The flap on the right side of the head

[David G. Healy]

Kinda tough to swallow isn't it? There are those that just don't buy the WC story, nor certain segments of the

Zapruder film... course if you discount eyewitness testimony, especially testimony from Parkland MD's who treated JFK -- only then would you have a leg to stand defending the Z-film...

So what you 'guess' was addressed, remains a open question.... After all these years I've never heard anyone ask, "...what should of been in the Z-film?" Its alway's, "so, who shot him from the front...?

Not lack of knowledge as you profess, just common sense, champ!

David, are you not capable of writing anything other than a few say-nothing disjointed sentences? How many times do I have to remind you that "YOU" have not seen anything that proves photo and film alteration, so why are you wasting my time. I don't buy the WC story either and I spend a great deal of time researching and creating clips to show the viewer why I say what I do. However, to date, as you also have acknowledged, no one has shown any proof that the Zapruder film is altered. I've heard people say that there should be bullets seen flying through the air in the Zfilm - details of the avulsed bones in the hair on the back of JFK's head should be seen - and so on ... but it is their lack of knowledge of the camera Zapruder used, as well as the type of film Z used that prevented him from capturing such details.

And what common sense are you talking about ... because what ever it is - it never demonstrated to you that the Zfilm had been altered because that is what you have said to this forum. Your disjointed ramblings appear to be double talking ... so any time you decide to present a case for alteration, expect to be thorough about it and to have your own words come back and bite you on the rear.

Bill

BMiller, Miller, Miller -- you provide endless comedy for those of us that have been around since you showed up... so, what's to debate? When you can tell me you've viewed and documented any JFK related first generation film or photo, with an affidavit, we'll have something to talk about -- till then you post nothing but o-p-i-n-i-o-n concerning same -- your letting your fans go to your head -- we KNOW better.....

[Robin Unger]

So Hoffman told the FBI, in a letter in 1977, and Bill Sloan through a professional interpreter in 1992, that the two men ran away. Yet Hoffman demonstrated in TMWKK (which I believe was produced in the late 1980s), and told Dateline:Dallas in 1992, that the two men walked casually away. Which was it?

I would add that it makes no sense to me that the railroad man would run away as Hoffman told Sloan and the FBI. The man is dressed like a railroad worker presumably not to draw attention to himself. So what does he do? He starts running, which would naturally draw attention to himself.

I would like to believe everything Hoffman said that he saw (including his description of JFK's head), because by all accounts he was responsible, hard-working, likeable family man. But like Dr. Grossman with his drastically changing head wound, Hoffman can't have what he saw both ways.

Robin, you apparently think you know all about Hoffman, which you do not ... and it seems you are going to make exuses to the point of splitting hairs to hang on to what I believe is an absurd theory based on a poor understanding of the facts. I personally walked with Ed, while having us filmed, as he told me everything that happened. His interpreter was his daughter who knows Ed better than anyone. What most people do not know is that Ed has a poor understanding of the English language. By this I mean ... Ed knows what he is trying to say, but uses incorrect words in describing what he saw. I even heard his daughter and him going back and forth on what Ed was trying to say at times because Ed didn't feel as though he was getting his message out correctly. So it's not because Ed is telling various stories, but rather his interpreter hears Ed use a word that he or she believes means one thing while Ed thinks he said another. This is why Turner, just as I did, had Ed act out the movments he saw going on behind the fence (often using words that Ed doesn't see a difference in their useage) right down to the speed at which these individuals were moving. But regardless of all this crap about whether Ed said to someone that the guy walked fast - ran slow - hurried - ran - walked - or what ever, he was telling his story to his family and friends from the very beginning and those who know him claim he has never wavierd. Out of frustration, Ed had even wanted to take a polygraph and was told that as a deaf mute that he could not be tested. When I heard this and told him this wasn't so, he again wanted to be tested so to prove himself honest because it was important for him to do so. I started the process and when it was discovered that Ed takes a certain heart medication ... his chances of being tested acccurately became an issue, thus the institution said they would not conduct the test under the current circumstances. I can tell you this ... one of the questions was to concern Ed seeing JFK's head as he dscribed it on TMWKK interview. The Zapruder film had not been publicly shown until 1978 and Ed had told of seeing the Prsident's head wound from day one according to his family. One might ask themselves how else could he have described what the Zfilm shows and what other witnesses had seen if he hadn't really seen it first hand. I think when one selectively picks at certain things that have been written concerning Ed, then they can spread doubt about his credibility. However, when one takes the time to learn more of the facts so to apply them to better descern fact from fiction .... they will probably concluded that Ed saw the opened skull just as he claimed.

