Bernice Moore Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 (edited) These described resuscitative activities were indicated as of first importance, and after they were carried out, attention was turned to other evidences of injury. There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that part of the right cerebellum had protruded from the wound. There were also fragmented sections of brain on the drapes of the emergency room cart. With the institution of adequate cardiac compression, there was a great flow of blood from the cranial cavity, indicating that there was much vascular damage as well as brain tissue damage. President Kennedy was pronounced dead at 1 p.m. It is Dr. Jenkins' personal feeling that all methods of resuscitation were instituted expeditiously and efficiently. However, he says, the cranial and intracranial damage was of such magnitude as to cause irreversible damage......"" Their information cannot be left out nor taken lightly in any study of the wounds, if all is not considered then IMO any study will end up wanting.. No a final word from Abraham Zapruder...... Even Abraham Zapruder himself stated. . At 9:55 p.m. Dallas time on November 22..United States PRS Special Agent Maxwell D. Phillips sent a hand-written memo (Warren Commission Document, CD87) to U.S. Secret Service Chief James Rowley. That accompanied one of the first generation copies said of Zapruder's origins of at least one shot, "According to Mr Zapruder the position of the assassin was behind Mr Zapruder."..... Behind Mr. Zapruder was the Dealey Plaza grassy knoll......no matter how you try to twist his body around, as he filmed.....However (by the time) in his testimony to the Warren Commission Zapruder was less certain..though I believe he mentions the shot came from behind him no less that three times..but finally replies as he was instructed ? to.... Thanks B...... Showing the scull from the back..... Bernice, you seem to imply that Zapruder saw a wound on the back of the head, when his impression that the shots came from behind him, and to the side of Kennedy not front, came from the sound of the shots, (and probably from the location of the wound). There was no visible impact on the back of the head, because there was none at 313. Certainly you've seen Zapruder's on-air interview just after the shots, where he grabs near his temple to show the location of the wound, singular. Not coincidentally, this is the same location pointed out by Newman and Kilduff, and shown in the Z-film and the autopsy photos. But you would rather think they were all wrong, and that the Z-film and autopsy photos are fake, than that the Parkland doctors could be mistaken? Based on what? Half the Parkland witnesses changed their minds once shown the autopsy photos. How many of them will say today that the photos are fake? Even McClelland believes they are legit. The belief that the Parkland witness statements trump all other forms of evidence is irrational, IMO. Your concept that I am stuck in my research is also incorrect. I have continued to study the medical evidence and am still learning. I notice you use the summaries in The Texas State Journal of Medicine to support your belief that the Parkland doctors are credible. If you read their actual statements you'll notice a few things that are quite important. 1) McClelland, the most vocal of the back of the head proponents, originally stated there was an entrance wound on the left side. This is PROOF that his back of the head arguments are a re-construction of his impressions, and not his original impressions. His opinion on this issue should therefore be heavily discounted. 2) Jenkins states that they put Kennedy into the Trendelenburg position to help circulation. The Trendelenburg position is where the patient's feet are lifted 45 degrees above the patient's head. At such time, the top of the patient's head is at the far back of the space of the patient's head. At such time, it would be possible for someone standing at the head of the table to look down into an opening on top of the head, and see the lower back part of the brain, and confuse macerated cerebrum for cerebellum. With Kennedy laying flat on his back, and with a wound on the back of his head, of course, this would be impossible. I am generally a cautious fellow. If I am sure of myself on this issue it's because I've explored the options. We are not camcorders and VCRs. Our impressions are highly liquid, and our memories are highly flawed. You are correct to state that the doctors did not hallucinate. They mis-remembered something in a pattern. As stated, cognitive psychologists study these patterns. There is a well-studied pattern, whereby people have great difficulty mentally rotating faces. You can see a chair from behind and recognize it as a chair. Ditto with a car. But if you see a well-known person's face upside down you'll have great difficulty recognizing them. I believe this offers an explanation for the Parkland mistakes. It has not yet been tested but I will seek to do so in the future. ********************* Pat : Perhaps not cautious enough, to buy the governments findings...but to each their own, that is your right...I imagine all that day will and did not ever forget what they saw..try to analyse it and call anything you want.... Bernice ""At 9:55 p.m. Dallas time on November 22..United States PRS Special Agent Maxwell D. Phillips sent a hand-written memo (Warren Commission Document, CD87) to U.S. Secret Service Chief James Rowley. That accompanied one of the first generation copies said of Zapruder's origins of at least one shot, "According to Mr Zapruder the position of the assassin was behind Mr Zapruder."