Where is the massive back head wound?

[Pat Speer]

Today's Educational Forum Fairy Tale:

Sycophantic CIA golum, gofer, boy toy, and hand-puppet Darlin' Arlen Specter got to see the SS medical photos—but John J. McCloy and Allen Dulles didn't. How do we know? Well—Darliin' Arlen sez so, chillun. That's why Brother Speer passed it along to you as the word of God.

And it isn't to be questioned or doubted. Got it?

Ashton Gray

Ashton, please do a little research before spouting your paranoid claptrap. If you read the executive sessions--never meant to be released to the public in part because they're so damaging to the official lies--you'll see that McCloy and Dulles discussed the autopsy photos with Warren and agreed that Warren should look at them with Humes. Warren subsequently admitted he saw them by himself. Specter subsequently admitted he got the SS to show him the back wound photo. There is no evidence whatsoever that either Dulles or McCloy saw the autopsy photos. If you have any, please cough it up.

Over and over again, Ashton follows the same pattern. He takes something damaging--Specter and Warren's behavior regarding the autopsy photos--and tries to blow it up into some vast conspiracy involving others purportedly working for an unseen hand. Forget Warren. He was a puppet. Forget Specter. He was a puppet. I'm sure before too long he'll be saying that LBJ was nothing but a puppet in the Kennedy assass and that the real evil culprit were those G14 civil servants waiting for their government pensions over at Langley. Oh wait, that's right. He's already said this. Never mind. And I'm the supposed apologist!

[Pat Speer]

The autopsy photos are fakes. Bill you state above "Humes' observation that surgery had been to the head...". I know that Speacial Agents (FBI) James Silbert and Frank O'Neill made this observation in their report. I have never read/heard that Humes made a similar observation. I first read of this in 1974 and it always stayed with me, back then there were no autopsy photos (fake or real) to observe. Then in the early 80's David Lifton makes an excellent case for body alteration in Best Evidence.

Dawn

Dawn, FWIW, Sibert and O'Neill both remembered the head wound as being towards the back of the head. They also both believed the back wound was too low to be an entrance for a throat exit. If I remember correctly, they both believe Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy. Unfortunately for Lifton, they also dismissed that their surgery to the head comment was a reference to wound alteration. Presumably it was a comment related to the straight tear of scalp on the forehead or perhaps even to the tracheostomy incision.

Edited December 29, 2006 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

Ashton is wrong, there is a third option. The photos are not fake. The doctors did not spew scripted lies. The third option is that the doctors saying the wound was on the back of the head were innocently mistaken. I studied this and found that these kinds of mistakes have been studied and documented. We look at words all day long, but have tremendous difficulty reading upside down. Similarly, we have tremendous difficulty determining relative distances on objects normally seen upright, when they are laid flat. A wound behind the ear while laying flat was interpreted as being a wound behind the ear while upright. The Bethesda witnesses were discussing the back of the skull after the brain had been removed and as it is seen in the open-cranium photo. That's it.

Pat,

What is your opinion of Saundra Spencer? She was in charge of the White House Photo Lab at the Naval Photographic Center at Anacostia, and told the ARRB that on 11/23/63 she developed photos for a federal agent named Fox, which included a photo of "a wound in the back of the President's head which she described as a 'blown out chunk' about 2 to 2.5 inches wide located in about the center of the back of the President's head, about 3 or 4 inches above the hairline at the back of his head" (ARRB Contact Profile, 12/13/95).

Ron

My opinion of Saundra Spencer is that she was interviewed about something she'd witnessed 30 years prior. Of course, her memories were gonna differ from the official story. It would be a miracle if they didn't. I mean, could you accurately describe a photo you developed 30 years ago? I know I couldn't. Less than fifty percent of the people can remember what words are on the front of a penny, or even which direction Lincoln is facing. People just aren't that observant. And when they are... their memories fail them...

[Ron Ecker]

You can add the statement of Dallas police chief Curry to the chorus of observations (or this mass illusion) of the back head wound. He observed the unloading of Connally and JFK at Parkland, and wrote in his book (p. 32), "Agent Hill finally convinced (Mrs. Kennedy) to let go of the President. Apparently she didn't want anyone to see that the back of the President's head was partially blown off."

