by a detailed talk given by Thompson, Bill Simpich, and Gary Aguilar at Duquesne U last fall. Thompson believes there were two shots--one from the front and one from the back--within less than one second of each other.

His conclusion is based primarily on a thorough reexamination of the acoustical evidence that arose after his first book, Six Seconds in Dallas. As clear evidence of a shot from the front, he points to the bone and tissue from Kennedy's head that flew back and to the the left with such force that one of the motorcycle cops hit by it at first thought he had been shot.

I might add that the entrance wound in Kennedy's forehead is covered up in the extant Z film by the appearance of a blob in its place in 313 that that no one ever saw IRL. An example of rushed and sloppy work that caused the killers to go back to Zapruder, give him another $1 million, and try to bury the film from public view for as long as they could get away with.

Roger Odisio · Tuesday at 06:14 PM

5 hours ago, Paul Rigby said:

So now we know – you haven’t viewed CBS-TV’s coverage on Monday evening, 25 November, and thus haven’t a clue what it contains. But you are prepared, nevertheless, to insist it did not contain any Zapruder film footage, however truncated on the grounds of taste. This is dismally typical of adherents of the Department of Zapruderland Security, where ignorance is knowledge and the recitation of establishment orthodoxy is preferred to critical examination of evidence. We have a further example of both.

You cite Wrone, who, in his brief history of Z-fake dissemination post-Shaw trial, offers us a classic limited hang-out, conceding that there were, at bare minimum, hundreds of small public gatherings, most obviously and typically at colleges across the US, where the revised version was shown in the period 1969 to 1975.

By this assessment alone, viewers of the film, pre-ABC’s broadcast, ran, even allowing for repeat viewers and Wrone’s low-side figures for such gatherings, into the hundreds of thousands. What Wrone withholds from his readers is even more significant - the television showings, from the first, on Los Angeles’ KTLA-TV 5pm news in mid-February 1969, through those on a late night Chicago show, which subsequently syndicated it to stations in Philadelphia, Detroit, Kansas City & St Louis (1970-71), to its broadcast on small TV stations such as WITF (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania), which ran the film in late September 1973. The reach of these TV broadcasts has never been fully catalogued and explored, yet you again “know,” presumably via a hidden super-power, that which you cannot.

The available evidence is clear, even from the limited sample I’ve run across, much of it inadvertently, that Wrone’s pseudo-survey ignores the numbers of Americans who saw the revised version of the fake on local television prior to the film’s TV “debut” on a network in early March 1975. None of this should come as a surprise, for as Wayne Philips, Direct of Public-Affairs for Time-Life Inc., conceded as early as July 1971, “Life no longer has control over the film. It has been shown repeatedly throughout the country.”

“Largely out of public view”? Phooey: it was all over the place.

Your story of the underground showing of the Z film, underreported or minimized as it was, still leaves room for what was the last straw--the showing on Geraldo Rivera on national television in 1975 for all who were interested to see. For the public at large. That led to the JFKA hearings of the late 70s.

It also meant the Life's job of hiding the film from the public was finished. They soon gave their copy of the film back to Zapruder for $1. That verified that the purpose of Life's second contract with Zapruder, signed on the 25th after alterations had failed, was to bury the film for as long as they could get away with.

Chris Bristow · 2024-08-15T01:27:57Z

On 8/13/2024 at 10:49 AM, Roger Odisio said:

The idea that there were two head shots close together is corroborated by Tink Thompson in Last Second in Dallas, published in '21, and by a detailed talk given by Thompson, Bill Simpich, and Gary Aguilar at Duquesne U last fall. Thompson believes there were two shots--one from the front and one from the back--within less than one second of each other.

His conclusion is based primarily on a thorough reexamination of the acoustical evidence that arose after his first book, Six Seconds in Dallas. As clear evidence of a shot from the front, he points to the bone and tissue from Kennedy's head that flew back and to the the left with such force that one of the motorcycle cops hit by it at first thought he had been shot.

I might add that the entrance wound in Kennedy's forehead is covered up in the extant Z film by the appearance of a blob in its place in 313 that that no one ever saw IRL. An example of rushed and sloppy work that caused the killers to go back to Zapruder, give him another $1 million, and try to bury the film from public view for as long as they could get away with.

The witnesses who recounted the timing of the shots by tapping a table or just saying bang 3 times is the most compelling to me.
Thompson has said there are several different background humming sounds that indicate multiple attempts at editing.
The changing Doppler shift during the freeway run completely blows the idea it was Mcclain's bike. And the whistling cop is clear as a bell during the stuck mic moments. But McClain, insisted that was not him whistling. "he's not "a whistle while you work kind of guy". The dispatcher also backed up McClain. I can't see McClain not recognizing his own whistle or that he even whistles while riding.
I think any dispatcher comes to know the employees audio signatures very well, like the sound of different types of Harleys. Both he and McClain felt the engine noise of the stuck mic rider was a 45c.i. meter reader tricycle which has a very distinctive rattle. Not sure what think about the acoustics other than it was likely altered.