..... ""Behind Mr. Zapruder was the Dealey Plaza grassy knoll......no matter how you try to twist his body around, as he filmed.....However (by the time) in his testimony to the Warren Commission Zapruder was less certain..though I believe he mentions the shot came from behind him no less that three times..but finally replies as he was instructed ? to...."" Pat ""Bernice, you seem to imply that Zapruder saw a wound on the back of the head, when his impression that the shots came from behind him, and to the side of Kennedy not front, came from the sound of the shots, (and probably from the location of the wound). There was no visible impact on the back of the head, because there was none at 313. Certainly you've seen Zapruder's on-air interview just after the shots, where he grabs near his temple to show the location of the wound, singular. Not coincidentally, this is the same location pointed out by Newman and Kilduff, and shown in the Z-film and the autopsy photos. But you would rather think they were all wrong, and that the Z-film and autopsy photos are fake, than that the Parkland doctors could be mistaken? Based on what? Half the Parkland witnesses changed their minds once shown the autopsy photos. How many of them will say today that the photos are fake? Even McClelland believes they are legit. The belief that the Parkland witness statements trump all other forms of evidence is irrational, IMO. "" Excuse me, I did not imply anything, about Mr. Zapruder , I made his statements known.....but you certainly do and repeatedly.....with your continual interpretations, of what you think that others mean in their posts..not a good habit.......That is irrational . You seem to refuse to even consider all other information, be it from Parkland, or the witnesses, in your continual opinion. All are in error except perhaps where they may agree with the Government autopsy, which complies with the Zapruder fim....and the head shot scenario on the film..with only shots from the back?? therefore agreeing with your presentation....??? The only thing I can think of, is to stop trying to make all agree with the film and the autopsy.....within your scenario.....put the Zapruder film away for awhile, concentrate on all else...........do not pick and choose whom you believe and whom you do not....what fits and what does not........study and accept it all, as you go along, for what they say.....from Parkland and the Witnesses.....and then see, if what you find complies with the film...and the Governments report of their Official Autopsy Report......Just a thought... Oh BTW........There were others that mention a wound from the left, not only McClelland...see previous post....... All are still learning Pat...get to it...... B.. Edited March 8, 2007 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Black Posted March 8, 2007 Author Share Posted March 8, 2007 ALL MEMBERS....PLEASE READ As the originator of this thread...in an attempt that it not DEGENERATE to be a repeat of hundreds of others which have over saturated the subject, I requested something. I CLEARLY and DEFINITELY stated "several times in no uncertain terms", that this ONE THREAD consider ONLY TESTIMONY taken on the afternoon of ll/22/63 by the staff at Parkland Trauma and the testimony given ONLY on the "afternoon" of 11/22/63 by the eyewitnesses in Dealey Plaza to the Bullet Hits. I set these parameters, not to be dictatorial, but to prevent this thread from becoming another of hundreds of discussions regarding the Warren Report and the HSCA. I set these time parameters for one reason only. It does not matter to me if one or a hundred believe as I do the following statement. The most credible eyewitness testimony should be that given at the nearest time to when the event takes place....for two primary reasons...1) Memory does not improve with the passage of time and 2) and the passage of time allows other factors and other statements and perhaps fears to enter the thoughts of the interrogated. In that my question was very specific, and even might be considered a challenge, I feel that I have the right to so control what I clearly requested. I am not attempting to curtail free speech as any of you can originate a thread and discuss whatever you care to. Tho I think it impossible if any one miscomprehended, what I asked is very simply this. I feel that there were two groups of live individuals who were closest to and most likely to correctly evaluate the bullet strikes to JFK. One group which should be regarded as "expert" by any court, should be the experienced and highly qualified Parkland Hospital Trauma Team. The other group which although has come under attack by SOME naysayers and detractors, were those Dealey Plaza eyewitnesses who were within feet of the bullet strikes and "ONLY" THE TESTIMONIES WHICH THEY GAVE ON THE "AFTERNOON" OF THE ASSASSINATION. Testimonies which were given prior to being influenced by other opinins, fears, and pressures. I do not feel that my reasoning for HOLDING this topic to ONLY those two points is a mystery. To restate it very clearly.....I believe with my heart