[Bill Miller]

are fakes. Bill you state above "Humes' observation that surgery had been to the head...". I know that Speacial Agents (FBI) James Silbert and Frank O'Neill made this observation in their report. I have never read/heard that Humes made a similar observation. I first read of this in 1974 and it always stayed with me, back then there were no autopsy photos (fake or real) to observe. Then in the early 80's David Lifton makes an excellent case for body alteration in Best Evidence.

Dawn

Dawn, I am certain that I read or watched an interview of Sibert where he was asked about those observations he put in his notes and he said that he was right there when Humes made those remarks and he was merely writing down what Humes was observing. The surgery to the top of the head remark - Sibert would not have necessarily known to say that, but Humes did and Sibert made a note of it. The original notes of Humes were destroyed and I can certainly see why the Commander wouldn't mention the surgery at that point because he had since learned that no surgery to JFK had been done in Dallas, thus it would open a whole can of worms. Of course, the motive is only speculation on my part - I do not believe that Humes saying it is speculation. of course, when O'Conner took the President's body out of the body bag that was insidce the gray shipping casket - Paul saw that the cranium was empty ... Custer said the same thing (each man not knowing the other and independent of one another) 1/3 of the President's brain had been said to be blasted out in Dallas and the brain eventually attributed to JFK was of normal weight. I should say that a brain just does not get blasted out in its entirety from what I have learned. It needs to be losened from the inside of the skull .... the precedure I read about reminded me of someone trying to take the guts out of a pumpkin in all one piece.

Bill

Edited December 29, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Cliff Varnell]

Today's Educational Forum Fairy Tale:

Sycophantic CIA golum, gofer, boy toy, and hand-puppet Darlin' Arlen Specter got to see the SS medical photos—but John J. McCloy and Allen Dulles didn't. How do we know? Well—Darliin' Arlen sez so, chillun. That's why Brother Speer passed it along to you as the word of God.

And it isn't to be questioned or doubted. Got it?

Ashton Gray

Ashton, please do a little research before spouting your paranoid claptrap. If you read the executive sessions--never meant to be released to the public in part because they're so damaging to the official lies--you'll see that McCloy and Dulles discussed the autopsy photos with Warren and agreed that Warren should look at them with Humes. Warren subsequently admitted he saw them by himself. Specter subsequently admitted he got the SS to show him the back wound photo. There is no evidence whatsoever that either Dulles or McCloy saw the autopsy photos. If you have any, please cough it up.

WC chief counsel J. Lee Rankin and Rep. Wade Boggs in the WC Executive Session of

January 27th, 1964:

(quote on, emphasis added)

Rankin: Then there is a great range of material in regard to the wounds...ince we

have the picture of where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below

the shoulder blade to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where the

picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front, and the bullet,

according to the autopsy, didn't strike any bone at all, that particular bullet, and go

through. So...how could it turn...

Boggs: I thought I read that bullet just went in a finger's length.

(quote off)

This is hard documentary evidence the WC had the autopsy photos.

This is hard documentary evidence of an autopsy photo the world has never

seen -- one that shows the back wound in the vicinity of T3, where the vast

bulk of evidence places it.

Over and over again, Ashton follows the same pattern. He takes something damaging--Specter and Warren's behavior regarding the autopsy photos--and tries to blow it up into some vast conspiracy involving others purportedly working for an unseen hand.

..."Unseen" because he isn't paying attention.

He's too busy trying to study 'n spin the evidence to match his pet theories.

It's a Parlor Game.

I hate to say it, Pat, but you do the exact same thing.

The Fox 5 autopsy photo, upon which you base your research, was faked in the

manner of the Keystone Kops.

Set aside the fact that the holes in the clothes don't match the "back wound"

location, the purported "wound" shows an abrasion collar consistent with a

bullet that struck on an upward trajectory.

The HSCA concluded Fox 5 was prima facie inadmissible in court, and disputed its

evidentiary value -- all the while basing its conclusion of a C7/T1 back wound

exclusively on this improperly produced, poor quality artifact lacking in

a chain of possession!

Pat, you've picked the weakest "evidence" in the case as primary. You

proceed in your arguments as if the irrefutable evidence of the T3 back

wound simply doesn't exist.

The T3 back wound is impeccably corroborated, but because this evidence

is inconvenient to your pet theory you simply ignore it.

Ashton Gray implies that witnesses inconvenient to his Parlor Game are

part of the dark forces arrayed against Kennedy.

Pat Speer pretends that witness statements inconvenient to his Parlor Game

don't exist.

Forget Warren. He was a puppet.