Keven Hofeling · 2024-08-16T05:05:42Z

On 8/8/2024 at 2:59 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Kevin Balch writes:

The three copies were made at three exposure settings: one at the presumed correct exposure, one at a slightly higher exposure setting (thus producing a slightly lighter image), and one at a slightly lower setting (producing a slightly darker image). The lightest copy would have lost some detail in its lighter areas compared to the other two copies, and the darker copy would have lost some detail in its darker areas compared to the other two copies. All three would have lost some detail compared to the original.

It's almost certain that Brugioni did not see the camera original. The film he saw can only realistically have been one of the Secret Service's two copies, because:

The film he saw was brought to, and taken away from, the NPIC by the Secret Service.

The only version of the film in Washington at the time was the copy which the Secret Service in Dallas had sent to the Secret Service in Washington overnight on the Friday.

The original film was in Chicago.

We know that one of the Secret Service's two copies was noticeably lighter than the original, and that the other was noticeably darker than the original. For details, see pages 20-23 of the Zavada report:

https://archive.org/details/ZavadaReport

It isn't clear, as far as I can tell, which of these two copies was the one sent to Washington on the Friday night and viewed by Brugioni on the Saturday. But whichever one it was, it would have lacked details compared to the original. It's quite conceivable that details, such as a rapidly dissipating cloud of brain matter and the shadow area at the back of JFK's head, would have looked different in the copy Brugioni worked with than in the original.

On 8/8/2024 at 2:59 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Kevin Balch writes:

Quote

Of the three copies made at the Jameson plant in Dallas on Friday afternoon/evening, weren't they made at 3 different contrasts, one to reflect the original and the other two with more and less contrast?

The three copies were made at three exposure settings: one at the presumed correct exposure, one at a slightly higher exposure setting (thus producing a slightly lighter image), and one at a slightly lower setting (producing a slightly darker image). The lightest copy would have lost some detail in its lighter areas compared to the other two copies, and the darker copy would have lost some detail in its darker areas compared to the other two copies. All three would have lost some detail compared to the original.

@Kevin Balch and Mr. Bojczuk are here essentially repeating the speculation of Kodak chemist Roland Zavada -- who conducted the ARRB's Zapruder film study -- that the differences in density between the alleged three first day copies of the Zapruder film are the result of "bracketing," a term which denotes a contact printer procedure by which multiple exposures of a film are made at different exposure settings to allow a customer to select the best copy from multiple choices.

In the context of the ARRB Zapruder film study, Zavada's speculation to this effect had been influenced by the observation of differences in density between the two first day Secret Service copies of the Zapruder film, and then in December of 1999, the LMH Company (the Time-Life shell corporation with ownership of LIFE's Zapruder film materials) allowed Zavada to inspect the third first day copy that had been purchased by LIFE in 1963, leading Zavada to conclude as follows in his February 2000 Addendum to his Zapruder film study:

A side-by-side evaluation was made matching adjacent scene images of Secret Service Copy No. 1 and No. 2 and LMH Co. item No. 2 [the third first day copy]. All three films had different densities, with the LMH Co. copy in-between the two Secret Service copies.

A good color version of Zavada's comparison of the film densities from his supplemental report is reproduced in Harrison Livingstone's Hoax of the Century:

Livingstone, Harrison E. (2004). The Hoax of the Century; Decoding The Forgery of the Zapruder Film (p. 139): Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive. Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/hoaxofcenturydec0000harr/page/368/mode/2up?q=0183

Although Livingstone believed there were other adequate explanations for the differences in density between the first day copies, critics such as Doug Horne agree with Zavada's analysis that the differences in density support Zavada's conclusion that bracketing was employed during the contact printing of the three copies. What Horne disputes, however, is that the three first day copies compared by Zavada are in fact the original first day copies, an assertion Horne supports with the earliest statements of Bruce Jamieson, the owner of the Jamieson Film Company, which performed the contact printing of the three first copies the evening of the assassination.

Horne cites Bruce Jamieson's letter to Harrison Livingstone dated February 4, 1998, as reproduced in Livingstone's Hoax of the Century:

Livingstone, Harrison E. (2004). The Hoax of the Century; Decoding The Forgery of the Zapruder Film (pp.265-266): Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive. Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/hoaxofcenturydec0000harr/page/368/mode/2up?q=0183

At the bottom half of page 266 of Livingstone's Hoax of the Century (above), we see that by the time of Bruce Jamieson's correspondence to Harry Livingstone dated May 26, 1999, he had underwent a change of opinion resulting in him by then embracing Zavada's bracketing hypothesis, which was the result of a lobbying process carried out by Zavada, which Doug Horne sees as a big problem, as detailed by Horne as follows:

"...The problem is-and it is a BIG PROBLEM as it pertains to the authenticity of the 'first generation' copies-Bruce Jamieson initially told Rollie Zavada-once orally and twice, in writing-that his company had not bracketed the three duplicate exposures run off the day of the assassination for Mr. Zapruder from the unslit camera original film. Just as he had in regard to the issue of whether the aperture on the contact printer was 'picture only' or 'picture plus soundtrack' (i.e., 'full frame'), Rollie Zavada persuaded Bruce Jamieson, after the fact, to essentially change his mind about what procedures had been followed at his lab the day of the assassination, based solely upon Zavada's observation of density differences in the 'first generation' copies in evidence today. And once again, Bruce Jamieson appeared to be more than willing to 'change history' to accommodate the desires of his questioner. But these changes of mind by Jamieson are not good oral history procedure, and are certainly not the proper way to conduct an impartial investigation of authenticity.

