David G. Healy Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 (edited) Len Colby dronned on and on and... Do you know what double 8mm film is? Split and unsplit? Can't say that I do, while fairly knowledgeable about still photography I don't know much about filmmaking. How exactly is this question relevant? Or are you just being a smart-ass? [...] okay listen up DUDE, it's clear you haven't a clue about the Zapruder film, muchless read HOAX: double 8mm was the film in Abraham Zapruder camera Nov 22nd 1963, unsplit it remains in its 16mm form after processing, in 8mm form after it's been processed indicates it's been split. Get educated! If your not aware of that relevance, you've absolutely nothing to add to ANY discussion regarding the Z-film. So, when your up-to-speed regarding matte painting, optical film printing - then we can talk timing... You know Shaneyfelt? Yep, I'm a smart-ass, douche-bags bring the best outt'a me! Edited December 16, 2005 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Carroll Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 Get educated! If your not aware of that relevance, you've absolutely nothing to add to ANY discussion regarding the Z-film. So, when your up-to-speed regarding matte painting, optical film printing - then we can talk timing... You know Shaneyfelt? Yep, I'm a smart-ass, douche-bags bring the best outt'a me! Is David Healey calling Len Colby a douche bag? Does he really mean that no one is qualified to discuss Zapruder Film alteration without first being "up-to-speed" regarding matte painting and optical film printing? T.C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 (edited) Get educated! If your not aware of that relevance, you've absolutely nothing to add to ANY discussion regarding the Z-film. So, when your up-to-speed regarding matte painting, optical film printing - then we can talk timing... You know Shaneyfelt? Yep, I'm a smart-ass, douche-bags bring the best outt'a me! Is David Healey calling Len Colby a douche bag? Does he really mean that no one is qualified to discuss Zapruder Film alteration without first being "up-to-speed" regarding matte painting and optical film printing? T.C. When it comes to alteration issues -- EXACTLY right, Tom ALL counts! You another one that can't spell a last name right? David Healy Edited December 16, 2005 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 (edited) Len Colby dronned on and on and... Do you know what double 8mm film is? Split and unsplit? Can't say that I do, while fairly knowledgeable about still photography I don't know much about filmmaking. How exactly is this question relevant? Or are you just being a smart-ass? [...] okay listen up DUDE, it's clear you haven't a clue about the Zapruder film, muchless read HOAX: double 8mm was the film in Abraham Zapruder camera Nov 22nd 1963, unsplit it remains in its 16mm form after processing, in 8mm form after it's been processed indicates it's been split. Get educated! If your not aware of that relevance, you've absolutely nothing to add to ANY discussion regarding the Z-film. So, when your up-to-speed regarding matte painting, optical film printing - then we can talk timing... You know Shaneyfelt? Yep, I'm a smart-ass, douche-bags bring the best outt'a me! They say that patriotism is the last resort of scoundrels that of course depends on the scoundrel. Mr. Healy's last resort is the cheap insult. He didn't have a good reply to my last post so he calls me a douche-bag. Much as it's tempting to respond in kind, I won't lower myself to his level. Healy proves his exceptional intelligence by concluding something is 'clear' (that I know little about the Z-film) that I have admitted from the beginning! I haven't read Hoax but I did read the website. If he can explain convincingly why not knowing the difference between 'split' and 'unsplit' 8mm film disqualifies me from questioning whether the Z-fiim is authentic, I will bow out of this thread, but since it seems it's just a smokescreen on his part I doubt this will be my last post here. No, I don't know much about filmmaking or composting. But that doesn't stop me from spotting contradictions in the story. I pointed out some of these contradictions, unable to come up with a good reply he insults me. So Dave went on about how the "forgers" had weeks to fake the Z-film apparently unaware that his co-authors claimed that it was faked the night of the assassination and that faked frames were published in Life a few days later. Since he doesn't have a good reply he insults me and hopes no one will notice. I doubt it worked, I think he has vastly underestimated the intelligence of members of this forum. Dave says his last reply is the best he can do and that he is pround of being a "smart-ass" Unfortunately for him he fails to realize that being smart and being smart-ass are not the same. Dave, all the questions in my last post still stand you can insult me all you want and bring up irrelevant technical points but you won't con anyone. I'd say nice try but that would be a lie it was a pretty poor one. So, your buddy believes that the Z-film was altered that night, so you really have only two options 1) say he was wrong 0r 2) tell us how they could have done it so quickly. We're still waiting for you to tell us about your experience doing composite work like you allege was done to the Z-film and even post some frames as evidence, have you ever done anything like that? Your continued refusal to answer that makes me think not and that your really aren't qualified as an expert on the subject. Go ahead if you can prove wrong, but citing a book or magazine won't suffice. I still want to hear about a movie made at the time with effects like believe appear in the altered film. Mary Poppins won't cut it, what you guys say was done to the Z-film goes way beyond any thing in that movie. I noticed your response to Tim C. was to be snide with him too. When you don't know how to answer a critic you stick out your tounge. So he misspelled your last name big deal. Are you immune to making little mistakes in YOUR posts? Obviously not If your not aware of that relevance Dude that's a grade school English error, that should have been "If you're not aware …" or better yet "If you don't know the relevance of that..." Do I make mistakes in my posts? I sure I do too, we're all human after all. You know Shaneyfelt? Do I know who he is (was?)? I assume you mean the FBI photo analyst. What, did he tell you the Z-film was faked? Since Healy insinuated I was working with Gary Mack I decided to e-mail him. Below is an excerpt from his reply: I debunked most of those claims years ago, but it's like questioning someone's religion. I knew Jane Rusconi, Oliver Stone'sresearch coordinator on the JFK film. Stone was asked about alteration of the Z film on January 15, 1992 in the Q&A after his speech. He shrugged it off saying he'd have to check into it. He did, by asking Rusconi what the question was really all about. When she told him of the allegedcontroversy, he just laughed and thought it ridiculous. Jane told me about it a few days later. Aside from all the other obvious problems, none of the alterationists Has gone to the special effects people and asked for their opinion. Stone had many of the best working for him (they put the Hertz sign on top of the TSBD digitally and people still think it was real!) and any of them would have spotted the tell-tale signs of compositing. Edited December 17, 2005 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 Mr. Colby does not know the difference between COMPOSTING and COMPOSITING. Compositing is assembling various photo elements into one, as in faking the Zfilm. Composting is a procedure used to turn organic matter into fertilizer. Ignorance is a weak position from which to argue. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 Mr. Colby does not know the difference between COMPOSTING and COMPOSITING.Compositing is assembling various photo elements into one, as in faking the Zfilm. Composting is a procedure used to turn organic matter into fertilizer. Ignorance is a weak position from which to argue. Jack So the best you can come up with is that I made a spelling error in my post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Carroll Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 Get educated! If your not aware of that relevance, you've absolutely nothing to add to ANY discussion regarding the Z-film. So, when your up-to-speed regarding matte painting, optical film printing - then we can talk timing... You know Shaneyfelt? Yep, I'm a smart-ass, douche-bags bring the best outt'a me!Is David Healey calling Len Colby a douche bag? Does he really mean that no one is qualified to discuss Zapruder Film alteration without first being "up-to-speed" regarding matte painting and optical film printing?When it comes to alteration issues -- EXACTLY right, Tom ALL counts! You another one that can't spell a last name right? I apologize for misspelling David Healy's name; it wasn't deliberate. To do so on purpose would be rude. T.C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 Get educated! If your not aware of that relevance, you've absolutely nothing to add to ANY discussion regarding the Z-film. So, when your up-to-speed regarding matte painting, optical film printing - then we can talk timing... You know Shaneyfelt? Yep, I'm a smart-ass, douche-bags bring the best outt'a me!Is David Healey calling Len Colby a douche bag? Does he really mean that no one is qualified to discuss Zapruder Film alteration without first being "up-to-speed" regarding matte painting and optical film printing?When it comes to alteration issues -- EXACTLY right, Tom ALL counts! You another one that can't spell a last name right? I apologize for misspelling David Healy's name; it wasn't deliberate. To do so on purpose would be rude. T.C. Sorta like when he intentionally misspelled your first name? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted December 18, 2005 Share Posted December 18, 2005 (edited) Colby continues to drone on.... [...] Dave, all the questions in my last post still stand you can insult me all you want and bring up irrelevant technical points but you won't con anyone. I'd say nice try but that would be a lie it was a pretty poor one. [...] F L A S H - One can not insult a stump -- read the book Hoax THEN ask technical questions till your hearts content. If that's to expensive for you go to your local library... Better yet, ask 6th floor Gary! Whom you're magically in coorespondence with, now -- roflmfao... However, he hasn't a clue about compositing either... nor Tink, nor Lamson, nor Wimp, nor Duravich, you're just one of the *peanut gallery's* latest noise maker to join the fray Get educated! If your not aware of that relevance, you've absolutely nothing to add to ANY discussion regarding the Z-film. So, when your up-to-speed regarding matte painting, optical film printing - then we can talk timing... You know Shaneyfelt? Yep, I'm a smart-ass, douche-bags bring the best outt'a me!Is David Healey calling Len Colby a douche bag? Does he really mean that no one is qualified to discuss Zapruder Film alteration without first being "up-to-speed" regarding matte painting and optical film printing?When it comes to alteration issues -- EXACTLY right, Tom ALL counts! You another one that can't spell a last name right? I apologize for misspelling David Healy's name; it wasn't deliberate. To do so on purpose would be rude. T.C. accepted! thanks Tom. Has happened with others with no technical competence in the subject matter. David Edited December 18, 2005 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted December 18, 2005 Share Posted December 18, 2005 (edited) Thanks, Ed, for posting the head shot. To my eyes this shot came from behind, impacting on the top of the head and leaving a large gutter wound. The autopsy photos and x-rays support this conclusion. So does the nose of the bullet found on the front seat, which was covered with SKIN. Bernice, I'm glad you're gonna read my presentation. And thank you for your breakdown of the evidence. But you don't seem to understand. I'm not some guy who came up with a theory. I'm someone who studied the evidence FULL-TIME for two years, and came to some conclusions as a result. You say you are a student of the early testimony. Then you should know that not one of the Dallas witnesses described an entrance on the side of the head and an exit at the back. Not one. They all describe one large wound. If Kilduff pointed to his temple, and Zapruder pointed to the side of his head, and Newman pointed to the side of his head, all within minutes of the assassination, then we should conclude the wound was on the side of the head, not the back. Furthermore, Dr. Clark, the only one in Dallas to inspect the head wound, testified it was a tangential wound, ONE large wound, on the side of Kennedy's head . If there was one large wound on the side of his head it is not any more an indication of a shot from the front then a shot from behind. The Harper fragment, windshield damage, and ballistics evidence all indicate the shot came from behind. I know my findings will upset a lot of people, but I've been able to make sense of a lot of stuff that no one could make sense of. I'm convinced there was a conspiracy. I'm equally convinced that most of the research community is wrong in their assessment of what actually happened in the plaza. As far as the earwitnesses, it's important to remember that when Newman and Zapruder siad they heard shots from behind, their backs were turned towards the arcade area, NOT the stockade fence. And I think it was Jean Hill who claimed to have heard a bunch of shots, not Moorman. Moorman said there were 2, then 4, then 3. I believe she's said 3 for some time now. *************************************** First off, thank you Dr.Fetzer..and Ed..for your kind words.. Hi Pat: Parkland and the Zapruder Film....... Thanks for the reply...some further information I have compiled here, for any that may be interested..... The confusion is within what we see in the Zapruder film, a huge blow out to the top of J.F.Kennedy's head......and is not and was not seen , nor reported by any at Parkland..... Until it was seen at Bethesda.. How can the Zapruder film show one observation on film...... and the Parkland professionals report another when they were the first to see and treat his body, in trying to save his life....??? Without something being extremely wrong within the Zapruder Film????? This is what they saw at Parkland Hospital........ This list is taken from "Murder In Dealey Plaza".. The observations of the wounds. At Parkland...the earliest statements. .................................................Right Rear...........Right Side...........Right Anterior 1. William K.Clark, MD.......................X 2. Robert McClelland, MD.................. X 3. Marion T.Jenkins, MD..................... X 4. Charles J.Carrico, MD.................... X 5. Malcolm Perry, MD...................... . X 6. Ronald C.Jones, MD...................... X 7. Gene Akin, MD..............................X 8. Paul Peters, MD.............................X 9. Charles Crenshaw, MD................... X 10. Charles R.Baxter, MD....................X 11. Robert Grossman, MD...................X....................................X 12. Richard B.Dulany, MD...................X 13. Adolphe Giesecke, MD..................X...................................X....................... ...X 14. Fouad Bashour, MD......................X 15. Kennedth E.Salyer, MD.................X....................................X....................... ....X 16. Pat Hutton, RN.............................X 17. Doris Nelson, RN..........................X 18. William Greer, SS........................X 19. Clinton J.Hill, SS..........................X 20. Diana Hamilton Bowron, RN..........X 21, William Midgett............................X....................................X What we see in the Zapruder.?????????????? is A huge blown out wound to the top of the head, and a blackened area within the back of his head....where the staff of the Parkland Hospital reported a back wound to the head......that all these professionals saw and attested to.....????? I do hope your conclusions are not written in stone...as they are a decision and usually a final ending ....I do believe we have learned within the research community nothing stays the same...as the work proceeds...I know of many people who study full time,each and every day, and they also enjoy the research , we spend at times, way too many hours studying and gathering information, to suit what I shall call a normal person, who has not been bitten by the bug, a friend told me once we are all addicted...I do believe there is some truth in that statement, I have not come to any conclusions as yet, even in those areas where I believe I do see,within the information the many differences, I am still studying... I do try to keep an open mind...though at times it does get difficult..but we never know who will do a thesis, book whatever, that will be issued tomorrow, and have much merit within..and I am certainly open to such....I guess I am simply not satisfied with the many conflictions within said evidence documentation and all..... After reading your last post, I wanted to ask you a question, in there you state that "The Harper fragment , windshield damage, and ballistics evidence all indicate the shot came from behind."..Do you think all shots came from behind..?? Yes, I regard all testimony as important, but do see and hear and read within the videos, books, articles etc, statements, from the many whose information was changed, in some way, and or most important to me, how some information they gave was left out of such statements.....like with Sam Holland...when it was released within the WC and DPD and such etc...his lengthy interview being done within weeks, of the assassination......and as seen, but one of many, in the "Rush to Judgement" Video by Mark Lane....... I look towards the early reports as being the most informative, in that regard..and seeing how so very much changed..as in direct connection with what actually happened that day, and within the weeks that followed.. that I do find at times, some has been buried, perhaps fogotten, overlooked,deliberately altered within the written words or wherever, along the many years that have followed....some gems come to the surface.. My Point is, this is Not What is Seen in the Zapruder Film..... It simply does not comply......In all of this information it is spoken of a blown out wound to the back of the Presidents Head......the seeing of such by many Doctors, Nurses at Parkland.......We look to the Zapruder film..and we see, No blown out wound at the back of the head, be it tangential or avulsive.........It is Not seen...........but we do see blackened areas out in that area of his head.....and a huge blown out top of the head wound....?? That is the dilemma.....all these professionals...at Parkland did not see nor report a huge blown out head wound....not even Clark.. Yet there it is within the Zapruder film, and not seen within Parkland. The men and women of Parkland, expressed that what they saw was a wound in the right occipital-parietal region in the right rear of the head behind the right ear...some saw brain matter extruding and there were I believe two others along with Dr.C.Crenshaw that stated he saw cerebellum extruding,( though there may be others I am forgetting) along with a complete loss of hair and scalp at the wound site..he also interrpreted as a classic bullet hole entrance wound in the anterior neck the size of the tip of one's little finger just prior to the tracheotomy by Dr.Perry...most saw a similar wound at Parkland... The overwhelming majority of the Parkland witnesses, when asked to place their hand where the blown out wound was situated, put their right hand to the right rear of the head....see photo below..taken some years later....what was described as the blown out area... Quote: Pat: "Furthermore Dr.Clark ,the only one in Dallas to inspect the head wound, testified it was a tangential wound ,ONE large wound ,on the side of Kennedy's head".. But he didn't, Just say that...see below.. He also said it could have been either..Tangential or Avulsive.. out the back of Kennedy's head... Dr. William Kemp Clark, Chief Neurosurgeon: WR 516-518/ 17 H 1-3 / CE 392 “..in the occipital region of the skull…there