Of course he was. I attribute your conclusions otherwise to naivete.

Forget Specter. He was a puppet.

...You're joking, right?

I'm sure before too long he'll be saying that LBJ was nothing but a puppet in the Kennedy assass and that the real evil culprit were those G14 civil servants waiting for their government pensions over at Langley.

I'm saying that LBJ was nothing but a puppet in the Kennedy assass and that the real

evil culprits were those G16 civil servants like Richard Helms and James Angleton, and

former civil servants like Allen Dulles, as well as civil servants such as Gen. Curtis LeMay,

Gen. Edward Lansdale, David Atlee Phillips, and David Sanchez Morales -- all waiting for

an opportunity to incite a US invasion of Cuba and taking their ONE chance by shooting

Kennedy and pinning it on Castro.

Ashton Gray illogically implies that the failure of this plot precludes the possibility

of its existence. There is going to be pushback against this conclusion because

of its implications about the use of false flag attacks in Neo-Con foreign policy.

Neo-Cons don't want the JFK assassination placed in the context of the Gulf of Tonkin

Incident, the ginned intel behind the Iraq War, and the willingness of Dick Cheney

to disarm America's air defense system on Nine Eleven.

The JFK assassination was organized around a POLICY change, not around the

individual agendas of those who worked to kill Kennedy. They all shared one goal:

invade Cuba. They all had individual agendas incidental to the plot.

For the plot to succeed there had to be "irrevocable proof" of Castro complicty.

The captured Oswald deprived the plotters of this "irrevocable proof."

Everything changed when Oswald was captured. The plotters lost control

of the cover-up.

Harriman and Bundy took over, Bundy calling the shots on the Oswald-as-lone-nut

scenario while AF1 was still in the air, according to Vincent Salandria.

The vast preponderance of evidence is so consistent with this conclusion that

I regard it as obvious.

Oh wait, that's right. He's already said this. Never mind. And I'm the supposed apologist!

Anyone who touts the authenticity of Fox 5 is an apologist, imo.

Edited January 3, 2007 by Cliff Varnell

[David G. Healy]

Hopelessly contradictory "facts," glaring omissions, gratuitous irrelevant details, falsehoods, and altered sequences are illogics that form the iridescent trail of madmen.

It is a fool's game to attempt to find reason, rationality, or logic in such mad illogics. They are traps laid by madmen specifically to snare reason and rationality and hold it fast in the hopes of covering their tracks. But the illogics are their tracks. They are effective as traps only when the rational attempt to find logic where there only is illogic. Then they are hopelessly inescapable traps.

I thought we had already gotten past your flawed 3D graphics and mass hallucination theory.

3D? you know 3D? Can you put Dealey Plaza in a 3D world? If you can't, how do you know something related to perspective, size, position <x,y,z> and/or area activity is flawed? If you can, please provide 3D topo graphics files of DP...

[Pat Speer]

Today's Educational Forum Fairy Tale:

Sycophantic CIA golum, gofer, boy toy, and hand-puppet Darlin' Arlen Specter got to see the SS medical photos—but John J. McCloy and Allen Dulles didn't. How do we know? Well—Darliin' Arlen sez so, chillun. That's why Brother Speer passed it along to you as the word of God.

And it isn't to be questioned or doubted. Got it?

Ashton Gray

Ashton, please do a little research before spouting your paranoid claptrap. If you read the executive sessions--never meant to be released to the public in part because they're so damaging to the official lies--you'll see that McCloy and Dulles discussed the autopsy photos with Warren and agreed that Warren should look at them with Humes. Warren subsequently admitted he saw them by himself. Specter subsequently admitted he got the SS to show him the back wound photo. There is no evidence whatsoever that either Dulles or McCloy saw the autopsy photos. If you have any, please cough it up.

WC chief counsel J. Lee Rankin and Rep. Wade Boggs in the WC Executive Session of

January 27th, 1964:

(quote on, emphasis added)

Rankin: Then there is a great range of material in regard to the wounds...ince we

have the picture of where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below

the shoulder blade to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where the

picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front, and the bullet,

according to the autopsy, didn't strike any bone at all, that particular bullet, and go

through. So...how could it turn...

Boggs: I thought I read that bullet just went in a finger's length.

(quote off)

This is hard documentary evidence the WC had the autopsy photos.