In two different letters to Rollie Zavada in 1997, which I will quote below, Jamieson expressed the opinion that his employees did not bracket the original Zapruder film when it was duplicated on November 22, 1963. He was in a direct position to know, because he took the phone call from the Kodak lab expert (Mr. Erwin "Pat" Pattist) the day of the assassination, in which the problems involved in duplicating a Kodachrome II daylight film, using Kodachrome IIA tungsten balanced film stock, were discussed. Jamieson and his film printer then personally agreed on the best exposure (singular-not plural) to use when duplicating the film. In 1996 Zavada wrote this in his December 19^th letter to the ARRB, after making his first telephonic contact with Bruce Jamieson: "...he and his printer estimated the best printer light and filter pack. (Note: Kodachrome IIA was balanced for 3400 degrees Kelvin whereas typical print stock is balanced for 3200 degrees Kelvin.)" The point here is that Jamieson was directly involved in the discussion of the criteria and procedures to be used in duplicating Zapruder's original movie, and anything he would subsequently recall about the event would therefore carry more weight than what he had to say about the printing aperture, which was really Jamieson taking Robert Colley at his word.

The following excerpts from correspondence between Zavada and Jamieson are reproduced from the Appendix to the Zavada report. I am very glad, at this juncture, that the ARRB staff (namely, Jeremy Gunn and I) required Rollie Zavada to publish all correspondence between himself and either the ARRB or his witnesses, in the interests of transparency-for this correspondence (once again) reveals Bruce Jamieson's original recollections about a crucial matter in evidence, and the subsequent modifications he made to his memory to accommodate Zavada's viewpoints.

In a letter from Rollie Zavada to Bruce Jamieson of October 8, 1997, Zavada documented in writing that Jamieson had told him orally in a telephone conversation that the three dupes his company ran off were not bracketed:

In our telephone conversation on Sept. 25, I asked about the printer used for printing the Zapruder double 8 mm original onto Kodachrome 11A supplied by the Kodak Dallas Processing Lab. You indicated you printed all three copies with the same filter pack and light. [author's emphasis]

Then, on October 21, 1997, Jamieson wrote Rollie Zavada a long letter about many technical issues, in which he said:

Earlier you had mentioned to me that of the three prints you have seen [referring here to the extant Zapruder film and the two Secret Service copies], one was significantly over-exposed, differing from the other two. [See Figure 3-11 on page 22 of Study 3 of the Zavada report; and page 140 of Livingstone.] It is possible that some inadvertent light change could have been made between printing passes, but I really doubt that any intentional change was made. The basic filter pack and exposure index for printing onto Kodachrome stock was arrived at by joint discussion between our people and Kodak personnel, and I don't think any variation between prints was contemplated. [author's emphasis]

This answer must not have pleased Rollie Zavada, for in his next reply Jamieson both reconfirms his original position that there was no bracketing, but also reveals an apparent ambivalence about what actually happened. In a letter to Rollie Zavada dated November 20, 1997, Jamieson wrote:

Now a further comment regarding the print you observed to be much different [clearly, Secret Service copy no. 2] (over-exposed?) from the others. I have previously noted my doubt that there was any difference in the three prints we made, but it's always possible. [author's emphasis]

Alarmingly, on April 21, 1998, Jamieson wrote back to Rollie Zavada after the two had conducted extended telephonic exchanges about the question of 'bracketing,' and by this time Jamieson was willing to give Zavada what he wanted in the form of a hypothetical scenario (which departed significantly from Jamieson's original position, which was that bracketing had not occurred):

You have previously postulated that the varying exposures of the two Secret Service prints might be indicative of an attempt to bracket optimum exposure since conversion of the film speed of the Type A Kodachrome II to our normal print film was somewhat in question. / can rationalize this in the following manner. When Pat Pattist and I spoke on the phone in setting up the plan to print un-slit double 8 mm, the subject of exposure came up, and Pat offered some information in guiding us, which was passed on to our lab people. When Mr. Zapruder and the Secret Service arrived,[17] his principal concern was the security of his own film and protection of its exclusivity. That is why he insisted in accompanying the printer operator into the darkroom while the prints were being made. It is also obvious that he was already considering the value and marketability of his film because of previously putting the camera in his safe, and subsequently his action the next day of setting a schedule for a one time screening after which each media representative would make their best offer for exclusive rights. Obviously he would want the best possible print for that purpose, and this would be his only opportunity to obtain a timely print, so when questions arose about optimum exposure, he very likely insisted on bracketing the selected exposure with the three prints. He then took the best print for his own use, and turned over the other two to the Secret Service. I can't prove the foregoing hypothesis but it certainly makes sense to me as the onlv logical explanation for the wide exposure difference in the two archived prints. It certainly wasn't accidental. [author's emphasis]

[17]. lt is my belief that the personnel at the Jamieson lab confused Zapruder's business confusion by misrepresenting who Schwartz really was in order to gain leverage over the technicians in the Jamieson lab.) The best reconstruction of events available to us today indicates that Secret Service agent Forrest Sorrels departed the Kodak lab before the developing of the original film was completed, and never went to the Jamieson lab.