was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal region…” “Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound.” http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arr...tml/Image03.htm ***************************************** Also in his statement on Nov. 27th/63..in the Washington Star.see article that follows.... he stated. Dr. Kemp Clark, a brain surgeon who was summoned to the emergency room of the Dallas hospital where the President was taken after the shooting, said in Dallas yesterday that a bullet did such massive damage to the right rear of the President's head that the attending surgeons could not tell whether it had entered or come out of the head there. "A missile had gone in, or come out the back of his head, causing extensive lacerations and loss of brain tissue, " Dr. Clark said. Dr. Clark said he was unable to say whether the wound in the President's neck, below the Adam's apple, was due to the same bullet that had coursed through the President's brain. He said there could have been two bullets. . Also:From Vince Palamara......"JFK: THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE REFERENCE" 2003 DR. KEMP CLARK: 1.. WR 516-518/ 17 H 1-3 / CE 392 [undated summary; see also 21 H 150-152 :Clark's....11/23/63 report to Admiral Burkley with the verbatim summary . In addition, see.."Assassination Science", pp. 416-418: this is an FBI report dated 11/25/63 which includes the verbatim summary to Burkley from 11/23/63]---"..in the occipitalregion of the skull…";"There was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal region…"; "Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound."; 2.. WR 524-525/ 17 H 9-10 /CE 392: handwritten report 11/22/63---"ThePresident was bleeding profusely from the back of the head . There was a large (3 x 3cm) remnant of cerebral tissue present…there was a smaller amount of cerebellar tissue present also"; "There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region…"; 3.. Parkland Press conference, 11/22/63, 3:16 PM CST ["Assassination Science", pp. 427]---" A missile had gone in or out of the back of his head…the back of his head…I was busy with his head wound…The head wound could have been either the exit wound from the neck or it could have been a tangential wound, as it was simply a large, gaping loss of tissue."; ----------------- Dr Kemp Clark: WC.. Mr. SPECTER - What did you observe the President's condition to be on your arrival there? Dr. CLARK - The President was lying on his back on the emergency cart. Dr. Perry was performing a tracheotomy. There were chest tubes being inserted. Dr. Jenkins was assisting the President's respirations through a tube in his trachea. Dr. Jones and Dr. Carrico were administering fluids and blood intravenously. The President was making a few spasmodic respiratory efforts. I assisted. in withdrawing the endotracheal tube from the throat as Dr. Perry was then ready to insert the tracheotomy tube . I then examined the President briefly. My findings showed his pupils were widely dilated, did not react to light, and his eyes were deviated outward with a slight skew deviation. I then examined the wound in the Back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed. Clark on the 2:30 press conference: Mr. SPECTER - What, if anything, did you say then in the course of that press conference? Dr. CLARK - I described the President's wound in his head in very much the same way as I have described it here. I was asked if this wound was an entrance wound, an exit wound, or what, and I said it could be an exit wound, but I felt it was a tangential wound. ****************************** Posted by Mike Sylwester Article from Washington Evening Star, 27 Nov 1963, page A-5 Excerpts: [title] "White House Won't Talk on Kennedy Autopsy" By the Associated Press The White House has so far declined to say whether an autopsy was performed on the body of President John F. Kennedy. The body was at the Bethesda Naval Hospital for approximately nine hours last Friday night and early Saturday morning. Civilian morticians were called to the hospital to prepare the body for burial. Doctors in Dallas who administered emergency treatment to the President said yesterday they do not know whether one or two bullets had hit him. However, Federal authorities seemedfairly certain it was two bullets. One Washington source said, "There is some doubt whether the fatal bullet was the second shot or third shot. The first shot is believed to have hit the President, but we're not sure about the second and third." Thus, he indicated, the first bullet to strike Mr. Kennedy might not have been fatal. One bullet struck Texas Gov. John Connally, wounding him. Dr. Kemp Clark, a brain surgeon who was summoned to the emergency room of the Dallas hospital where the President was taken after the shooting, said in Dallas yesterday that a bullet did such massive damage to the right rear of the President's head that the attending surgeons could not tell whether it had entered or come out of the head there. "A missile had gone in, or come out the back of his head, causing extensive lacerations and loss of brain tissue, " Dr. Clark said. Dr. Clark said he was unable to say whether the wound in the President's neck, below the Adam's apple, was due to the same bullet that had coursed through the President's brain. He said there could have been two bullets. Dr. Malcolm Perry of Dallas, who also treated the President after the shooting, had said onFriday that he was unable to determine whether one or two bullets were involved. (end of article).. ********************************* At Parkland the President was described as having an exit wound, that of an egg, to an orange in size at the right rear of the head, a rear-exit, or blowout ( avulsive) was the reason many of the Dallas doctors concluded the President had been shot in the head from the front. When at Bethesda, the wound had grown significantly larger, now encompassed much of the right hand side of the head.And at the bottom of the back of the head was a small hole designated by the autopsists as a bullet entrance wound... The Dallas doctors were repeatedly asked, by Arlen Specter, about that entry wound. Might the doctor have seen “a little hole beneath the big hole”? Except for Dr. Kemp Clark, who said it might have been missed because of the blood and hair, the answer was no. One Dallas doctor after another answered Specter’s query the same way: “No.” There was no support for the “little hole” in the Dallas legal record. As far as the Dallas doctors were concerned, the back of Kennedy’s head only contained one thing: an exit wound. It is one thing to talk about this matter in terms of wounds; but much easier to visualize in terms of trajectory, and using that language permits one to see all this in “political” language: In Bethesda, the President’s body appeared to have been shot twice from behind, from the direction of the Texas School Book Depository. In Dallas, the President’s body appeared to have been shot from the front. I use the phrase “appeared to have been” deliberately, because the issue often arose as to whether a wound was not seen because, for some reason, it was not observed, or because it was not there. Debates about these matters often have a talmudic quality. Where was the observer standing? Exactly what could he see? Was there a flap of scalp that might have confused matters? Etc. PRESS DESCRIPTIONS OF THE PRESIDENTS WOUNDS "A wealth of discrepancies,distortions, and omissions impels one to conclude that the official autopsy report is unreliable; that the description of the President's wounds is innacurate ; that the single-missile theory is wholly unsupported by and in conflict with the evidence; that this theory respresents an attempt to salvage the case against Lee Harvey Oswald as a lone assassin; that the conclusions in the WR on the source,number,and perpetration of the shots are completely invalid; and that the evidence in fact constitutes proof of conspiracy.."..Sylvia Meagher...1967. Press Descriptions: "In the first days and weeks after the assassination news stories constantly revised the number, location, and nature of the President's wounds.. At Parkland Hospital according to the Doctors, he has suffered and entrance wound at the Adam's apple and a massive wound in the head." New York World-Telegram and Sun: Nov.23/63..p.2 New York Times :Nov.24/63..p2.col 6. New York Post : Nov.24/63..p2.col 3 "The official theory to account for those wounds was that the President had been shot while his car was approaching the Book Depository Building". New York Herald-Tribune, Nov.27/63.pp1& 9 "That was soon dropped in favor of a new theory; that he was shot on Elm Street while the car was moving away from the Book Depository, when he turned backward to wave at the crowd". Paul Mandel,"End to Nagging Rumors:" The Six Critical Seconds." Life, Dec.4/63.p.52F,col 2. "That was dropped in turn when films of the assassination showed that the President was facing forward at the strategic time.On site tests were conducted on Dec.5,1963 by the Secret Service-----presumably with the autopsy report in hand,Com.doc.at the NA consists of a receipt for various items ,including ""one copy of autopsy report and notes of the examing doctor"", turned over to Robert I.Bouck of the Secret Service Research Section by the White House physician on November 26,1963. The tests were conducted for the acknowledged purpose of determining how the President was shot in the front from behind." The New York Times, Dec.6/63..p.6 "The experiment was not successful". About 4 weeks after the assassination it became known that the SS had interviewed the Parkland doctors and informed of the autopsy findings. (St.Louis Post-Dispatch,Dec18/63.) A new version of the wounds was made public, which mentioned for the first time that the Pres. had been shot in the back. (New YorkTimes,Washington Post,& St.Louis Post-Dispatch,Dec 18/63) Some stories also said that the bullet that had struck his back "was found deep in his shoulder" One story said the bullet had entered"five to seven inches below the collar line". ( Washington Post.Dec18/63 and May29/66 ) others said "several inches below the collar line"(The Washington Post said on May 29/66 