This is hard documentary evidence of an autopsy photo the world has never

seen -- one that shows the back wound in the vicinity of T3, where the vast

bulk of evidence places it.

Over and over again, Ashton follows the same pattern. He takes something damaging--Specter and Warren's behavior regarding the autopsy photos--and tries to blow it up into some vast conspiracy involving others purportedly working for an unseen hand.

..."Unseen" because he isn't paying attention.

He's too busy trying to study 'n spin the evidence to match his pet theories.

It's a Parlor Game.

I hate to say it, Pat, but you do the exact same thing.

The Fox 5 autopsy photo, upon which you base your research, was faked in the

manner of the Keystone Kops.

Set aside the fact that the holes in the clothes don't match the "back wound"

location, the purported "wound" shows an abrasion collar consistent with a

bullet that struck on an upward trajectory.

The HSCA concluded Fox 5 was prima facie inadmissible in court, and disputed its

evidentiary value -- all the while basing its conclusion of a C7/T1 back wound

exclusively on this improperly produced, poor quality artifact lacking in

a chain of possession!

Pat, you've picked the weakest "evidence" in the case as primary. You

proceed in your arguments as if the irrefutable evidence of the T3 back

wound simply doesn't exist.

The T3 back wound is impeccably corroborated, but because this evidence

is inconvenient to your pet theory you simply ignore it.

Ashton Gray implies that witnesses inconvenient to his Parlor Game are

part of the dark forces arrayed against Kennedy.

Pat Speer pretends that witness statements inconvenient to his Parlor Game

don't exist.

Forget Warren. He was a puppet.

Of course he was. I attribute your conclusions otherwise to naivete.

Forget Specter. He was a puppet.

...You're joking, right?

I'm sure before too long he'll be saying that LBJ was nothing but a puppet in the Kennedy assass and that the real evil culprit were those G14 civil servants waiting for their government pensions over at Langley.

I'm saying that LBJ was nothing but a puppet in the Kennedy assass and that the real

evil culprits were those G14 civil servants like Richard Helms and James Angleton, and

former civil servants like Allen Dulles, as well as civil servants such as Gen. Curtis LeMay,

Gen. Edward Lansdale, David Atlee Phillips, and David Sanchez Morales -- all waiting for

an opportunity to incite a US invasion of Cuba and taking their ONE chance by shooting

Kennedy and pinning it on Castro.

Ashton Gray illogically implies that the failure of this plot precludes the possibility

of its existence. There is going to be pushback against this conclusion because

of its implications about the use of false flag attacks in Neo-Con foreign policy.

Neo-Cons don't want the JFK assassination placed in the context of the Gulf of Tonkin

Incident, the ginned intel behind the Iraq War, and the willingness of Dick Cheney

to disarm America's air defense system on Nine Eleven.

The JFK assassination was organized around a POLICY change, not around the

individual agendas of those who worked to kill Kennedy. They all shared one goal:

invade Cuba. They all had individual agendas incidental to the plot.

For the plot to succeed there had to be "irrevocable proof" of Castro complicty.

The captured Oswald deprived the plotters of this "irrevocable proof."

Everything changed when Oswald was captured. The plotters lost control

of the cover-up.

Harriman and Bundy took over, Bundy calling the shots on the Oswald-as-lone-nut

scenario while AF1 was still in the air, according to Vincent Salandria.

The vast preponderance of evidence is so consistent with this conclusion that

I regard it as obvious.

Oh wait, that's right. He's already said this. Never mind. And I'm the supposed apologist!

Anyone who touts the authenticity of Fox 5 is an apologist, imo.

Classic stuff, Cliff. You call the bullet entrance at T1 my "pet" theory, even though it is the level of entrance revealed in the autopsy photos and the level of entrance as described by the HSCA FPP. You insist that the photos were faked even though their existence proves Humes lied when he told Dan Rather the photos supported the Rydberg drawings. The photos prove the so-called military review was a deliberate lie. More importantly, they prove that Kennedy must have been leaning forward when hit, and he is never in this position in the Zapruder film prior to being hit. I just watched Baden on the Into Evidence DVD and amazingly he says Kennedy was leaning forward when hit but that he never bothered to look at the film to figure out when this was. He says he assumes this occurs when Kennedy is behind the sign. This alone should convince a reasonable person that the SBT is a fabrication. If CTs like yourself focused on just this one point you could convince anyone that the SBT was bs and that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy. Instead you insist the photos were faked blah blah blah and drive everyone away.

