The flap on the right side of the head

[Christopher T. George]

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

Hello Ron

While I am a newcomer to analyzing the information on the JFK assassination, one thing that is evident to me is that it is extremely hard to come to hard and fast judgements on the basis of the photographic record, be it moving picture films or still photographs. Thus, people are seeing things, or imagining things that are not there at all. Two cases in point that have come up recently in this forum is Jack White's insistence that Jackie Kennedy is grabbing agent Hill's elbow, which no other evidence appears to verify happened, and the debate about whether that is another shooter on the roof of a building some distance from Dealey Plaza. More than likely these types of things are artifacts of perspective or tricks of the light-- for example, the shapes on the roof looking like a man with a rifle when in fact it is nothing of the kind and there was no shooter there. Thus the same thing might be so about the supposed bone flap. Yes this might be an indication of tampering of evidence in the case ... in this case, despite Jack White's contention, not that the Zapruder film was altered but that the Zapruder film is telling us the truth, while x-rays and other photographs were changed to hide the fact that the shot could have come from the side. I think there may be good reason to think that might be actually the case. However, equally, since trying to come to the truth through photographic evidence is, as I say, difficult and misleading, the "bone flap" might be just some type of trick of the light.

All my best

Chris

Edited April 22, 2006 by Christopher T. George

[Ron Ecker]

Chris,

I come back to the central point that no evidence of this flap was seen at Parkland, except for claims of four witnesses (Baxter, Salyer, Grossman, and Greer) who all four later impeached their own credibility, two by perjury, one by changing his story, and one by simply making a ridiculous statement that was too much even for Arlen Specter. The one doctor who is known to have actually examined the head for injury, Dr. Kemp Clark, saw no such flap or even a wound in that area. Two nurses who washed JFK's hair prior to his placement in the coffin found no such flap or wound. This leads one naturally to wonder if this flap, seen "for certain" only in the Z film, was actually there.

Early in this thread Bill wrote the following:

Then there is what Groden said about the processes in attampting such an alteration on Kodachrome II film by transfering the images to 35MM to do any alterations qand then back again to 8MM film. The color tones would weaken, along with the contrast. Robert said that such forgery would not escape close scrutiny.

I've just been reading Mantik's chapter on the Z film in Murder in Dealey Plaza, and he addresses this issue on p. 349. What he says sounds reasonable to me. This is the start of my look into the question of authenticity, and Mantik himself says there are objections to the Z film alteration notion "some of which admittedly cannot be answered easily or with finality." That may be the bottom line in the end. While some alternation scenarios go over the top IMO, the question of whether any part of the film could have been altered effectively may be ultimately unanswerable. So what else is new in the JFK assassination.

[Bill Miller]

I've just been reading Mantik's chapter on the Z film in Murder in Dealey Plaza, and he addresses this issue on p. 349. What he says sounds reasonable to me. This is the start of my look into the question of authenticity, and Mantik himself says there are objections to the Z film alteration notion "some of which admittedly cannot be answered easily or with finality." That may be the bottom line in the end. While some alternation scenarios go over the top IMO, the question of whether any part of the film could have been altered effectively may be ultimately unanswerable. So what else is new in the JFK assassination.

Isn't that the same Mantik that assisted in getting the view above and then proclaimed that Moorman was in the street when she took her #5 Polaroid because he, Fetzer, and White had found the correct line of sight from Moorman's location to the pedestal. A picture speaks a thousand words they say .... see above.

Bill

Edited April 23, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Ron Ecker]

Yes, it's the same Mantik. But I wasn't referring to what he says about Moorman, I was referring to what he says about the copying film problem raised by Groden. Good use of distraction, though.

BTW I think Moorman was a babe, on the grass or in the street.

[Jack White]

I've just been reading Mantik's chapter on the Z film in Murder in Dealey Plaza, and he addresses this issue on p. 349. What he says sounds reasonable to me. This is the start of my look into the question of authenticity, and Mantik himself says there are objections to the Z film alteration notion "some of which admittedly cannot be answered easily or with finality." That may be the bottom line in the end. While some alternation scenarios go over the top IMO, the question of whether any part of the film could have been altered effectively may be ultimately unanswerable. So what else is new in the JFK assassination.

Isn't that the same Mantik that assisted in getting the view above and then proclaimed that Moorman was in the street when she took her #5 Polaroid because he, Fetzer, and White had found the correct line of sight from Moorman's location to the pedestal. A picture speaks a thousand words they say .... see above.