Bill

Excuse Me.

I wasn't aware i was participating in this discussion.

[Jack White]

Having "heard" Hoffman's tale many time "through interpreters"

I think I can affirm that any problems with his story are with the

interpreters, not Ed. In fact, he does not even know what the

interpreter is saying, since he is deaf, and SIGN LANGUAGE

is not extremely precise. I was among the very first people to

"hear" his story the very first time he told it publicly at Jim Marrs'

JFK class at UTA. On that occasion his interpreter was a family

member. They are best. On TMWKK, what he said was read

by a professional actor, presumbably from a script, so should

have been accurate, since Ed had an opportunity to read it.

Usually at symposiums, his interpreter was a young instructor

from a school for the deaf.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

This does further damage to his credibility, if I understand correctly where Hoffman was at the time. He was north of the limo as it passed, and JFK was lying flat with his head pointed south.

Hoffman was on the northwest side of the underpass and looking straight down into the limo as it passed underneath him. I really cannot tell you what Jackie was doing as the car rolled under the Stemmons Freeway, nor can I tell you how JFK's head was position at tha exact moment ... I am afraid I'd have to rely on someone who was there ... like Hoffman.

By the way, I posted some things in the past that would have had to of taken place had the Zapruder film of been altered because of the type of film Zapruder used. I mentioned how the transfering of Kodachrome II 8MM film to 35MM film and back again to 8MM would show distinguishable color and contrast changes, yet none of this is present on the Zapruder film espcially in the immediate frames concerning the head shot and woundIt seems to me that if you are going to lay claim that the bone plate seen on the Zapruder film is some form of an alteration, then you must be prepared to adress how such a transfer process could have been done and the results gone unnoticed despite what the experts have said. You see, Ron ... what you have done is little more than make a claim like someone saying to a group of people that a murder has taken place when the person you claim was murdered is actually standing there with the others listening to you. To even begin to debunk a witnesses credibility over seeing something that is supported by the Zapruder film - one must explain how the impossible is possible.

The sum of all this is that you believe the story of a witness who never got his story straight about whether the assassins he said he saw nonchalantly hung around to fool people, or took off running for the railroad yards. You say he somehow saw a wound like in the Z film before he ever saw the Z film. You can't prove that, it's what he and/or his family or someone else told you.

What is the first thing an investigator will do once hearing a witnesses descripotion of an event ... he or she seeks colloberation. Had has not only the colloberation he needs, but he also has a Kodoachrome II film that shows absolutely no signs of alteration according to the experts. Now weigh that against all the supposition in the world and see where it gets you!

And you know something else? As hard as you've tried you can't prove Gordon Arnold was on the grassy knoll either. But you accuse me of going by suppositions and not facts. But that's okay, carry on.

I think to have had Gordon Arnold's claim proven to you .. you first have to have the ability to not only follow, but to also be able to understand the evidence. Gordon, like Hoffman, has colloberted evidence to suuport what he said. Both men had photographic evidence to support what they had said.

Bill

To also address Robin's reply where he writes:

Excuse Me.

I wasn't aware i was participating in this discussion.

Robin, I apologise and have corrected the error in my post. It was one of those instances where I meant to be writing out one persons name and thinking of another.

Bill

Edited April 22, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Robin Unger]

To also address Robin's reply where he writes:

Excuse Me.

I wasn't aware i was participating in this discussion

Robin, I apologise and have corrected the error in my post. It was one of those instances where I meant to be writing out one persons name and thinking of another.

Bill

No Worries.

[Ron Ecker]

I mentioned how the transfering of Kodachrome II 8MM film to 35MM film and back again to 8MM would show distinguishable color and contrast changes, yet none of this is present on the Zapruder film espcially in the immediate frames concerning the head shot and woundIt seems to me that if you are going to lay claim that the bone plate seen on the Zapruder film is some form of an alteration, then you must be prepared to adress how such a transfer process could have been done and the results gone unnoticed despite what the experts have said.

I cannot address this at present because I know nothing about photography except how to depress a button on a camera, and I have no idea why it would be necessary to transfer from one type of film to another for any alteration. So I recognize this as a problem in considering whether or not the flap could have been added to the film. I intend to look at what, if anything, the alterationists have had to say about this problem, since I assume they would have to address it.

The core issue is, there was no such massive flap observed or found at Parkland according to the credible evidence, and I'm trying to resolve how that could be. The number of answers is pretty damn limited.