Well! This obliging hypothesis offered up by Bruce Jamieson, after being beaten down by Rollie Zavada over the 'bracketing' issue for almost 7 months, is certainly NOT "the only logical explanation" for the apparent bracketing seen in the two Secret Service copies (and later confirmed in December of 1999 at the Archives). The other logical explanation, of course, is that the Jamieson film Jab never did bracket the duplicates, and that the 'first generation' copies we have today are not the copies made by the Jamieson lab on the day of the assassination! Of course, neither Rollie Zavada nor Bruce Jamieson was willing to acknowledge that other logical possibility. If they did not think that likely, then that was certainly their prerogative, but Zavada should have at least acknowledged the possibility of substituted 'first generation' copies in his report. That he did not do so is another indicator of the extent to which Rollie was determined to conclude that both the extant film and the 'first generation' copies were authentic films, no matter what the evidence showed.

If the 'bracketing' issue were the only discrepancy involving the Zapruder film-if we did not have other problems such as the major chain-of-custodydiscrepancy indicating that a new unslit 'original' was created at Rochester on Sunday; and the discrepancy about what the 3 duplicates should look like in the intersprocket area (due to the controversy over 'full frame' printing aperture vs 'picture only'); and the discrepancy over whether or not the processing edge printer lights were turned off when the original film was developed; and the discrepancy over whether the original film was slit before Zapruder left the Kodak lab at 9 PM on Friday, or left unslit-then I might be willing to adopt the generous mind set of a Bruce Jamieson and doubt my own recollections to the point where I would be willing to construct a 'hypothesis' that contradicted everything I had previously said about 'bracketing' of the duplicate films, simply because the films in evidence contradicted my best recollections from the day of the assassination. But this is not a normal situation involving a normal film; it is the John F. Kennedy assassination, in which almost every aspect and item of evidence appears to be either taintedy and/or in conflict with other key evidence. The Kennedy assassination was not solved in 1963 by assuming that 'all things were equal' with other murder cases and that all of the evidence could be trusted; and continuing attempts since 1963 to solve the assassination by assuming that the physical evidence is untainted, and trustworthy, have resulted in the case becoming literally insoluble, since the more we study a field of physical evidence that is clearly untrustworthy, the more problematic the evidence becomes, and the more we realize that the evidence in this case simply "does not come together," as Josiah Thompson has so aptly put it. Given all of the other apparent problems with the Zapruder film evidence in particular, the obliging hypothesis that Bruce Jamieson spun for Rollie Zavada's benefit-after clearly having been coached by Zavada-is simply not worthy of belief. Let me explain why. After meticulously and deliberately arriving at a joint decision with his printer operator about which filter pack and exposure to use when making the three duplicates, surely-if Zapruder had insisted upon bracketing his exposures while in the printing room with Marshall Collier-the printer operator would have said, "time out," and would have consulted with Bruce Jamieson first about how to conduct this hypothetical bracketing of such an important film. Everyone knew that the subject matter was the assassination of President Kennedy, and no single employee would have wanted to be responsible for screwing up the job of duplicating the film. In the case of such a unique situation-the use of indoor Kodachrome IIA film for a duplicating role for which it was not intended-surely, Collier would have consulted with his boss and the owner of the lab in which he worked, before bracketing the exposures of the duplicates. (After all, deciding upon which filter pack to use and what exposure was appropriate was tricky enough already that Kodak had already consulted with Jamieson directly over the matter.) The fact that Jamieson, who initially recalled that bracketing was not done, also recalled no such additional consultation with his printer operator after Zapruder entered the printing room, is persuasive evidence to me that bracketing did not take place.

And yet Zavada concluded otherwise, even in his final report produced in September of 1998, before he had a chance to examine the LMH copy. He was enamored with the hypothesis offered up by Bruce Jamieson. It is no wonder that he was, considering that he surely planted that hypothesis in Bruce Jamieson's mind. In Study 3 of the Zavada report, Rollie wrote (on page 20 of Study 3):

The difference in density [between Secret Service copy no. 1 and no. 2] is significant-more than one would expect from a printer operator trying to 'bracket' a presumed correct exposure. However, it is possible that three different light levels were chosen-and that the copies agent Sorrels received were the [sic] bracketed high and low and that Time-Life received the nominal. [emphasis in original]

Zavada then reported, and endorsed, the 'Jamieson' hypothesis in full on the next page:

The density difference issue is perplexing and has been discussed with Bruce Jamieson, Motion Picture Laboratory management and printing personnel. Trying to place ourselves in the position of the Jamieson Film Company in 1963, we hypothesized the following:

a. They were faced with a significant time constraint-essentiallyimmediate. This constraint precluded scene testing of the original to assess the ideal print density and filter pack.

b. The lab did not have 8 mm perforated print stock on hand to permit using familiar materials. This mandated the use of 8 mm Type A camera film as a print material (supplied by Kodak). The type A camera film is both faster (ASA 40) and balanced for a higher color temperature (3400 degrees Kelvin) than a typical print stock having a slower speed and a lower (neutral aim balance) color temperature of about 2800 degrees Kelvin.

c. The lab consulted with Erwin 'Pat' Pattist, Quality Control Supervisor of the Kodak Dallas Processing Laboratory, (possibly) togain his assurance that the process was 'in control' and his opinion about the selection of filter pack and printer light.

d. Handling of the films was complicated because Mr. Zapruder was present in the printing room while his original was being copied.