that the information had been confirmed by the FBI before publication.) It was now reported that the Parkland doctors now agreed that the entrance wound at the Adam's apple was now in reality an exit wound. St.Louis Post-Dispatch,Dec.18/63.. Some reports of the autopsy findings that were leaked to the press contradicted each other as well as the official autopsy report ultimately published.. The New Tork Times stated on Dec.17/63,that the FBI report of Dec.9/63 revealed that one bullet had struck Kennedy where the right shoulder joins the neck and another had struck his RIGHT TEMPLE.. NY Times Dec.17/63.p31.cols 7-8. The next day The NY Times published another report,from a "source fully acquainted with the results of the autopsy." Now there was a small neat wound in the back that had penetrated two or three inches, and according to " the pathologists at Bethesda." the wound at the Adam's apple had been caused by a metal or bone fragment from the fatal head shot.. NY Times.Dec.18/63.p27,cols 4-6. Within 24 hrs.The NY Times gave stillanother account, in which the pathologists were said to have found that the bullet in the back had lodged in Kennedy's body and that a second bullet had hit the RIGHT REAR of his HEAD... NY Times.Dec 19/63, p23,col.1 The story added that a fragment of the bullet had passed out the front of the neck. More than a month later the Times was still reporting that a bullet had lodged in Kennedy's right shoulder. NY Times.Jan 26/64,p.58,col.4 Thus for more than two months after the assassination the press asserted repeatedly that the first bullet to strike the President had entered several inches below the collar line and had lodged in the body. The same stories gave a variety of versions of the head wound: that a bullet had gone in and out of the back of the head according to Dr.Kemp Clark: NY Post,Nov.24/63.p 2,col 3. that a bullet struck the back of the head to the right; NY Herald-Tribune,Nov.27/63.pp1 & 9. that a bullet struck the right temple. NY Times,Dec 17/63.p31,cols.7-8. the back of the skull. NY Times.Dec18/63.p.27,col5. and the right rear of the head NY Times Dec.29/63.col 1 The autopsy report, with it's presumably authoritative data, was not published: Dr.J.J. Humes, the chief autopsy surgeon, said that he had been forbidden to talk. NY Times.Dec.6/63,p.18,col.7 "As one version of the wounds succeeded another with dizzying speed and confusion, only one constant remained: Oswald was the lone assassin and had fired all the shots from the sixth floor of the Book Depository. When facts came into conflict with that thesis ,the facts and not the thesis changed .Critics of the already implausible case against Oswald concluded from this that the truth was being suppressed and perverted in order to persuade the public, at all costs, to accept his sole guilt. Nothing that came to light later presented grounds for altering that conclusion..". In Sept. 64 the WR provided the official version..According to the Report. (1) President Kennedy was first struck by a bullet which entered at the back of his neck and exited through the lower front portion of his neck,causing a wound which would not necessarily have been lethal.The President was struck a second time by a bullet which entered the right-rear portion of his head,causing a massive and fatal wound. (2) Goveror Connally was struck by a bullet which entered on the right side of his back and traveled downward through the right side of his chest,exiting below his right nipple.This bullet then passed through his right wrist and entered his left thigh where it caused a superficial wound. WR.19 Elsewhere the Com expressed the view that the bullet had struck the Presdient first and exited through the front of his neck and then struck the Governor..and inflicted all his wounds.The Governor himself did not agree with that view, convinced he was hit by a second bullet after an earlier bullet struck the President. Autopsy Report. VOL.4.CE.387.. is Undated. Chief Autopsy Surgeon: Commander J.J. Humes, burned his "preliminary draft notes"and handed over all other papers related to the report to "higher authorities",in a certificate dated Nov.24/63....but according to to his testimony he burnt the first draft of the autopsy report .(Vol.2.H 373)..He states all working papers had remained in his personal custody at all times: that his notes and handwritten draft of the final report were handed over to the commanding officer of the U.S.Medical School at 5pm.Nov.24/63.and that no papers remained in his possession.(Exh.CE 397.p48) Again conflict between the certification and the testimony: Humes told the Com.that the drawings of the wounds had been prepared on the basis of his memory and notes of the autopsy.(Vol.2H 349-350).These certificates suggest the official autopsy report was completed and handed over to the authorities two days after the death of the President.The document begins with a description of the circumstances of the assn.based,it is explained on "available information" and newspaper reports.. 1.Absence of a date on autopsy report. 2.Unauthorized release of it's supported contents in Dec.63. weeks after it was completed and handed over according to Dr.Humes. 3.Findings that were leaked, are completely inconsistant with the actual contents of the autopsy report. 4.On site tests by the SS.Dec.63,were based on findings different from those in the published autopsy report. 5.The certificates read as if they had been written, after a passage of time,as if to account for the disposition of documents at an earlier time. Whether authentic or not,the evidence that the autopsy report was completed on Nov. 24/63..fails to account for the leaking of different autopsy findings on Dec.17 & 18th/63.or for the conduct of on site tests on Dec.5th. by the SS on the basis of findings other than those in the final document.. Information from "Accessories After The Fact"..Sylvia Meagher.. ******************************************* Some may be interested....in seeing some of these... Vol. 6: PARKLAND HOSPITAL DOCTORS/ NURSES/ PERSONELL---********* Drs. Charles Carrico, Malcolm Perry, Kemp Clark, Robert McClelland, Charles Baxter, Marion Jenkins, Ronald Jones, Donald Curtis, Faoud Bashour, Gene Akin, Paul Peters, Adolph Giesecke, Jackie Hunt, Kenneth Salyer, Martin White, Robert Shaw, Charles Gregory, Thomas Shires, Richard Dulany; Nurses Jeanette Standridge, Jane Wester, Henrietta Ross, Diana Bowron, Margaret Henchcliffe, Doris Nelson; R.J. Jimison, Darrel Tomlinson, J.C. Price http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...h6/contents.htm Also see Vol.17. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...17/contents.htm Master set of Medical Exhibits ARRB http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...et/contents.htm Medical reports Doctors of Parkland. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...eport_0270b.htm ********If anyone does get into any or all of this information..please watch for and take note of the many changes that occurred within.........as time lapsed... ****************************** What we see in the Zapruder film and the wound descriptions at Parkland should be seen as similar, imo..they are not..there it seems is no connection, as to what is kown of the President's head wounds seen at Parkland and what is seen within the Zapruder film, that is why I connect the two, they should be compatible with each other but are not.. ********************************* Two Different Versions of the Zapruder Film From: Harrison E.Livingstone : "The Radical Right and the Murder of John F Kennedy". "A film of the assassination was created for public consumption as a propoganda film. That film is known as the Zapruder film, named after Abraham Zapruder -----one of the amateur camera persons in Dealey Plaza who filmed portions of the assassination. ...The film was altered in haste ,and later further alterations were made as needed upon discovery of problems with the films...... Zapruder points out in his testimony to the Warren Commission that he was concerned about altered frames as a book of pictures ostensibly from his film were shown to him.." Warren Commission: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/zapruder.htm Shaw Trial 1:http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony...ruder_shaw1.htm 2: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony...ruder_shaw2.htm "We sure would like to know how his testimony was manipulated or excised.. A major edit of the film occurs at 132 in the transition from frame 133. One half-block of the motorcade was removed as the limousine rounded the corner from Houston onto Elm . We do not see this , and the portion is gone that would have shown how the shots began and the fact that the limo stopped. A similar phenomena occurs in at least six other films where the same journey of the limo has been removed." Zapruder Film: http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/ "My investigation has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Zapruder never stopped his camera at that point , as he repeatedly told people , and that the film was cut and optically reframed so that there is no splice. Optical reframing is the method used when a film receives " special effects" or is altered. As is explained in my book on the film. "The Hoax of the Century", there are no flash frames or evidence of "first frame over exposure" at Z-133, the transition from the three motorcycles leading the motorcade to the limousine, and it is a jump cut. I have interviewed a leading film expert in the world as well as the inventors of the camera who were trying to prevent such flash frames, and it is a certainty that the camera always produced them when it was stopped and then restarted .We do not see them at this crucial transition from one scene to another in the film. It is reasonable that there was another person operating a camera close by Zapruder with essentially the same perspective, perhaps in the "pill box" just behind Zapruder in the pergola. This film was the one that was flown to Kodak in Rochester N.Y, as testimony indicates ,altered, and Zapruder's film disappeared later on. During the massive shell game that was played with Zapruder's film before it was developed