Edited April 22, 2006 by Ron Ecker

[Bill Miller]

The core issue is, there was no such massive flap observed or found at Parkland according to the credible evidence, and I'm trying to resolve how that could be. The number of answers is pretty damn limited.

Baxter mentioned the flap seen at Parkland ... you just shoose to ignore him. Also, the alteration supporters have not addressed the transfer issues that Groden set forth to me.

Bill

[Ron Ecker]

Baxter mentioned the flap seen at Parkland ... you just shoose to ignore him.

Baxter was a perjurer for the Warren Commission. That is why I choose to believe Dr. Kemp Clark over Baxter. That you have to depend on Baxter, intern Salyer (standing on the left side of JFK), and the bumpkin Bill Greer (another perjurer) to argue there was a flap at Parkland is pretty pathetic, but obviously you're sticking to it.

Edited April 22, 2006 by Ron Ecker

[Ron Ecker]

Wait, I forgot Dr. Grossman on your illustrious list of supporters. Grossman took joint credit with Dr. Clark for discovering the massive exit wound in the rear of the head. Then years later Grossman says that the wound in the rear of the head was just a small puncture wound of entry, the exit wound was actually where the Warren Commission and Dr. Michael ("JFK was leaning waaaay over") Baden et al. said it was.

[Pat Speer]

The core issue is, there was no such massive flap observed or found at Parkland according to the credible evidence, and I'm trying to resolve how that could be. The number of answers is pretty damn limited.

Ron, in Mark Lane's Rush to Judgment film, he includes Newman's televised interview, filmed immediately after the shooting. He points out a wound in front of the ear. Zapruder was on TV around the same time. He pointed to a wound around the same place. Malculm Kilduff, when announcing Kennedy's death, and going on information gathered from Dr. Burkley, pointed to the temple. The ONE doctor who'd inspected the head wound at that time, Dr. Clark, saw ONE wound which he interpreted to be both entrance and exit. A tangential wound. In my presentation I show why we should believe Dr. Clark was right. The wound described by Kilduff is therefore Burkley's interpretation of the large wound inspected by Clark. LBJ's driver Hurchel Jacks also said he saw the wound at Parkland, and he also reported it to be on the right side.

As to why Clark and so many others described the wound as more toward the back of the head.... rotation errors. People SUCK at interpreting spatial differences on inverted and rotated faces. This has been tested many times. For some reason, people want to believe doctors don't make mistakes. They do. In fact, studies have shown that there are certain kinds of mistakes that experts are more prone to make than non-experts, due to a feeling of familiarity. A doctor who's seen hundreds of gunshot wounds, and knows what they look like, might be more likely to describe a specific wound incorrectly than someone who's only seen one. This stuff has been tested. You should ask yourself why it is that so few medical professionals have jumped in and said it would be impossible for the Parkland witnesses to be wrong, and why so many of these witnesses changed their story once shown the autopsy photos. I suspect it's because they were there...they knew how chaotic it was... they knew how little time they spent measuring the exact LOCATION of the wound...they were, after all, pre-occupied with creating an airway through which Kennedy could breathe, and keeping his heart beating. Neuro-surgery is very much a specialized field. Clark said the autopsy photos reflect the wound he inspected and that he'd incorrectly remembered the wound as more to the back of Kennedy's head than it was. IMO, that should end this controversy. In my online presentation, I attempted to show how the autopsy evidence and the Z-film, when accepted as legitimate, STILL demonstrate that a conspiracy was likely. I believe I was successful.

Anyone sincerely interested in how doctors could incorrectly remember the location of a wound, should read all they can on facial recognition. I was going to post a link to one online book I found particularly helpful, but the link doesn't seem to be working. I'll find others if anyone is interested.

[Ron Ecker]

Ron, in Mark Lane's Rush to Judgment film, he includes Newman's televised interview, filmed immediately after the shooting. He points out a wound in front of the ear. Zapruder was on TV around the same time. He pointed to a wound around the same place. Malculm Kilduff, when announcing Kennedy's death, and going on information gathered from Dr. Burkley, pointed to the temple. The ONE doctor who'd inspected the head wound at that time, Dr. Clark, saw ONE wound which he interpreted to be both entrance and exit. A tangential wound. In my presentation I show why we should believe Dr. Clark was right. The wound described by Kilduff is therefore Burkley's interpretation of the large wound inspected by Clark. LBJ's driver Hurchel Jacks also said he saw the wound at Parkland, and he also reported it to be on the right side.