Scenario 1 - lf Mr. Zapruder had requested three 'good' copies of his original, the prudent approach would be to print 'one light,' i.e., all three prints with the (same) best choice of filter pack and printer light setting. If this scenario was followed, Secret Service copy 1 and Secret Service copy 2 should be a close match.

Scenario 2 - lf Mr. Zapruder had requested 'good' copy of his original, and provided three customer Type A film rolls for print stock to achieve this objective, a printer 'light bracketing' approach could have been considered. The procedure would be to select an aim printing light level for the first print and then possibly expose a half stop over and under for the second and third prints while maintaining the chosen filter pack. This scenario could be the basis of the density differences seen, especially if the LIFE magazine copy density falls in-between the two Secret Service copies, and would be my personal best guess of what happened. [emphasis in original]

In his February 2000 Addendum, Zavada continued with his biased, one-way interpretation of the evidence by writing on page 9:

The hypothesis that the Jamieson Film Company bracketed the printing exposure level to achieve an ideal 'good' copy from the three camera film spools of Kodachrome IIA provided by Kodak proved correct. This also confirmed our belief that Mr. A. Zapruder retained the best copy and provided the Secret Service the bracketed higher and lower density copies.

I can just as easily compose the alternate scenario for what the bracketing could mean, and will do so now:

The three 'first generation' copies in evidence today are indeed 'bracketed.' But since Mr. Bruce Jamieson's initial strong recollection was that his laboratory personnel did not bracket the three duplicates that they ran off in their Bell and Howell Model J contact printer, we can conclude that the three bracketed duplicates we have in evidence today are not the 'first day copies' made from the camera original film on the day of the assassination,and are instead substitute duplicates made from an altered 'original' and substituted for the three true first day copies' sometime after the weekend following the assassination.

In other words, the presence of'bracketing' in the three extant 'first generation' copies is additional dispositive evidence that indirectly proves an altered 'original' film was created the weekend of the assassination (on Sunday, in Rochester at the "Hawkeye Plant"), and that substitute duplicates were then struck from this altered 'original.' The altered 'original' and the best quality print of the three bracketed duplicates would likely have gone directly to LIFE magazine on Monday, November 25th and the true 'first day copies' in the hands of: (I) the FBI in Washington; (2) the Secret Service in Washington; and (3) in the custody of Abraham Zapruder in Dallas, would have been collected and removed from circulation no later than the close of business Monday, November 25, 1963. Zapruder would simply have relinquished his own authentic 'first day copy' to Richard Stolley Monday afternoon after his contract was renegotiated, and Stolley would have forwarded it to LIFE, where the switch with its substitute duplicate could have been made in quiet by C.D. Jackson. In my view Rollie Zavada is incorrect when he wrote that Zapruder kept the best bracketed copy for himself. In reality I don't believe Abraham Zapruder ever saw the bracketed, substitute 'first generation' copy that later became known as 'LMH copy no. 2; I believe that Zapruder's heirs received this item from LIFE only in April of 1975 (five years after Zapruder's death in 1970), when Time, Inc. 'sold' the whole kit and caboodle back to the LMH Company for one dollar. I believe the Secret Service 'first day copy' in Washington, D. C., and the other 'first day copy' which was temporarily in the hands of FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C., were both swapped out first thing Monday morning, November 25^th. This would have allowed the FBI all day long on Monday to run off its substandard 'second generation' prints from the substitute 'first generation' copy given to them (with their full cooperation) on Monday morning, November 25th. By Monday evening, all of the true 'first day copies,' as well as the true camera original film, were likely removed from official circulation, and all of the key films we know of today were probably in place.

Most likely, either the true camera original film, or the true 'first day copies' (or perhaps all of them) were not immediately destroyed, and remained in private hands, resulting in the various accounts over the years that different people have seen (or owned) a different version of the Zapruder film than exists in the public domain today.

Horne, Douglas. P. (2009). Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, Volume IV (4 of 5): The U. S. government’s final attempt to reconcile the conflicting medical evidence in the assassination of JFK: (pp. 1267-1272).

And on what basis, you might ask, did Bruce Jamieson originally assert that the first day copies of the Zapruder film had not been bracketed? On the basis of Jamieson Film Company printer operator Robert Colley's recollections of the work performed. Doug Horne wrote:

"...I reviewed the Appendices to the Zavada report to look for the correspondence in which Bruce Jamieson changed his mind about how the aperture was set on his contact printer the day of the assassination. In a letter to Zavada dated October 21, 1997 (before he wrote to Harry Livingstone), Jamieson wrote:

I am advised by Mr. Robert Colley, who was a printer operator in our lab at that time, and who was in-and-out of the next printing room with our 3-head release printer at the time the Zapruder prints were made. He confirms that the Zapruder film was printed on a B&H Model J printer (not the 3-head printer as I originally believed). He further reminds me that our normal procedure was...the B-wind originals were printed FULL APERATURE [sic] (pix and sound area) from TAILS [meaning, starting with the tail end of the film on the supply reel]. Mr. Colley believes that this was the procedure used in printing the Zapruder film.