in Dallas. the other film was already in the air. " snip Two Different Filmed Versions of the Assassination: " The Zapruder film shows events not present in other films. For instance, Clint Hill testified: Warren Commission: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/hill_c.htm Original Report: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/sa-hill.htm that he ran after the limousine when the shots began, and catching hold of the handle on the rear of the car, he crawled on his knees onto the trunk and grabbed at Jacqueline Kennedy ,who had crawled out on the trunk presumably to retrieve a portion of her husband's head. The Nix film shows him with his arms around her placing her in the back seat. Nix Film: http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/ He stated that he saw the back of the president's head lying in the back seat. 2H 141, 6H 290 :HSCA Report 235 "" The rear portion of his head was lying in the rear seat of the car.His brain was exposed ....There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head...snip.. She turned to me and I grabbed her and put her back in the back seat, crawled up on top of the back seat and lay there...."" " We do not see Hill put his arms around Mrs. Kennedy in the Zapruder film, but instead see him only reach towards her outstretched hand.At the moment their fingers seem to almost ,touch. Mrs. Kennedy turns and gets back into her seat without his help .One might conclude the film was altered before Hill testified in 1964. Others might think that Hill is mistaken ,but not when the films show entirely different scenes. Again, the weight of evidence takes into account the pattern in all of the instances of conflict we see here.. There may be more films in conflict with the ones we have seen at this point, and the film taken by Beverly Oliver ,as yet not see by anyone outside the government ,apparently shows entirely different events. This film was used by the FBI to reconstruct the crime in their headquarters in Washington .Readers are referred to the exposition of the facts from the FBI report and exhibit in my "Killing Kennedy and the Hoax of the Century." Many people have insisted that the limousine stopped or slowed way down. This is not what we see in the films.....".... ******************************** Qoute: Pat "If Malcolm Kilduff in speaking to the Press that afternoon, had pointed to to his temple, ""........but he did not, he pointed to his right forehead at the hair line, a through and through head wound in the front and out the back....see photo. Quote : Pat " The Harper fragment ,windshield damage ,and ballistic evidence all indicate the shot came from behind.." but there are other studies that point to evidence and information of shots from the front, we cannot ignore all those simpley for the opinion. of any one....We must consider all.....if we do not have a one-sided view and are keeping an open mind.. Within the windshield studies I do hope you have covered Doug Weldon's work as well as the others....as the witnessess who saw a through and through bullet hole...one being a Doctor, a nurse and Reporter...come to m nd,who related their information... also back in April 2005...John Ritchson responded... Greetings, if memory serves it was Dr. Malcomb Perry that first described the throat wound as an entrance wound of a size that was entirely consistant with having been made by a .22 caliber bullet. It is also a fairly common and somewhat strange phenomenon that bullets fired into the human gullet tend to deflect downwards into the lower abdominal cavity due to the dynamics of terminal impact to the throat. In those cases i've personally studied this appears to be the rule rather than the exception. In tests I've personally conducted firing through auto glass, if the projectile has sufficient spin and velocity it can remain relatively intact when it impacts the target and leave a fairly clean entrance wound as well as a fairly clean hole in the windshield. *********************************** As far as the Harper fragment, I am not up on all, but there is also information from Charles Brehm within Mark Lanes video, where he in person as one of the closest witnesses to the Limo, relates that a piece flew over into the gutter in front of where he was standing..back and to the left of Mr.Kennedy.. There were 2 large fragments found in the front section one on a seat, one on the floor before midnight at the White House garage Nov.22/63....and 3 small fragments from the floor under the jump seat within the limo..Nov. 23/63...Though I cannot think of any others right now, there could have been more..?.When compared only the lead fragments were similar , and could not be ID as coming from the same bullet..I believe coming from memory..correct me if wrong.. ************************ Quote: Pat : "" As far as the earwitnesses, it's important to remember that when Newman and Zapruder said they heard shots from behind, their backs were turned towards the arcade, NOT the stockade fence. And I think it was Jean Hill who claimed to have heard a bunch of shots, not Moorman, Moorman said there were 2, then 4, then 3, I believe she's said 3 for some time now."".. Pat you are mistaken in your recollections in this area...it happens there is so very much information ..Zapruder stated behind him, many times....Newman stated behind him, and Mary Moorman did say the shots continued after what she thought was the first one...I did post verbatim, for all three..but to respond to your reply, I have copied verbatim, their two interviews from the Lane video, for your and the other members information.....See the following below.. As per the information I related in the other post.... Mary Moorman seen on the video " Rush To Judgement" Mark Lane. ....here is what she states on such..that she was in the line of fire, evidently...she does mention 3 or 4 shots....but then also says shots were still being fired...? KLIF TV Interview on the afternoon of November 22/63..In regards to the shots coming in her direction.. Mary states...words verbatim as before......but full interview..from tape.. Mary: " And I took the picture...it so happened,my picture, when I took it,was at the same instant when the President was hit ..and that does show in my picture."...snip in film.. Interviewer: "Did you realise what had happened when you heard the shot..? Mary: "No, no I didn't..though there was..oh.. three or four real close together and it was, uh... it must have been the first one that, that uh shot him, cause that's when I, that was the time I took the picture, and during that time after I took the picture ,and the shots were still being fired and I....... decided I better get on the ground .." Interviewer: "You did lie down...?" Mary: "I did....... We were, I was...oh... no more than 15 foot from the car,and in line of fire evidently." Interviewer: "Did Mrs.Kennedy scream on the first shot ?" Mary: " Aw...I don't know about the first shot but she did scream, she says .."" My God, he's been hit or he's been shot.."".. Interviewer: "Now the picture you took I understand the FBI has it now ?" Mary: "Uh..yes that's right.".... ********************************************************************* Also the information from W.E." Bill" Newman...also seen on the same video.. he reports a shot to the right temple of J.F.K...they were immediately in front of the limo...they were facing......and from BEHIND them....his back was to the mound in the garden.. TV interview KLIF...with Peter Watson... W.E.Newman Jr...Billy.....verbatim as before..... but full interview..from tape.. Billy:"We were.... we had just come from Love field after seeing the President and the First Lady...ansd we were just in front of theTriple Underpass on Elm St.at the edge of the curb, getting ready to wave at the President ." Peter Watson: "You were down under the viaduc so to speak ,weren't you?" Billy: "We were half way between the triple underpass , we were at the curb when the incident happened. The President's car was some 50 feet still yet..uh. Peter : hmm. Billy: " in front of us, coming at us when we heard the first shot and the President , I don't know who was hit first, but the President jumped up in his seat ..( Billy's right fist comes up in an upward motion )....and then as the car got directly in front of us , ( Billy's right fist points in front of him...)...well a gunshot apparently from behind us...( Billy's right fist still in the air, moves up and towards and over his right shoulder thumb and forefinger pointing behind his right shoulder....)... hit the President in the side of the temple"....(.Billy: raises his right hand and places his forefinger directly on his right temple)... Peter : "Do, do, you think the first gunshot came...uh.... from behind you too ? Billy : " I think it came from the same location...uh..uh....apparently back up on the ,uh the uh uh mall, uh whatcha call it." Peter: "Do you think the shot came from up on top of the viaduct towards the President , is that correct ?" Billy: " Yes Sir, uh, no, not on the viaduct itself but on top of the hill on the little mound of ground in the garden.." ********************************************** Abraham Zapruder .... From Harold Weisberg's "White Wash 2: (1966) all his books are available from Hood College at most reasonable of prices....... http://www.hood.edu/magazine/html/winter/2...fm?pid=_p12.htm Mr.Zaprduer was shown only photographs of frames from his film by the Warren Commission, the film was not played..he had taken the film in colour, but the photos he was shown were in black and white.. Page 139:140:141... ""Liebeler questioned Zapruder about only two additional frames. First, 255 of which Zapruder said, "I know this ---I have seen it so many times ... In fact ,I used to have nightmares ...The thing would come every night ----I wake up and see this."... (7H575) Why this particular frame caused Zapruder's nightmarea and not the last one tp which Liebeler alluded, 313, the "horrible one" in Zapruder's words , showing thr fatal bullet exploding in the President's head, prompted no question from Liebeler .Perhaps he knew the answer ,which is obvious to those who have studied the record. Frame 255 is duplicated by the Altgens picture ,which was widely disseminated by the Associated Press and frightfully mis-used by the report..