Pat,

There is no doubt that JFK was hit in the right side of the head, either tangentially as Clark suggested, accounting for the occipitoparietal wound with massive exit, or in the temple, an entry wound small enough that it was not noticed in JFK's hair at Parkland, with massive rear exit. Perhaps in both places, by two different shots, but we'll never know absent a real autopsy right there in Parkland, a possibility naturally thwarted by the conspirators .

As to why Clark and so many others described the wound as more toward the back of the head.... rotation errors. . . .

All I know is that several of the doctors wrote down what they saw that same afternoon, and all described it as a mainly occipital or posterior wound, except for Carrico who did not specify the location of the cranium damage. If they were mistaken, they were mistaken in remarkable unison. Their memories were fresh, and they were remembering the head wound of the President of the United States, not of the latest Joe Sixpack brought in from some barroom shooting. Not that the doctors would make any less effort to save Joe Sixpack, but I think a mortal presidential wound might naturally make a more lasting impression on anyone.

In my online presentation, I attempted to show how the autopsy evidence and the Z-film, when accepted as legitimate, STILL demonstrate that a conspiracy was likely. I believe I was successful.

As I've previously stated I am unfortunately unable to read your presentation, because it is not compatible with my computer, or vice versa.

Ron

[Bill Miller]

Wait, I forgot Dr. Grossman on your illustrious list of supporters. Grossman took joint credit with Dr. Clark for discovering the massive exit wound in the rear of the head. Then years later Grossman says that the wound in the rear of the head was just a small puncture wound of entry, the exit wound was actually where the Warren Commission and Dr. Michael ("JFK was leaning waaaay over") Baden et al. said it was.

I think that you also forgot the Zapruder film ... for if it was not altered, then all your nonsense is for nothing. I find it unbelievable that you would make such a claim about the Zfilm and call all those witnesses liars and unreliable while in the same breath admitting that you know nothing more about photography other than pushing a button on a camera to take a picture. And if you know nothing more about photography other than pushing a button on a camera so to take a picture, then how unresponsible is it as a researcher to not have consulted those experts who could have explained educated you one way or the other about the possibilities that you proclaim?

Bill Miller

JFK assassination researcher/investigator

[Ron Ecker]

I find it unbelievable that you would make such a claim about the Zfilm and call all those witnesses liars and unreliable while in the same breath admitting that you know nothing more about photography other than pushing a button on a camera to take a picture.

My ignorance of photography has nothing to do with witnesses who were liars and unreliable. They made themselves liars and unreliable, I had nothing to do with it.

And if you know nothing more about photography other than pushing a button on a camera so to take a picture, then how unresponsible is it as a researcher to not have consulted those experts who could have explained educated you one way or the other about the possibilities that you proclaim?

As I have stated, I have not gotten that far, I'm in the process of researching the JFK assassination, as I have been doing for several years. There's an awful lot to cover. And I see no reason why I should not raise possibilities and think out loud in the process for discussion. But I guess you think I should shut up and stay away from these forums until I've consulted everybody and know everything. If everyone did that, would there be any forums?

[Bill Miller]

My ignorance of photography has nothing to do with witnesses who were liars and unreliable. They made themselves liars and unreliable, I had nothing to do with it.

My experience is that not every witness is going to remember everything the same - some may even be incorrect about some things and/or changed their mind - but not every witness is incorrect about everything they saw and when they have a film that supports their observations, then the researcher has the responsibility to investigate the validity of the film right down to the extent as whether it could have been altered in the way that he theorizes.

As I have stated, I have not gotten that far, I'm in the process of researching the JFK assassination, as I have been doing for several years.

Well, I think that before I started claiming the Zfilm a fraud and those witnesses liars on the point concerning the skull flap/bone plate .... I would investigate some things beforehand so to be certain of my allegations. And so we are clear - I am not saying that you need to 'shut-up" as you put it. It is up to each person to set their own standards of research and you have made yours clear to me.

Bill

[Ron Ecker]

I am not saying that you need to 'shut-up" as you put it. It is up to each person to set their own standards of research and you have made yours clear to me.

I see nothing wrong with speaking up on something one knows nothing about. It can bring a fresh perspective. As a case in point, I think it's remarkable that someone as ignorant as I am of photography could show that your argument that Black Dog Man is Gordon Arnold cannot be correct, despite all the technical rigamarole that went over my head. It took somone as ignorant of photography as I am to see it! Kudos to me.