By April 21, 1998, Zavada had clearly persuaded Jamieson that Robert Colley must have been incorrect about the 'full aperture' (pix plus sound area) printing setup, by using the present day appearance of the 'first generation' copies to get Jamieson to doubt Robert Colley's recollections, because in a letter of that date published in the Appendix of the Zavada report, Jamieson wrote:

Next, the aperture setting on the printer was certainly in the 'picture only' position as evidenced by the unexposed section from picture frame edge to the film edge on the motorcade section of film. Both SS prints show that characteristic... [emphasis in original]

Clearly, Zavada has gotten Jamieson to flip-flop on what was previously his best professional opinion about what had happened in 1963 by showing him what was in the official record in 1997 and by then getting him to modify his position-his best professional opinion as expressed to both Rollie in October of 1997 and then to Harry Livingstone in February of 1998-that the copies his lab printed were made at 'full frame' or 'picture plus soundtrack' aperture. This is not the proper way to conduct an investigation into authenticity. The details about techniques employed-as recalled independently by qualified, expert eyewitnesses-are crucially important to studies of authenticity. This is why Jeremy Gunn asked John Stringer about the procedures employed and type of film used to photograph President Kennedy's brain before he showed him the photographs-because all too many witnesses are willing to change their opinions and recollections to either please the person asking the question, or to conform to the evidence placed before them. Bruce Jamieson's original answers given to Rollie Zavada in October of 1997 and to Harry Livingstone in February of 1998 (about what aperture was used on his printer when copying Zapruder's camera original film) should not be any more subject to change than John Stringer's initial answers given about the procedures used to photograph President Kennedy's brain, or about the type of film he used to do it. The ARRB did not ask John Stringer to reassess his best recollection of how he shot the brain photographs, and about what kind of film he used, just because his recollections differed from the photographs in the Archives. Rollie Zavada demonstrated here a tendency to 'jawbone' his witnesses into changing their testimony until their testimony fit his preconceived assumptions about the authenticity of the films he was examining. He did the same thing to Bruce Jamieson over the 'bracketing' issue, as I will reveal later in this subsection.

In summary, if Robert Colley's firm recollection-fully endorsed in writing, in October of 1997 by Bruce Jamieson and then expressed again as his own opinion, in writing, in February of 1998-that the camera original Zapruder film was copied with the B&H Model J printer set on 'full frame' (i.e., picture plus soundtrack) aperture JS CORRECT, then the 'first day copies' made on November 22, 1963 must have displayed the same intersprocket images recorded on the original film that day. Since the 'first generation' copies in the record today do not show the same type of full intersprocket penetration seen in the extant Ji.Im, the absence of such full-penetration intersprocket images on the motorcade portions of these films constitutes dispositive evidence proving that the 3 films represented as 'first generation ' copies today cannot be the 'first day copies ' duplicated at the Jamieson film lab on November 22, 1963. The implication here is that after a new 'original' (with 'full flush left' intersprocket penetration in every frame) was created at Rochester (at the "Hawkeye Plant"), three new 'first generation' copies were duplicated on a contact printer at Rochester, but the aperture was mistakenly set at 'picture only,' and not at 'picture plus soundtrack.' Under my working hypothesis, the technicians at the "Hawkeye Plant" would not have been aware of their error because they did not have in their possession any of the true 'first day copies' to examine before they made the three new substitute contact prints. On Sunday, November 24^th when the three substitute copies were struck at the "Hawkeye Plant," one true 'first day copy' was in the hands of the FBI in Washington, D.C. (having been loaned to the FBI by the Secret Service in Dallas on Saturday); another was in the hands of the Secret Service in Washington, D.C. (having been flown there late

Friday night from Dallas and having arrived early Saturday morning); and the third was still in the hands of Abraham Zapruder until Monday, November 251\ when his sale contract with Time,

Inc. was renegotiated for an additional$ 100,000.00. In fact, it was his 'first day copy' that Dan Rather viewed on Monday, according to author Richard Trask (and as later agreed to by Dan Rather himself). The Kodak technicians at the CIA's Hawkeye Plant could not have known it, but they inadvertently left indirect evidence pointing to the forgery of a new 'original' film when they impropetly replicated the three substitute 'first generation' copies using different procedures than those that had been employed by the staff at the Jamieson film lab in Dallas.

Horne, Douglas. P. (2009). Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, Volume IV (4 of 5): The U. S. government’s final attempt to reconcile the conflicting medical evidence in the assassination of JFK: (pp. 1258-1259).

Thus, we have the earliest stated recollections of the film laboratory owner, Bruce Jamieson, and of the Jamieson Film Company printer operator, Robert Colley, attesting that the bracketing procedure was not employed during the contact printing of the three first day copies, and these accounts are by far the most probative and enjoy the greatest evidentiary weight out of all of the evidence involved in the consideration of the bracketing issue. Instead of proceeding upon the basis of that best evidence, Rollie Zavada followed his confirmation bias-based impulses and lobbied Bruce Jamieson to change his testimony, thereby revealing his flawed methodologies as an investigator, and placing in question all of Zavada's conclusions.