and with every gram of brain tissue which I might posess, that since the eyewitnesses and the EXPERT medical opinion given within minutes and hours of the assassination are not LIES, that this should be proof to any reasonable person that the GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED ZAPRUDER FILM, CANNOT be correct, as it dispays a completely different scenario to that which was reported. The U.S. government case is BUILT on this piece of film and the expected naivete and gullibilility of the American public to believe such a ridiculous lie "that this film could not have been subjected to frame excision and other alteration because it is tecnologically impossibe to be able to do so without detection." And many of you have believed this! Please lets use our heads....do you believe, because the "conspirators", and the conspirator controlled witnesses, propose to you "a prepared argument that it is impossible to undetectably alter this film"....which they, PRESIDENTIAL MURDERERS, attest to, and who have been the only persons in"control" of this film, that you should be gullible enough to place your trust in them and swallow it ? Yes I believe that there is no difference in Life Magazine control and intelligence agency control ! This is Child's Play ! This is why I feel that this subject is important enough to not allow some who might like to divert it, do so ! Pat Speer. I personally think that you are on a far off tract, if you feel that this case is based on the "incognizance" of medical experts ! I am sorry if this has been a tongue lashing, but I can think of nothing more importamt in this case that points to assassination as a direct result of conspiracy. Charlie Black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 (edited) IMO arguing over the authenticity of the Z film is useless, except that it can be used to distract. To begin with, the film is not needed to prove conspiracy. Secondly, one has to be something of an expert in photography or filmmaking to make the case that the film could be and/or has been altered or not, yet "experts" disagree on it, some in the alteration camp and some in the opposite camp. And one has to be something of an expert to understand the arguments and judge who is right. The best case against alteration that I have seen made by an "expert" was made by Bill Miller, in extended discussions on the Lancer forum. But that's just my impression, since in the final analysis I don't know a pixel from a pixie. So who is right? I'll be damned if I know. And I have no reason to believe that I will ever know. In sum, to me it's a waste of time. It's like arguing how many Oswalds were Oswald and how many were imposters, or how many angels can stand on the head of a pin. Where does it get you? Nowhere. Edited March 8, 2007 by Ron Ecker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mark Valenti Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Ron, I agree with you. The best, most effective way to try and determine what happened would be to pretend the Z film doesn't exist. Just concentrate on evidence that would be admitted in a court of law. Testimony, physical evidence, forensics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Black Posted March 8, 2007 Author Share Posted March 8, 2007 Hello Ron and Mark Excellent idea, but untrue and can't be done. The Z film is always the foremost argument of the nonconspiracists. If the film weren't altered why do they stake their entire credibility in an effort to prove that it is genuine. You are I feel incorrect in one major sense. The proof of it's inauthenticity would be the ONLY factor required to prove conspiracy. Beyond ANY doubt ! I personally feel that there is absolutely no way that you will be able to PROVE conspiracy without debunking the Z film. You act as if this lone assassin theory is in any way based on common sense. It is based only that a rifle belonging to LHO was found in the TSBD where he worked...that he had theoretically "defected" to the Soviet Union, tho he chose to return, and was also believed to be Pro Castro. The TIMING of the shots in the faked film provided the "PROOF" that it was possible, according to our government investigations. The film and the manipulation of its timing of shots is their proof. This is why they have gone to such elaborate measures to prove to we stupid people, that they, THE TRULY LEARNED, must use a few million words to, in detail, explain the insurmountable complexities that would face some of the worlds brightest people, were they to even attempt that impossibility. They are defending that film with everything that they have, because they realize that they MUST. I feel that this issue is the ONLY obstacle in correcting history. Charlie Black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 I personally feel that there is absolutely no way that you will be able to PROVE conspiracy without debunking the Z film. Conspiracy has been proven without any reference to the Z film. The known positions of JFK's back and throat wounds show conclusively that at least four shots were needed to inflict all of his and Connally's wounds. To conclude otherwise is to deny the laws of physics. They are defending that film with everything that they have, because they realize that they MUST. No, they are defending the SBT with everything they have, Peter Jennings went to his grave defending it with