You say I avoid the evidence for an entrance at T3. Hogwash. Burkley said T3 in a report written after his seeing the face sheet. Others merely said the entrance was below the shoulder. Well, where does the shoulder begin? Where the neck begins to taper or where the arm connects at the shoulder socket? And those that gave an estimate as to how far below the shoulder, how many of them, including Burkley, measured? The entrance at T1 is a shoulder wound, a back wound. It was a lie that this wound was on the neck. If the photo was faked why not just put the wound on the neck?

If I have a pet theory, you have a gorilla.

BTW, when Rankin was discussing the "picture" he was obviously discussing the face sheet. Notice that he does not say "photograph." When discussing the photos with Warren in the executive sessions he never lets on that he's seen the photos. There is no reason to believe that he did.

Edited December 29, 2006 by Pat Speer

[Bill Miller]

3D? you know 3D? Can you put Dealey Plaza in a 3D world? If you can't, how do you know something related to perspective, size, position <x,y,z> and/or area activity is flawed? If you can, please provide 3D topo graphics files of DP...

David, your trying to jerk us around agian - right? When Myers did his 3D animations of some of the Zapruder film frames - I did transparency overlays that showed that his numbers must have been off somewhere because when certain objects within the image scaled out correctly - other objects did not. At that time you sat with your thumb up your ass and didn't say a word in rebuttal to what I showed to be critical of Dale's accuracy. So now that we are talking about Ashton's inferior model ... you now want to flip flop? It's like recreating a photo or a film frame ... if you do not have the camera in the right position, then your field of view is off, thus it is unreliable when determining distances and angles. Do you not remember the gap fiasco in Jack and Fetzer's Moorman claim. The same thing applies to a 3D model being represented to show accurate views. Like Johnny Cochran would say - If the combined images don't fit, then the data used to create them isn't worth a xxxx!

Bill Miller

Edited December 29, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Classic stuff, Cliff. You call the bullet entrance at T1 my "pet" theory, even though it is the level of entrance revealed in the autopsy photos and the level of entrance as described by the HSCA FPP.

Pat, let me give you an example of how ridiculous your position is. Let's say that you write a report detailing what your opinion is on a certain matter. Possibly others were with you when you wrote it and had read it. On down the line someone takes control of your report and changes the wording around to mean something else. Then someone like yourself comes along and looks for ways to validate the altered report and despite you and your witnesses telling everyone that your original draft didn't say what is now being attributed to you - some people care not to listen and believe what ever they care to believe. They ignore your witnesses or any earlier position you made known and only go with what is being shown to them at this time. So you tell me, Pat - Whiich report is then the truth - the report you claimed to have originally written or the one being shown around today that you claim to have been altered?

Bill Miller

[Dawn Meredith]

[quote name='Bill Miller' date='Dec 29 2006, 05:44 PM' post='86782']

are fakes. Bill you state above "Humes' observation that surgery had been to the head...". I know that Speacial Agents (FBI) James Silbert and Frank O'Neill made this observation in their report. I have never read/heard that Humes made a similar observation. I first read of this in 1974 and it always stayed with me, back then there were no autopsy photos (fake or real) to observe. Then in the early 80's David Lifton makes an excellent case for body alteration in Best Evidence.

Dawn

Dawn, I am certain that I read or watched an interview of Sibert where he was asked about those observations he put in his notes and he said that he was right there when Humes made those remarks and he was merely writing down what Humes was observing. The surgery to the top of the head remark - Sibert would not have necessarily known to say that, but Humes did and Sibert made a note of it. The original notes of Humes were destroyed and I can certainly see why the Commander wouldn't mention the surgery at that point because he had since learned that no surgery to JFK had been done in Dallas, thus it would open a whole can of worms. Of course, the motive is only speculation on my part - I do not believe that Humes saying it is speculation. of course, when O'Conner took the President's body out of the body bag that was insidce the gray shipping casket - Paul saw that the cranium was empty ... Custer said the same thing (each man not knowing the other and independent of one another) 1/3 of the President's brain had been said to be blasted out in Dallas and the brain eventually attributed to JFK was of normal weight. I should say that a brain just does not get blasted out in its entirety from what I have learned. It needs to be losened from the inside of the skull .... the precedure I read about reminded me of someone trying to take the guts out of a pumpkin in all one piece.