Bill

Miller fails to inform you that the "GAP" was created by persons

unknown in Tink's famed "drum scan".

The rest of the story:

[Jack White]

I've just been reading Mantik's chapter on the Z film in Murder in Dealey Plaza, and he addresses this issue on p. 349. What he says sounds reasonable to me. This is the start of my look into the question of authenticity, and Mantik himself says there are objections to the Z film alteration notion "some of which admittedly cannot be answered easily or with finality." That may be the bottom line in the end. While some alternation scenarios go over the top IMO, the question of whether any part of the film could have been altered effectively may be ultimately unanswerable. So what else is new in the JFK assassination.

Isn't that the same Mantik that assisted in getting the view above and then proclaimed that Moorman was in the street when she took her #5 Polaroid because he, Fetzer, and White had found the correct line of sight from Moorman's location to the pedestal. A picture speaks a thousand words they say .... see above.

Bill

Apparently the provenance of the so-called DRUM SCAN is a secret.

That way we do not know just WHO sharpened the top of the pedestal

and the edges of the window behind the pedestal, but degraded the

image of badgeman. The image of the drum scan speaks a thousand words!

Jack

Miller fails to inform you that the "GAP" was created by persons

unknown in Tink's famed "drum scan".

The rest of the story:

[Bill Miller]

Miller fails to inform you that the "GAP" was created by persons

unknown in Tink's famed "drum scan".

The rest of the story:

Jack - how do you sleep at night saying such things? Open Groden's book "TKOAP" and look at his copies of the Moorman photo - the gap is present in each one of them and they are not of drum scans. It is amazing at the things you are willing to say to keep from admitting you were in error.

Bill Miller

JFK assassination researcher/investigator

Yes, it's the same Mantik. But I wasn't referring to what he says about Moorman, I was referring to what he says about the copying film problem raised by Groden. Good use of distraction, though.

So I take it that if Mantik was busy - you'd seek Groden out for medical advice .... that's par for the course!

Bill

Edited April 23, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Ron Ecker]

So I take it that if Mantik was busy - you'd seek Groden out for medical advice .... that's par for the course!

I don't have any idea what that means.

[Allan Eaglesham]

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.....

David:

Excellent post.

Until Professor Joeseph Q. Blow comes forward with his sworn affidavit -- and physical proof of some kind -- that he altered the film, Bill will continue to say that alteration hasn't been proven.

The proof is in the pudding. I don't understand what I see in the film, so I smell a rat. If someone can reconcile what the film shows with eyewitness testimony from Parkland -- and I wish someone could -- my opinion will be that the film was altered. How or when I don't know -- but my eyes tell me that something is mighty queer. Bill can talk about "bone plates" till the cows come home...

Allan

[Bill Miller]

The proof is in the pudding. I don't understand what I see in the film, so I smell a rat. If someone can reconcile what the film shows with eyewitness testimony from Parkland -- and I wish someone could -- my opinion will be that the film was altered. How or when I don't know -- but my eyes tell me that something is mighty queer. Bill can talk about "bone plates" till the cows come home...

Allan

Nice analogy, Allan ... if you don't understand something, then one should smell a rat. Should this rule also apply to not understanding how steam engines work, or how they get the ship inside the little bottle, or how planes get their lift so to fly, and so on? Many people don't know how a camera is able to take a picture, thus should they also consider something sinsiter is going on because of this? There are certain things about having to alter a Kodachrome II film that would give the alteration away ... according to experts. They say that those signs are not present on the Zapruder film, so where does that leave us? It's like someone saying that there must be a way to get the yoke out of an egg without penetrating the shell ... don't tell me it can be done - show me ... show the experts. Until then, it is just another chicken little running around yelling the sky is falling because he doesn't understand what's really happening.

Bill

Edited April 23, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Ron Ecker]

There are certain things about having to alter a Kodachrome II film that would give the alteration away ... according to experts. They say that those signs are not present on the Zapruder film, so where does that leave us?

I pointed out that Mantik addresses this issue, and your response was to make fun of Mantik. That tells me that you can't handle what he says about it.

For myself, I really don't have time to pursue the flap question further, as I've gone about as far as I can with it. So at present, I entertain the possibility that the flap was added to the film, in conjunction with alteration of the body, to help frame the patsy and cover a bunch of asses. Like Allan, when I see that big flap that then disappears I sense something is wrong, just like when I watch the tape of the obvious controlled demolition of WTC Building 7.