his sickening "Beyond Conspiracy" program, highlighted by Dale Myers's sickening animation, which is based on the back wound moved up to the fraudulent Rydberg position (no fault of Rydberg). We can look forward to annual reruns plus still more versions of the same unmitigated SBT crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Brown Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Ron, Mark & Charles I would have thought that if the Zapruder film did not exit there would be: (i) No need for a single bullet theory. (ii) No need to explain to interested people on both sides of the Atlantic, using obscure physical theory that ' A Back and to the left head movement' actually proves a head shot from the rear. (iii) We may not be discussing this right now because this web page might not exist. Chris Brown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Ron, I agree with you. The best, most effective way to try and determine what happened would be to pretend the Z film doesn't exist. Just concentrate on evidence that would be admitted in a court of law. Testimony, physical evidence, forensics. Ron, I agree with you. The best, most effective way to try and determine what happened would be to pretend the Z film doesn't exist. Just concentrate on evidence that would be admitted in a court of law. Testimony, physical evidence, forensics. What a completely asinine idea! Who ever heard of attempting to resolve a crime by concentrating on the forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical evidence? Not to mention the correlation of actual witness testimony. You must be a "communist" or else have some such political persuasion Mark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Black Posted March 9, 2007 Author Share Posted March 9, 2007 Hello Chris I agree ! Ron, in one sense you too, I feel, are correct. But, we don't need to disprove the Z film to most of those who already believe in conspiracy. We don't need a maximum number of shots in a controlled time period, because most who believe in conspiracy, feel that between four and nine shots were fired, and that they need not fit into a specific time frame. The other side needs a time frame, because they must conclude that one gunman was firing with a bolt operated weapon, from which a limited number of spent cartridge cases were ejected, and that there was another "live" round available that had not been fired. Their distorted time frame is upheld, they feel, by the distorted film. There are people who will ALWAYS believe in this Z film, "because it is there". There are also untold numbers of people who believe that their government does not lie. That is why George Bush's popularity rating has not reached zero....yet ! They have "nothing else" on which to base their NON THEORY ! This crutch, imho, MUST be removed. Only then will this hapless theory lie still, like the "smelly dead fish" which it certainly is. It is not ourselves, Ron, whom we must convince ! Charlie Black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 I would have thought that if the Zapruder film did not exit there would be:(i) No need for a single bullet theory. The SBT was needed because a third person was wounded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 we don't need to disprove the Z film to most of those who already believe in conspiracy. I think we are arguing in circles. To repeat, we don't need to disprove the Z film, period (assuming that it's not authentic), since conspiracy is proven by physics and human anatomy. There are people who will ALWAYS believe in this Z film,Fine. The Z film shows evidence of a frontal shot whether it's authentic or not. Which is simply amazing if it was tampered with!Some people will always believe in the Z film because even "experts" disagree on whether it was altered. You are basically arguing for proof of something that cannot be proven, when such proof isn't necessary to prove what has already been proven. What we need to do is spend just a fraction of the energy that people expend trying to disprove the Z film on showing people what has already been proven beyond doubt, which is that the SBT is ridiculous. There are also untold numbers of people who believe that their government does not lie. Those people are beyond any help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Black Posted March 9, 2007 Author Share Posted March 9, 2007 Ron I am very sorry, but I cannot grasp the "point" which you are attempting to make. I feel that you are merely searching for "debate" at which I am not very proficient. As a matter of fact I have stated my beliefs to the extent, that my saying more would no doubt be redundant. I feel that I have been quite specific and that I have little of any more consequence that I can say. In my mind at least, the question has not nor will ever be answered, and I have nothing more that I can personally add. Ron ! If you truly believe that we have proven "conspiracy" to the world at large.....why does this forum exist? Some seem to think that it exists to spew and re-spew the same overly argued positions forever. These forums will continue, in my not very humble opinion, until someone is able to completely destroy the crutch, which is the Z film, that the single assassinists rely upon. It is brought up to you several times each day on this forum alone. Ignoring it and stating that, "It is there, but I, myself