Dr. David Mantik, writing in 2000, expanded upon Horne's analysis of the bracketing question, and addressed associated issues involving septum line inconsistencies in the first day Zapruder film copies which Zavada had conceded he was unable to reproduce:

ADDENDUM: LMH "FIRST DAY COPY"

In 1999, Roland J. Zavada examined the LMH Co. "First Day Copy" (hereafter described as LMHFDC) and published a report: "Addendum to Technical Report #318420P: Analysis of Selected Motion Picture Photographic Evidence." In this report Zavada claims that the third copy made by Jamieson on 22 November 1963 is the LMH copy (also known as the Life copy). In an unrelated matter, but still one of great interest, Zavada also reports (letter to Douglas P. Horne, 14 March 2000) that the Zapruder family transferred their copyright and complete inventory of films to the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas. Zavada's chief new finding is that the optical density of LMHFDC lies between SS #1 (a dark copy) and SS #2 (a light copy). New measurements show that the LMHFDC density is closer to SS #2, and Zavada advances technical arguments for why this is a reasonable expectation, although he did not predict it. He claims that this result proves that Jamieson bracketed the printing exposure level in order to achieve at least one good copy. Critics, on the other hand, might well argue that, since Jamieson had initially denied that such bracketing was done, these new results only constitute further proof that the bracketing of these films (SS # 1, SS #2, LMHFDC) was done at a later date and at some other site. In other words, since Jamieson reportedly did not use bracketing, he could not have made these copies.

LMHFDC begins at about Z-214, when the limousine is near the Stemmons freeway sign. Therefore, nothing can be said about initial loading fog or the perforated number supposedly placed during developing. However, as in SS #1 and SS #2, terminal fog, and then an image of 0183, appears after the final image (of a scene) on the home movie side. Zavada again claims (as he did in his initial September 1998 report) that the septum line is characteristic of the Jamieson printer. He also adds that the line is the same in each of SS #1, SS #2, and LMHFDC. In his September 1998 report, however, Zavada had stated: I'm sure the reader is aware that our attempt to exactly replicate the 1963 JAMIESON [printer to] produce [a] septum line has not been successful." (What he should have said is that his attempt to match the septum line on the home movie sequence was not successful, he merely assumes that these copies were made on the Jamieson printer, but this is exactly what is being questioned.) Doug Mizzer (in a memo to Harry Livingstone) summarized this evidence: the septum line on the SS copies is about 0.036 inches wide, whereas the line on the filmstrip cited by Zavada and that produced on the Bell & Howell Model J Printer in 1959 was only 0.020 to 0.025 inches wide-a large, and easily visible, difference. This means that Jamieson's printer might very well not have made these purported first day copies.

This question of the septum line is not trivial. It is Zavada's hypothesis that the intersprocket images on the home movie side were produced by a separate light source that also produced the septum line. But if the septum line is not authentic, then Zavada's explanation for the intersprocket images (on the home movie side) is also in doubt. In fact, Zavada reports on his trial with an old Model J printer that used an independent tungsten lamp. He concludes: "A trial print was made to determine the extent and penetration of the light along the perforation edge [intersprocket area] of the film. The results showed that although edge illumination was achieved, no light penetrated between the perforations."

To make the above negative result even worse, Jamieson quotes Robert Colley (Jamieson letter of 21 October 1997 to Zavada), a printer operator who was actually in the lab on 22 November: "...in order to retain the original edge numbers, the B-Wind originals were printed FULL APERATURE [sic] (pix and sound area) from TAILS." Despite this clear statement, however, Zavada concludes exactly the opposite (Study 3, p. 3): "...the initial belief that the prints were printed 'full aperture,' picture plus sound, also proved incorrect based on the examination of the images of the resulting prints." In my view, this is a perfect example of circular reasoning - the question is whether the copies in question are indeed first day copies, but Zavada merely assumes that they are, and then proceeds to draw conclusions based on his assumption.

Based on the above data, Doug Mizzer argues that because the SS copies do have edge printing, then, if they were made on the Jamieson printer, they should not have a septum line (on the home movie side). Therefore, since both SS copies do have a septum line and edge printing, they could not have been made on Jamieson's printer. The reverse statement is this (quoting Mizzer): " ... if the copies were made on Jamieson's printer in the pix only mode, there would be a septum line on both sides of the film [i.e., the motorcade side, too], but there would be NO EDGE PRINTING." (Author's note: In fact, both sides contain edge printing and the motorcade side in the SS copies has no septum line.)

To further confound matters, Zavada received a letter from Herb Farmer (1 August 1998) of the USC School of Cinema and Television. Farmer, who had four old Model J's, stated: "None of our model J printers have had any modification for edge marking printing at the picture printing aperture." Furthermore, he then added: "If I were faced with the original printing problem, I would probably have printed the film on the model J with the printing aperture wide open which would expose everything from the inside edge of the sprocket hole on the printing sprocket side to the opposite edge of the film (the picture and track area)." In other words, both Robert Colley and Herb Farmer have implied that the motorcade side (for the first day copies) should contain intersprocket images, but, in fact, none are seen.