Bill

I have not read Best Evidence since it first came out in I believe 81 but I remember that Paul O'Conner was one of THE strongest parts of this case for body alteration. Why else switch caskets, remove the body from its wrapping by the Parkland docs and put it in a damn body bag? At the time I wanted to take Lifton's overly long book and reduce it to just the crucial facts that made it such a blockbuster.

Do you believe the autopsy pics are fakes? A rhetorical question I suppose, since I know you believe the head was blown open, and it's put back together in these obscene photos we are told are the autopsy photos.

As to the authenticity of the Z film, I am not convinced. I have known Bob Groden since the 70's and I always liked and trusted him. How he came into possession of the film remains a secret, but we owe him a lot for bringing it to us. This is not to say I do not believe that it may not have been tampered with...

Dawn

[Ashton Gray]

I thought we had already gotten past your flawed 3D graphics and mass hallucination theory.

3D? you know 3D? Can you put Dealey Plaza in a 3D world? If you can't, how do you know something related to perspective, size, position <x,y,z> and/or area activity is flawed? If you can, please provide 3D topo graphics files of DP...

David, the man is a fraud and a humbug, as has been proven conclusively twice earlier in this very thread. It's in the record. It's inarguable. He knowingly and willfully set out to deceive, and he's been caught red-handed and exposed by me, and all he's done ever since is shriek inane and vapid insults about the person who exposed him for the charlatan he is.

What else can he do? You noticed he hasn't even apologized for having made a "mistake" for either of his frauds I exposed. You know why? Because it wasn't a mistake either time. It was knowing, willful, and intentional.

As I established long ago, the 3D model was created using the standard Dealey Plaza plats for placement of every building, road, and major landmark.

As I've also acknowledged repeatedly, the elevations of the Plaza infield and roads heading down into the underpass are a concern to me and are not guaranteed, but they are as close as I have been able reasonably to determine so far, and work continues on it.

Meanwhile, I'd be happy to spot the braying jackass +-3 feet of elevation (when the model elevations are nowhere near that far off) for any of his lamebrained Miller's Magic Bullet scenarios, and he'd still be off by such a ridiculous factor that he may as well be in Yankee Stadium.

Let him screech and bang his head against the crib.

Ashton

[Bill Miller]

I have not read Best Evidence since it first came out in I believe 81 but I remember that Paul O'Conner was one of THE strongest parts of this case for body alteration. Why else switch caskets, remove the body from its wrapping by the Parkland docs and put it in a damn body bag? At the time I wanted to take Lifton's overly long book and reduce it to just the crucial facts that made it such a blockbuster.

Dawn, Lifton made some mistakes along the way, but that is what happens in ones intial inquiry .... he still set the stage for what was to come. What people do not know is that Paul O'Conner, Jerrol Custer, Dennis David and others didn't know one another until about 1992 when they first had met. Some people think that just because they were all at Bethesda - they somehow all worked together.

Do you believe the autopsy pics are fakes? A rhetorical question I suppose, since I know you believe the head was blown open, and it's put back together in these obscene photos we are told are the autopsy photos.

I am totally convinced that the wintsses from Parkland to the mortician who prepared the body for burial had all seen the hole. I do not believe in the 'mass hallucination theory' and I can see the bone plate in the Zapruder film does not match in size to the one seen in the autopsy photos as we know them.

As to the authenticity of the Z film, I am not convinced. I have known Bob Groden since the 70's and I always liked and trusted him. How he came into possession of the film remains a secret, but we owe him a lot for bringing it to us. This is not to say I do not believe that it may not have been tampered with...

Dawn

How Robert came into getting his hands on the Zapruder film is a moot point. groden has told me how it came to be that he got to make copies of the Zapruder film and if I was him ... I wouldn't make that information public either. Let us just be glad that he did make copies which prevented anyone in later years to be able to claim alterations were done by more sophiosticated means, not that would fly copnsidering the Zfilm (Kodachrome II film) cannot still be altered today and not have it go unnoticed. The fact that Robert went to the National Archives and examined the alleged original film and saw it to not have any of the signs of being even a first generation copy is the main point to be recognized. Zavada's expertise in Kodachrome II film only validates what Groden has said.

Bill Miller

[Cliff Varnell]

Classic stuff, Cliff. You call the bullet entrance at T1 my "pet" theory, even though it is the level of entrance revealed in the autopsy photos and the level of entrance as described by the HSCA FPP.

Photo, singular.