I have seen nothing to falsify the hypothesis that the flap was added to the film, except possibly technical problems related to film alteration that I am not qualified to address, nor am I qualified even to address the work of those who have addressed it. Apparently you aren't either.

Debating with you in this thread has been beneficial in that it has forced me to review things such the Hoffman story and statements of doctors and other witnesses. Other than that it's been an unpleasant experience.

[Shanet Clark]

So I take it that if Mantik was busy - you'd seek Groden out for medical advice .... that's par for the course!

I don't have any idea what that means.

Ron

I am totally with you on this.

I think the "blob" was superimposed on the Zapruder film to hide a front to back rear exit wound, the wound that was seen by the Parkland doctors. Lifton makes it pretty clear that the casket that Jackie Kennedy accompainied was empty and that a black hearse brought JFK's body to Bethesda via the back door.

John Liggett was probably with the body during its secret flight from Dallas, and recreated the

damage. He was removing explosive mercury and lead, removing evidence of forward shots and getting the body ready for the navy doctors at Bethesda......................

[Bill Miller]

"Ron

I am totally with you on this.

I think the "blob" was superimposed on the Zapruder film to hide a front to back rear exit wound, the wound that was seen by the Parkland doctors. Lifton makes it pretty clear that the casket that Jackie Kennedy accompainied was empty and that a black hearse brought JFK's body to Bethesda via the back door."

Sherry Gutierrez, blood spatter expert, teaches people like Wecht, Mantik, and etc. on the science of what occurs when a skull is shot and she says the Zapruder film shows EXACTLY what happens when a head is shot from the front. Now tell me how someone painted in an image that just so happens to depict a frontal shot when viewed by a leading blood spatter expert?

I think I also mentioned that Kodachrome II film is made for daylight exposure ... this means that anyone painting in a wound on one piece of film would then have to expose that image back onto another roll of Kodachrome II film with artifical light. There would then be a difference in apparence that would be noticeable to an expert. Can anyone offer any evidence that the current Zfilm was exposed to artifical light, which is crucial if one is going to make claims of film tampering?

Bill

Ron writes: "I pointed out that Mantik addresses this issue, and your response was to make fun of Mantik. That tells me that you can't handle what he says about it. "

I think Mantik may be a good doctor, but he is not a photographic expert. I will address his claim once I find where I put that particular copy of Fetzer's book so to be exact and accurate ... you should appreciate that much. I then may consult some photographic experts to be sure I recall correctly what they have told me in the past ... that would be the responsible thing to do in my view.

I must also say that I find your ability to follow what Mantik says and not what Groden had to say because according to you it was over your head - to be somewhat interesting.

Bill

Edited April 23, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Ron Ecker]

I must also say that I find your ability to follow what Mantik says and not what Groden had to say because according to you it was over your head - to be somewhat interesting.

More gibberish. I have not read Groden on this, so how could I not follow him? All I have read is what Mantik says Groden said. Yes, I can follow what Mantik wrote, as long as he's not writing me a prescription, but I have said I cannot address the technical issues he's referring to (he doesn't get technical, he simply refers to them) because I am not qualified. I simply pointed out that Mantik, right or wrong, addresses in a brief and general way the technical issues raised by Groden, a point that you then evaded with something about Moorman.

It's sad that you have to twist what people say to try to win a point or advance your argument.

[Bill Miller]

I must also say that I find your ability to follow what Mantik says and not what Groden had to say because according to you it was over your head - to be somewhat interesting.

More gibberish. I have not read Groden on this, so how could I not follow him? All I have read is what Mantik says Groden said. Yes, I can follow what Mantik wrote, as long as he's not writing me a prescription, but I have said I cannot address the technical issues he's referring to (he doesn't get technical, he simply refers to them) because I am not qualified. I simply pointed out that Mantik, right or wrong, addresses in a brief and general way the technical issues raised by Groden, a point that you then evaded with something about Moorman.

It's sad that you have to twist what people say to try to win a point or advance your argument.

I guess that the artist in your view also drew in the underside of the bone-plate in the Muchmore film, as well ... or did you not think to cross check any other films on this matter?

Here is another thing to wrestle with ... the bone plate is seen in many Zapruder frames following the head shot. Those frames have different degree's of blurring going on between them ... is it your contention that some artist was able to draw in the bone plate in each frame and get the amount of blurring needed to make the alleged drawing match the data within that frame or is something else you have not considered ... feel free to consult with Mantik's writings if you like.

Bill