( Whitewash page 48, 202-3). (snip) Zapruder's last words of witness also went ignored, but they are important.This is the man wiht the telephoto lens : "I know very few people who have seen it like that---it was an awful thing.." (7H576) Perhaps there were fewer than very few ---none who saw what Zapruder did. Liebeler did not want to know,and he was not alone." There are a few other Liebeler cute touches.. He allowed it to appear as though Zapruder had contacted the Secret Service first, before the SS could reach him, to offer his films..(see: SS Chief Forrest Sorrels (7H571).. Much more significant is Liebeler's operation that reflects the undoubted brainwashing of Zapruder prior to his belated testimony. Zapruder had had many meetings wiht federal agents ,He ahs been exposed to the full treatment in the press, carefully leaked and fostered by the Commission and the Dallas Police, that all the shots had come from above., from the sixth floor window to his left..In part he forgot his contrary initial belief, During one of his volunteered statements (7H571) he said, "I remember the police were running behind me. There were police running right behind me. Of course they didn't realize it yet., I guess, where the shot came from ---that it came from that height." After some amplification of where the police were all running--- to the grassy knoll behind Zapruder from which many witnesses believe at least some firing came--Liebeler asked.. "Did you have any impression as to the direction from which these shots came?" Zapruder's reply was equivocal: " No, I also thought it came from back of me...". Under questioning the import of which soon became clear, he twice more repeated that he had thought the came from behind him .Then Liebeler posed this leading question, "But you didn't form any opinion at that time as to what direction the shots did come from actually?". To which Zapruder, as desired, replied briefly, "No". As Liebeler must have known, this was quite contrary to the truth, for the very day of the assassination ,Zapruder reported and assassin has been behind him. ( See my previous post to see the copy.) There is an almost illegible copy of a hand-lettered report hastily prepared by Secret Service Agent Max Phillips, dated 9.55 pm. Novemver 22/63.., the night of the assassination. It is captioned, " 8mm movie film showing President Kennedy being shot." I obtained a copy of the very poor ---unnecessarily very poor-- copy in the Commission's files . ( This is how things were back then.) The original is not there..This is filed in Folder 1 of Commission File 87.. It begins by reporting that the enclosed film was taken by Zapruder and gives his office address and phone number..It identifies the enclosed film as a "third print" given to Sorrels and was made from Zapruder's "master". And it states without quibble or equivocation, for the official story had not then been decided upon, "According to Mr.Zapruder ,the Assassin was behind Mr.Zapruder.". It is not at all surprising that Zapruder so believed ,for according to the Commission File 962, which I examined June 30, 1966..the Secret Service also did.!..Part of this file consists of a 126-page inventory of the Station WFAA film and audio and video tape of and surroun- ding the assassination. On the 37th page appears this language: "" Secret Service quotes indicate autmomatic weapon used " to describe on item.The last listing on this page is similar " Bulletin ---Secret Service believes that an automatic weapon was fired from the top of the knoll", or behind Zaprduer. To emphasize, these are not in the Commissions Report ,not in Liebeler's questioning , but very definitely in the Commission's files.!!"" **************************************************** Abraham Zapruder ..."I didn't even remember how I got down from that abutment there,but there I was, I guess,and I was walking toward---back toward my office screaming.." They killed him, they killed him".. He wonders why the police were running up behind him and why from the front the motorcycle police were running right behind him, "of course, in the line of the shooting, I guess they thought it came from right behind me."???? I would also like to know the answer to his question now why would DPD, Sherrif Officers,etc and whomever be running behind him to said knoll area, after all they had been trained, yet they were running up in front of him and behind him.to the same area... the people who had been watching the motorcade also began running to the same specific area..why ?? is it because all of them did not have any sense of direction,and the Police, had all failed in that particular element of their training.....???? He then adds the short statement .""Of course, they didn't realize yet, I guess, where the shot came from--that it came from that height."" Well, I guess that says it all......not one that day within Dealey had any sense of direction.??.. Mr. ZAPRUDER - Yes--after the shots--yes, some of them were motorcycle cops--I guess they left their motorcycles running and they were running right behind me, of course, in the line of the shooting. I guess they thought it came from right behind me. Mr. ZAPRUDER - I thought I heard two, it could be three, because to my estimation I thought he was hit on the second--I really don't know. The whole thing that has been transpiring--it was very upsetting and as you see I got a little better all the time and this came up again and it to me looked like the second shot, but I don't know. I never even heard a third shot. Mr. LIEBELER - You didn't hear any shot after you saw him hit? Mr. ZAPRUDER - I heard the second--after the first shot--I saw him leaning over and after the second shot--it's possible after what I saw, you know, then I started yelling, "They killed him, they killed him," and I just felt that somebody had ganged up on him and I was still shooting the pictures until he got under the underpass--I don't even know how I did it. And then, I didn't even remember how I got down from that abutment there, but there I was, I guess, and I was walking toward--back toward my office and screaming, "They killed him, they killed him," and the people that I met on the way didn't even know what happened and they kept yelling, "What happened, what happened, what happened?" It seemed that they had heard a shot but they didn't know exactly what had happened as the car sped away, and I kept on just yelling, "They killed him, they killed him, they killed him," and finally got to my office and my secretary--I told her to call the police or the Secret Service--I don't know what she was doing, and that's about all. I was very much upset. Naturally, I couldn't imagine such a thing being done. I just went to my desk and stopped there until the police came and then we were required to get a place to develop the films. I knew I had something, I figured it might be of some help--I didn't know what. As to what happened--I remember the police were running behind me. There were police running right behind me. Of course, they didn't realize yet, I guess, where the shot came from--that it came from that height. Mr. LIEBELER - As you were standing on this abutment facing Elm street, you say the police ran over behind the concrete structure behind you and down the railroad track behind that, is that right? Mr. ZAPRUDER - After the shots? Mr. LIEBELER - Yes. Mr. ZAPRUDER - Yes--after the shots--yes, some of them were motorcycle cops--I guess they left their motorcycles running and they were running right behind me, of course, in the line of the shooting. I guess they thought it came from right behind me. Mr. LIEBELER - Did you have any impression as to the direction from which these shots came? Mr. ZAPRUDER - No, I also thought it came from back of me. Of course, you can't tell when something is in line it could come from anywhere, but being I was here and he was hit on this line and he was hit right in the head--I saw it right around here, so it looked like it came from here and it could come from there. Mr. LIEBELER - All right, as you stood here on the abutment and looked down into Elm Street, you saw the President hit on the right side of the head and you thought perhaps the shots had come from behind you? Mr. ZAPRUDER - Well, yes. Mr. LIEBELER - From the direction behind you? Mr. ZAPRUDER - Yes, actually--I couldn't say what I thought at the moment, where they came from--after the impact of the tragedy was really what I saw and I started and I said--yelling, "They've killed him"--I assumed that they came from there, because as the police started running back of me, it looked like it came from the back of me. Mr. LIEBELER - But you didn't form any opinion at that time as to what direction the shots did come from actually? Mr. ZAPRUDER - No. Mr. LIEBELER - And you indicated that they could have come also from behind or from any other direction except perhaps from the left, because they could have been from behind or even from the front. Mr. ZAPRUDER - Well, it could have been--in other words if you have a point--you could hit a point from any place, as far as that's concerned. I have no way of determining what direction the bullet was going. Mr. LIEBELER - Did you form any opinion about the direction from which the shots came by the sound, or were you just upset by the thing you had seen? Mr. ZAPRUDER - No, there was too much reverberation. There was an echo which gave me a sound all over. In other words that square is kind of--it had a sound all over. Mr. LIEBELER - And with the buildings around there, too? Mr. ZAPRUDER - Yes, the reverberation was such that a sound--as it would vibrate--it didn't vibrate so much but as to whether it was a backfire--in other words, I didn't from the first sound, from him leaning over--I couldn't think it was a shot, but of course, the second--I think it was the second shot. I don't know whether they proved anything--they claim he was hit--that the first bullet went through him and hit Connally or something like that--I don't know how that is.... http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/zapruder.htm *********************************** In the tape, "Rush to