The widely regarded HSCA "back wound" location is C7/T1.

The Pat Speer/Anthony Marsh pet theory is T1.

Pray tell, Pat, how does your analysis, or the conclusion about the wound location by

the HSCA FPP, trump the clothing holes, the witness statements, and the official

contemporaneous documents?

And we've never seen the autopsy photos described by Rankin and Spencer.

The HSCA FPP based their conclusion about the C7/T1 wound on a photo they deemed

insufficient as evidence!

They expressed no confidence in that upon which they drew their conclusion.

They didn't have any confidence in Fox 5, but you do.

You insist that the photos were faked even though their existence proves Humes lied when he told Dan Rather the photos supported the Rydberg drawings. The photos prove the so-called military review was a deliberate lie. More importantly, they prove that Kennedy must have been leaning forward when hit, and he is never in this position in the Zapruder film prior to being hit.

You insist on mis-casting my argument. I singled out ONE photo -- Fox 5.

As I said, the alteration/fakery in Fox 5 so obvious, it has a Keystone Kops quality.

In order to get the photo with its "upward" trajectory to work they had to bend

JFK over. People have been bending over for these big lies for a long time.

Plan A was to pin the deed on Castro -- that didn't work out, so they had to improvise,

and the fakery/alteration of ONE photo had to serve the purpose.

Hey, the rubes have been buying this fraud for 40-odd years...

I just watched Baden on the Into Evidence DVD and amazingly he says Kennedy was leaning forward when hit but that he never bothered to look at the film to figure out when this was. He says he assumes this occurs when Kennedy is behind the sign. This alone should convince a reasonable person that the SBT is a fabrication.

Because your argument is inconvenient to the SBT we're supposed to accept it?

The "low" location of the holes in the clothes render all this moot.

Which is why you'll never acknowledge the facts of the case -- it renders

your silly little analyses moot.

Pat, you HAVE to deny the obvious fact of the T3 back wound -- just to keep

your little Parlor Game alive (at least in your own head).

If CTs like yourself focused on just this one point you could convince anyone that the SBT was bs and that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy.

We don't have to "convince" anyone of the failure of the SBT, all we have

to do is show them the location of the holes in the clothes.

It requires no further analysis, requires no corroboration other than

the Dealey Plaza photos that show that JFK's jacket dropped an inch

right before he was shot.

Instead you insist the photos were faked blah blah blah and drive everyone away.

By arguing the historical fact that JFK's back wound was at T3 I'm driving people

away?

One cannot begin to grasp the nature of the crime, nor the nature of the

cover-up, without grasping the fact that JFK suffered a back wound in the

vicinity of his third thoracic vertebra, and the wound was shallow.

Any explanation of the crime and cover-up that does not account for

this fact is obfuscationary.

You say I avoid the evidence for an entrance at T3.

Yes. You steadfastly ignore the clothing evidence. You act like it

doesn't exist. You've claimed that it was elevated 2+" -- re your

pet theory -- but you can't support that in any way, so you act like

it doesn't matter.

Hogwash. Burkley said T3 in a report written after his seeing the face sheet.

Hogwash. He wrote that after seeing the wound.

Others merely said the entrance was below the shoulder.

Here's what others said:

Dr. John Ebersole attended the autopsy and told Dr. David Mantik

in a 1992 interview that the back wound was at T-4. (Harrison

Livingstone's KILLING THE TRUTH pg 721)

Nurse Diana Bowron washed JFK's body at Parkland, and she

told Livingstone the wound was "lower down on the back" than

shown in the autopsy photos (KTT pg 188.)

Autopsy photographer Floyd Reibe also claimed that the lower marking

on the autopsy photo actually showed the back wound (KTT pg 721).

Bethesda lab assisstant Jan Gail Rudnicki told Livingstone

that he saw "what appeared to be an entry wound several inches

down on the back." (HIGH TREASON 2, pg 206)

Bethesda x-ray tech Edward Reed reported seeing a back

wound "right between the scapula and the thoracic column."

(KTT pg 720)

James Curtis Jenkins, a lab tech who attended the autopsy,

placed the back wound below the throat wound with this

diagram for the HSCA:

http://jfklancer.com/pub/md/jenkins.gif

He graphically described it as even lower than he indicates in

the diagram.