In view of all of the above, many of Zavada's conclusions must remain in grave doubt. Unfortunately, he seemed quite unable to conceive of the possibility that the present three copies are not Jamieson copies. Instead, he obviously preferred to accept what he had been told-namely that these three are authentic first day copies. There is a distinct sense of 'deja vu here, this is the same mental state that so hampered prior investigations of the medical evidence. (See my essay, "The Medical Evidence Decoded," elsewhere in this volume.)

Mantik, D. (2000). The Zapruder film controversy (pp. 38-39). https://www.academia.edu/69989816/The_Zapruder_Film_Controversy

As we proceed to look at the technical issues which prove that the Zapruder film is fraudulent, you are going to see that the scenario above in which Rollie Zavada acts on his confirmation bias to manipulate the findings in his study of the Zapruder film is a scenario that rreccurs again and again, and that those manipulated findings are uncritically accepted and relied upon by hacks such as David Wrone, and in turn by unwary readers desperate to find uncontroversial solutions, such as yourself.

My first installment on the subject of the technical issues was made in a previous post to which you have not responded, documenting that registration number 0183, which Eastman Kodak and Jamieson Film technicians swore under oath on 11/22/1963 was perforated onto the end of the film, ostensibly appears instead at the end of side A (the family scenes) instead of at the end of side B (the assassination sequence), as attested to, which we know only due to the image of 0183 appeaing on what are purportedly the first day copies, since side A is currently missing from the extant "original" Zapruder film. The link to that post is as follows (and following that link are the same day sworn documents showing that 0183 would be at the end of the extant"original" Zapruder film in the National Archives, were it an authentic film.

____________

11/22/1963 SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY PRODUCTION SUPERVISOR P.M. CHAMBERLAIN, JR., SWEARING UNDER PAINS AND PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT REGISTRATION NUMBER 0183 WAS PERFORATED AT THE END ( SIDE B ) OF THE CAMERA-ORIGINAL ZAPRUDER FILM ON THE EVENING OF THE ASSASSINATION. IN CONTRAST, REGISTRATION NUMBER 0183 WAS PERFORATED AT THE END OF THE FAMILY SCENES ( SIDE A ) OF THE EXTANT "ORIGINAL" ZAPRUDER FILM CURRENTLY STORED AT THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES, BASED UPON THE IMAGES OF THE 0183 REGISTRATION NUMBER ON THE PURPORTED FIRST DAY COPIES (AS THE 0183 REGISTRATION NUMBER IS NOT PRESENT ON THE EXTANT FILM BECAUSE THE HOME MOVIE SIDE OF THE EXTANT FILM IS MISSING). THUS AND THEREFORE, THE EXTANT "ORIGINAL" ZAPRUDER FILM MUST NECESSARILY BE FRAUDULENT.

____________

11/22/1963 SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF JAMIESON FILM COMPANY LABORATORY MANAGER FRANK R. SLOAN SWEARING UNDER PAINS AND PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT REGISTRATION NUMBER 0183 WAS PERFORATED AT THE END ( SIDE B ) OF THE CAMERA-ORIGINAL ZAPRUDER FILM ON THE EVENING OF THE ASSASSINATION. IN CONTRAST, REGISTRATION NUMBER 0183 WAS PERFORATED AT THE END OF THE FAMILY SCENES ( SIDE A ) OF THE EXTANT "ORIGINAL" ZAPRUDER FILM CURRENTLY STORED AT THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES, BASED UPON THE IMAGES OF THE 0183 REGISTRATION NUMBER ON THE PURPORTED FIRST DAY COPIES (AS THE 0183 REGISTRATION NUMBER IS NOT PRESENT ON THE EXTANT FILM BECAUSE THE HOME MOVIE SIDE OF THE EXTANT FILM IS MISSING). THUS AND THEREFORE, THE EXTANT "ORIGINAL" ZAPRUDER FILM MUST NECESSARILY BE FRAUDULENT.

____________

6/28/1997 NOTATION OF ROLAND ZAVADA OF HIS TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH FORMER EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY PROCESSING FOREMAN TOM NULTY WHO TOLD ZAVADA THAT IT WAS HIS RECOLLECTION THAT THE CAMERA-ORIGINAL ZAPRUDER FILM "RECEIVED HANDLING SIMILAR TO CUSTOMER FILMS" ON THE EVENING OF THE ASSASSINATION, THUS PLACING IN QUESTION ZAVADA'S THEORY THAT REGISTRATION NUMBER 0183 WAS PERFORATED ONTO THE END OF THE HOME MOVIE SEQUENCE ( SIDE A ) RATHER THAN THE END OF THE ASSASSINATION SEQUENCE ( SIDE B ), THEREBY DEPARTING FROM KODAK'S STANDARD AND CUSTOMARY PRACTICES, BECAUSE THE FILM WAS "SPECIALLY" PROCESSED. THUS AND THEREFORE, WHEN CONSIDERED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE EVIDENCE ABOVE, THE EXTANT "ORIGINAL" ZAPRUDER FILM MUST NECESSARILY BE FRAUDULENT.

I will respond to the remainder of your comments in a subsequent post...

Edited 4 hours ago by Keven Hofeling

The Zapruder Film and NPIC/Hawkeyeworks Mysteries

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Summary (By Dr. Kemp Clark)

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

Announcements