Judgement" Mark Lane.there is also an interview of Orvilles Nix, who also took a film of the assassination that day, he relates that when he received his film back from the authorities , they had damaged and ruined some of the frames within, and others were missing...a frame here and there also...it was not the same as he had given to them.......Orville also states when asked, if he ever looked at the TSBD when the shots were being fired, and he answers NO...he thought they came from the fence area.... Orville Nix was also a very good friend of SS Chief Forrest Sorrels, of Dallas,and that day saw him and spoke with him, after the assassination, and in talking he mentioned that he thought the shots had come from the fence area, and Mr Sorrels, also stated that he did too... There is overwhelming information that states there were shots from the fence area of the grassy knoll..there is also overwhelming information that leads to the findings that the Zapruder film was changed.....just the one frame #337....shows to your eyes that the wound that is seen, is not the wound that was reported and seen by so many at Parkland, that afternoon.....by Professionals...nor mentioned in anyway within their reports..The infomation from Sylvia Meagher shows how the reports in the media began changing within 24 hrs..and changing from also shots from the front, to only shots from the back..they were handled.... .Zapruder's own tribulations during Liebeler's questioning, and the fact that he was not called by the WC till July /64...when they had started to shut down, they also rushed through the the most important photographers in that time period, Algens, Willis, etc...they even argued, and changed Mr.Altgens information when he told them how far he was when he took his famous photo of the Limo..and came to their own conclusion....because it did not fit....he after all was there, they were not, but they changed the distance anyway..and the many, many witnesses they did not call, did not listen to.....it was not because they did not have the authority to question all and any, as they had the full power of the Government to demand what they needed and wanted, but they did not...they eventually complied, with all, the FBI and SS, NIA,and the CIA...and by not demanding and receiving all, and not doing a full investigation into their President's murder they complied again, and failed...and bowed to the pressure of having all done before the election that Fall for the Presidency...if it did not prove LHO guilty, they did not look any further.. Zapruder also stated he sold the film to Life for $50 thousand dollars, and that he was giving half to the Tippit family, which was generous, but the contract was worth$ 250,000.00 not $50..thousand.. Much changed during the first few weeks,starting within the first 24 hours....and on and on during the following years...in recollections, books ,articles, TV documentaries and such ..this is the main reason I try to contain my studies on what is referred to as First Day evidence..as well as the new that has become available, but to study both, it is amazing at the differences, and what some people believe now to be how things were and what people said and saw, but were and are not....we do not see within the 16 million dollar film, what really happened in regard to the kill head shots that struck President Kennedy within the Zapruder film... that Nov.22/63 in Dealey Plaza .. the Parkland Medical information and the Zapruder film are forever connected... To see into the Zapruder imo you must also study Parkland...imo. Thanks.....B Edited December 18, 2005 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted December 18, 2005 Share Posted December 18, 2005 I could not post previously the photo below, ran out of room. B.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted December 18, 2005 Author Share Posted December 18, 2005 (edited) I could not post previously the photo below, ran out of room. B.. Notice how they are not consistent in their placement of the wound. Notice how a number of them place the wound in on the far back of Kennedy's head. If you check their testimony of these men, you won't find one of them that says there was an entrance near the temple and a large blow out in the back. The Parkland witnesses are consistent only in that they saw one large hole and that it wasn't on Kennedy's face. Think about it. If you saw a famous person in a hospital what would you notice? You'd look at that person's face, and having satisfied yourself that the face was intact, you'd look beyond that. Since the rest of Kennedy's head was a mass of blood, brain, and hair, it would be awfully hard to look at. You might even look away. But would you inspect the brain-soaked hair to make a mental note of the exact location of the wound on the skull? Hell, no, that was Clark's job. Clark said he believed the wound to be one large gutter wound, on the right side of Kennedy's head. He remembered it as being towards the rear but decided he'd goofed after being shown the autopsy photos. Bernice is correct to point out that he left open the possibility that the explosion of the skull was an exit for a bullet entering the throat. This means there was NO entrance wound near the temple or anywhere consistent with a shot from the stockade fence. None. No one saw such a wound. In Dallas or Bethesda. I believe the Dallas/Bethesda wound controversy has been a HUGE distraction. It has prevented many researchers from even analyzing what the photos actually show. While my presentation has had over 500 visits and 200 downloads, not one person has e-mailed me and told me where I'm wrong on any of my points. I know that can't be true. I know I've made some mistakes. Thankfully, John Hunt corrected me on one factual error. If he hadn't done that, I'd have my doubts that anyone was even reading my monster. Lone-nutter or conspiracist, alterationist or not, I demonstrate a number of things in my presentation that should be obvious to everyone, e.g. that the bullet slice on the back of the skull was not on the back of the skull at all, and that both the Clark Panel and Forensic Pathology Panel made serious mistakes. Anyone interested in the truth should take a look. Some specific responses to Bernice's second re-cap for the alteration theory. Zapruder and Newman both said they heard shots from behind them. This is not in dispute. A look at Dealey Plaza indicates that the stockade fence where most place a shooter at frame 312 WAS NOT behind Newman and Zapruder, but to their right. Newman has said several times that there was no shooter from that corner. Marilyn Sitzman was adamant about this as well. Although widely quoted, Moorman's credibility is among the lowest of any witness. She repeatedly changed the number of shots she remembered, but was consistent with her gal pal Hill in that both believed the FIRST shot they heard was the head shot. In other words, they were just about the only two people in the plaza not to hear the neck shot at 224. This is an indication to me that the first shot (or shots) came from behind, back by the corner of Houston and Elm. While Hill and sometimes Moorman make up for missing the first shot by insisting they heard more than 3 shots, the majority of those on the grassy knoll itself, only remember hearing ONE shot after the neck shot. Thus, the idea that Hill heard multiple shots from the knoll is lacking corroboration from those on the knoll. I know that there are many who have grown accustomed to the idea of alteration, and consider any argument against alteration an argument against conspiracy, but they are wrong. In my presentation I play on the playing field of the WC, the HSCA,. and the mainstream media, and demonstrate that there was almost undoubtedly more than one shooter. I believe I've PROVEN a few of my points beyond any reasonable doubt. I hope you will agree. Edited December 18, 2005 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted December 18, 2005 Share Posted December 18, 2005 (edited) I could not post previously the photo below, ran out of room. B.. Notice how they are not consistent in their placement of the wound. Notice how a number of them place the wound in on the far back of Kennedy's head. If you check their testimony of these men, you won't find one of them that says there was an entrance near the temple and a large blow out in the back. The Parkland witnesses are consistent only in that they saw one large hole and that it wasn't on Kennedy's face. Think about it. If you saw a famous person in a hospital what would you notice? You'd look at that person's face, and having satisfied yourself that the face was intact, you'd look beyond that. Since the rest of Kennedy's head was a mass of blood, brain, and hair, it would be awfully hard to look at. You might even look away. But would you inspect the brain-soaked hair to make a mental note of the exact location of the wound on the skull? Hell, no, that was Clark's job. Clark said he believed the wound to be one large gutter wound, on the right side of Kennedy's head. He remembered it as being towards the rear but decided he'd goofed after being shown the autopsy photos. Bernice is correct to point out that he left open the possibility that the explosion of the skull was an exit for a bullet entering the throat. This means there was NO entrance wound near the temple or anywhere consistent with a shot from the stockade fence. None. No one saw such a wound. In Dallas or Bethesda. I believe the Dallas/Bethesda wound controversy has been a HUGE distraction. It has prevented many researchers from even analyzing what the photos actually show. While my presentation has had over 500 visits and 200 downloads, not one person has e-mailed me and told me where I'm wrong on any of my points. I know that can't be true. I know I've made some mistakes. Thankfully, John Hunt corrected me on one factual error. If he hadn't done that, I'd have my doubts that anyone was even reading my monster. Lone-nutter or conspiracist, alterationist or not, I demonstrate a number of things in my presentation that should be obvious to everyone, e.g. that the bullet slice on the back of the skull was not on the back of the skull at all, and that both the Clark Panel