Jenkins quoted in BEST EVIDENCE pg 713:

(quote on)

I remember looking inside the chest cavity and I could see the

probe...through the pleura [the lining of the chest cavity]...You

could actually see where it was making an indentation...where

it was pushing the skin up...There was no entry into the chest

cavity...it would have been no way that that could have exited

in the front because it was then low in the chest cavity...

somewhere around the junction of the descending aorta [the

main artery carrying blood from the heart] or the bronchus in

the lungs.

(quote off)

Chester H. Boyers was the chief Petty Officer in charge of the

Pathology Department at Bethesda in November 1963. This is

from Boyers signed affidavit:

(quote on)

Another wound was located near the right shoulder blade, more

specifically just under the scapula and next to it.

(quote off)

That's consistent with T3 or lower.

Secret Service Agent Glen Bennett reported, "I saw a shot hit the

Boss about four inches down from the right shoulder."

Secret Service Agent Clint Hill, who was at the autopsy, testified

before the Warren Commission:

(quote on)

Yes, sir; I saw an opening in the back, about 6 inches below the

neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column.

(quote off)

This sample should carry the flavor of the variety of anatomical

landmarks all these people used to describe the same thing -- T3.

Well, where does the shoulder begin? Where the neck begins to taper or where the arm connects at the shoulder socket? And those that gave an estimate as to how far below the shoulder, how many of them, including Burkley, measured? The entrance at T1 is a shoulder wound, a back wound. It was a lie that this wound was on the neck. If the photo was faked why not just put the wound on the neck?

Because of the holes in the clothes. They had 4 different wound locations:

(1) the actual wound at T3, a photo of which Rankin noted

2) and (3) the two seperate wound locations in the autopsy report locating the wound

at just above the upper margin of the scapula (T2) and 13cm below the mastoid process

(C7/T1)

(4) the Rydberg drawing.

By buying into your own pet theory about (3), Pat, you're perpetuating the cover-up.

BTW, when Rankin was discussing the "picture" he was obviously discussing the face sheet. Notice that he does not say "photograph."

Notice he doesn;'t say "drawing" or "diagram" either. We'll get to what

he actually said after this brief exposition...

If a 4 year old draws a stick figure he might call it a "picture."

But when adults use the word "picture" -- as in, "Hey mister, will you

take our picture?" -- they're refering to a photgraph.

Rankin: "the bullet entered below the shoulder blade to the right of the backbone."

Rankin couldn't see the shoulder blade on the face sheet -- he could see it

in the photograph.

Many descriptions of the wound noted it just below the upper margin

of the scapula -- so Rankin's observation was based on something

he could see -- a wound right below the upper margin of the shoulder blade.

Rankin refered to two anatomical landmarks that don't show up on the face

sheet. The comment doesn't make sense applied to the face sheet.

Edited December 30, 2006 by Cliff Varnell

[Bill Miller]

David, the man is a fraud and a humbug, as has been proven conclusively twice earlier in this very thread. It's in the record. It's inarguable. He knowingly and willfully set out to deceive, and he's been caught red-handed and exposed by me, and all he's done ever since is shriek inane and vapid insults about the person who exposed him for the charlatan he is.

What else can he do? You noticed he hasn't even apologized for having made a "mistake" for either of his frauds I exposed. You know why? Because it wasn't a mistake either time. It was knowing, willful, and intentional.

Ashton, you are the only idiot making such claims. If you would like, I bet that I can make a clip showing the Nix film in really slow motion so you can follow Jackie's white gloves. Your taking on Hitler's way of thinking that if you tell a lie enough times that it will become the truth will not work with intelligent people.

As I established long ago, the 3D model was created using the standard Dealey Plaza plats for placement of every building, road, and major landmark.

As I've also acknowledged repeatedly, the elevations of the Plaza infield and roads heading down into the underpass are a concern to me and are not guaranteed, but they are as close as I have been able reasonably to determine so far, and work continues on it.

No matter where you got your data, if it doesn't replicate the real life views, then the 3D model is flawed and deemed worthless for what you are attempting to use it for. For you to keep beating that dead horse reminds me of the saying that goes something like this .... 'The difference between a smart man and a stupid one is that the stupid never knows when he is wrong.' If you think I am being hard on you, then read the last sentence of your reply again where it says that your 3D views are of a concern to you and cannot be gauranteed. In that sentence you are telling this forum that you have repeatidly ran up response after response bad mouthing possible lines of sight by way of using a model that you had concerns about its accuracy. Now if that isn't one for the books!

Bill Miller