and Forensic Pathology Panel made serious mistakes. Anyone interested in the truth should take a look. Some specific responses to Bernice's second re-cap for the alteration theory. Zapruder and Newman both said they heard shots from behind them. This is not in dispute. A look at Dealey Plaza indicates that the stockade fence where most place a shooter at frame 312 WAS NOT behind Newman and Zapruder, but to their right. Newman has said several times that there was no shooter from that corner. Marilyn Sitzman was adamant about this as well. Although widely quoted, Moorman's credibility is among the lowest of any witness. She repeatedly changed the number of shots she remembered, but was consistent with her gal pal Hill in that both believed the FIRST shot they heard was the head shot. In other words, they were just about the only two people in the plaza not to hear the neck shot at 224. This is an indication to me that the first shot (or shots) came from behind, back by the corner of Houston and Elm. While Hill and sometimes Moorman make up for missing the first shot by insisting they heard more than 3 shots, the majority of those on the grassy knoll itself, only remember hearing ONE shot after the neck shot. Thus, the idea that Hill heard multiple shots from the knoll is lacking corroboration from those on the knoll. I know that there are many who have grown accustomed to the idea of alteration, and consider any argument against alteration an argument against conspiracy, but they are wrong. In my presentation I play on the playing field of the WC, the HSCA,. and the mainstream media, and demonstrate that there was almost undoubtedly more than one shooter. I believe I've PROVEN a few of my points beyond any reasonable doubt. I hope you will agree. Pat, your open invite to critique your work is much appreciated. As you know I'm trying to make sense of the autopsy imagery and have reached a difficult point with regards to cross referencing the two main xrays. As a result I decided to have a look at your presentation and quickly found myself 'disagreeing' with or perhaps questioning some fundamental benchmarks. So rather than going on to read all of it which as a consequence would (from my perspective) HAVE A POSSIBILITY of being based on questionable assumptions I've returned to the basics and as soon as I have some understanding on that level I'll post. It's tempting to jump ahead based on doubtful foundations, but I can say I think that the conclusion with regards to the wound location interpretation as I understand from what you have said here is not in conflict with what I see so far. (one point that occurs to me on a number of occasions is how medical personnell report locations on the body which has to be a standard that nurses to surgeons etc can understand. In other words saying that something is posterior must refer to a median position and does not mean 'in the back' but rearward of the median point etc so if the point in discussion is the temple then everything 'behind' or in the back of this is perhaps properly described as posterior? It's lika a boats aft, fore , starboard, port etc, not perhaps precise locations but a relative positioning that aids in orientation. Thus the verbal medical reports need to be understood by referring to the diagrams.) (Some things that I would say about your presentation have NOTHING to do with the content but perhaps accessibility and then based on my personal preferences has to do with text formatting, particularly font,kerning. When I view it on my computer I find it hard to read without fiddling with zoom and scrolling on each slide which is a bit annoying) Edited December 18, 2005 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted December 18, 2005 Author Share Posted December 18, 2005 Thanks, John, for taking a look. My girlfriend threw the presentation up onto her free Mac page. I was gonna get my own webpage for the sucker, but I kept delaying it due to my concerns over some of the stuff that's crippled this Forum from time to time. I decided a Mac page would be safe. What I didn't realize until it was too late was that the Mac page uses a template that shrinks the page and makes the text even smaller. So I'm sorry for any inconvenience to your eyes. I had 20/20 vision going into this two years ago and now, 50,000 or so pages later, I need glasses. I'm still thinking of creating the webpage. I'm told there's a program that will change Power Point presentations into a web article. I was hoping to get some feedback and make some changes before I do something that drastic, however. Once again, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted December 18, 2005 Share Posted December 18, 2005 (edited) Colby continues to drone on....Dave, all the questions in my last post still stand you can insult me all you want and bring up irrelevant technical points but you won't con anyone. I'd say nice try but that would be a lie it was a pretty poor one. [...] F L A S H - One can not insult a stump -- read the book Hoax THEN ask technical questions till your hearts content. If that's to expensive for you go to your local library... Better yet, ask 6th floor Gary! Whom you're magically in coorespondence with, now -- roflmfao... However, he hasn't a clue about compositing either... nor Tink, nor Lamson, nor Wimp, nor Duravich, you're just one of the *peanut gallery's* latest noise maker to join the fray accepted! thanks Tom. Has happened with others with no technical competence in the subject matter. David Dave you seem intent on proving my point that rather than answer my questions you invent smoke screens and resort to insults. So I'm a douche-bag and douche-bags bring the bet outt'a you? Your best isn't very good! Just tell exactly when the initial alterations were made. Your co-author says they were made that night and that altered frames appeared in that weekend's edition of Life. So when were the alterations made? According to the Lancer site http://www.jfklancer.com/History-Z.html 1) Zapruder went to his office after the assassination 2) He was met there by reporters and Secret Service agent Forrest Sorrels. 3) Zapruder, Sorrels and some the reporters went by DPD squad car to Kodak According to Martin Schackleford http://www.jfk-info.com/mshack1.htm "Zapruder remained with the film at all times, even in the darkroom... After processing, the Zapruder film was viewed at twice normal speed, with a special inspection projector that could project it without it having to be split, to check for flaws; about 14 employees were present... Zapruder asked if they could make copies. Kodak called Jamieson Lab, but Jamieson said they had no duplicating film perforated for 8mm. Kodak gave Zapruder three rolls of duplcating film. Zapruder took them and the original film (as unsplit 16mm film) to Jamieson. Less than an hour later, he was back at Kodak, where the original film and the copies were split and mounted on reels." Going back to Lancer " With Zapruder at the projector, the film is viewed by Richard Stolley, LIFE's Los Angeles Bureau Chief, the only reporter among a small group of Secret Service agents in a small room of Jennifer Juniors, early in the morning. Zapruder ran the film again and again as newsmen from AP and UPI and other magazines showed up. When the lights were turned on, Zapruder looked ill. Stolley convinces Zapruder to talk with him first. (Richard Stolley, 1973) The original film was sent to LIFE's Chicago plant, the copy to LIFE's New York offices. A dupe of the original was made in Chicago and also sent to New York. Word spread in Dallas that LIFE had bought only the print rights. (Trask)" Sorrels picked up two copies for the Secret Service on the 22 or the morning of the 23. So tell me Dave when were these alterations made? At Kodak? At Jamieson? Or did someone sneak into Zapruder’s house at night, find the original and copies, make the alterations that night and put them back in place without anybody noticing in time for the "early morning showing"? Or were they made at Life? This would be complicated because Life had 2 copies in 2 different cities, they would have no way of knowing if someone at Life would make copies before the switches were made. My correspondence with Gary Mack isn't magical, he is a member of this forum, all I had to do was click on his name when he was browsing the forum. However, he (Mack) hasn't a clue about compositing either... nor Tink, nor Lamson, nor Wimp, nor Duravich - You have yet to establish that YOU do. Lamson asked you back in April for examples of your work and you refused, I've asked you a few times and you continue to refuse. It's time for you to "Put up or shut up" post some examples of your work or stop claiming to be an authority on the subject. I know you've worked with video and film for decades and that you can cite all sorts of books but I have yet to see any of your compositing work. - Craig (Lamson) on the other hand did provide a link to compositing work he has done. -According to Mack, Oliver Stone and his people said such alteration were impossible, Pat's movie director friend said the same thing. Do you know more than them? read the book Hoax THEN ask technical questions till your hearts content. If that's to expensive for you go to your local library - Perhaps you missed the part where I said I read the Hoax site, I've also done a lot of 'googling' regarding your claims. - I'm still Brazil, Dave (Do you have memory problems?) your book is most certainly not available in any library near me. - I’m not asking you technical questions, I’m asking you a timing question. - If you explain when the alteration could have been made and show compositing work you've done that is remotely similar to what you said was done to the z-film, I'll pick up a copy next time I'm in the States - I don't have read books on: Holocaust denial, "intelligent design" and perpetual motion devices to know they're bunk either. So Dave, Jack, Fetzer etc. etc. if you have a good answer to the question of when these initial alterations were made, now’s the time to give it. Bull xxxxting, insults and smoke screens won’t cut it – try giving a straight answer for a change. Edited December 18, 2005 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now