know better", will not make it go away. You must understand that THEY have to use their interpretation of this film to support the basis of this theory. Theory being that this mis-aligned piece of junk could fire so many deadly shots in the time frame which this film theoretically depicts. In my opinion Ron you have actually made "NO POINT". This adulterated film is held in as high esteem by some, as "The Holy Virgin" ! Not looking at it does not make it go away ! Charlie Black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 If you truly believe that we have proven "conspiracy" to the world at large.....why does this forum exist? IMO this forum exists to try to find out who did it. Everything discussed is toward that end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Black Posted March 10, 2007 Author Share Posted March 10, 2007 If you truly believe that we have proven "conspiracy" to the world at large.....why does this forum exist? IMO this forum exists to try to find out who did it. Everything discussed is toward that end. Ron We certainly have a major difference of opinion. I know "WHO" did it, other than the mechanics who actually pulled the trigger. I merely need a way to show the world that the conspiracy of Z film alteration could "only" be accomplished by those "Elite Few" who controlled the assassination and cover up. I know of no other way that there exists an opportunity of proving it. Proving altration, in fact, proves conspiracy. It cannot be proven on the real evdence which is based on physics, timing, ballistics, or evn a definite agreement on proof of the type wounds inflicted. If you study Pat Speer's contributions, you will even become unsure of the best evidence......which I personally feel is the "expert testimony" of the Parkland Staff. I feel that some "profesessed" conspiracy theorists are actually aiding (by intention or not), the continuation of the pursuit of tangents....time delay is the conspirators strongest ally. The conspirators have always KNOWN this......thus we have the continued introduction of inumerable tangents, which have kept this case from being solved. I am convinced that the only way to prove conspiracy to the "baser" masses, is to show them in a reasonable, easily understood manner, that alteration was both possible and proveable. Since I am speaking of someting which I personally do not have the technology to prove on a higher level, perhaps frame excision, and the effects which it can produce and change on a strip of film might be the simplest manner. I will re re-state, that regardless of arguments of physics, ballistics and actual wounds, it is essential to show to a mass audience, how the most basic type of alteration, can change the image and provide for a "truly false" timing of incidents. Even though a large percentage of people believe that Oswald Alone, did not kill JFK.....you enter a completely different realm when you attempt to show them, "which REAL high level persons" designed, promoted and propelled" a Coup d' Etat. We have taken upon ourselves the fruitless task of attempting to prove negatives, rather than showing that what was done, could only have been done, with the absolute support of the highest government levels. I contnue to attack Zapruder for one reason only. It is the "only crutch" by which the shot timing can be so contrlolled that makes the "truly impossible feat" seem even "remotely possible." It is the only way to indicate to the masses that the shots were possible in the alloted time frame: although they fail to tell us that "GOD" or some Higher Power had to be aiming and firing the rifle. Ron, aside from what is in the minds of "SOME Researchers".....there is nothing that has been proven to those whom matter and can demand change of the "History Books"! The most assured way, in my very limited thinking, is to prove but ONE THING. Alteration=Conspiracy ! Charlie Black PS Ron, I have nothing against poor old Mr. Abe Zapruder....only what has been done with his little strip of film ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted March 10, 2007 Share Posted March 10, 2007 (edited) Proving altration, in fact, proves conspiracy. It cannot be proven on the real evdence which is based on physics, timing, ballistics, or evn a definite agreement on proof of the type wounds inflicted. Then conspiracy can't be "proven." The same thing is said about the theory of evolution. All I can say is that the evidence for both is overwhelming. If you study Pat Speer's contributions, you will even become unsure of the best evidence......which I personally feel is the "expert testimony" of the Parkland Staff.I disagree with Pat, so don't count me among the "unsure." I am convinced that the only way to prove conspiracy to the "baser" masses, is to show them in a reasonable, easily understood manner, that alteration was both possible and proveable. I do not see how this could possibly be proven in an "easily understood manner" to the "baser masses" when I do not understand it myself. I am one of the baser masses. What percentage of them do you think could even tell you how a camera works, much less understand the technicalities and jargon involved in film alteration arguments pro and con? You've got knowledgeable folks like Bill Miller who counter the alterationists, and as a baser mass I have no idea if Bill is right. What he has had to say of a technical nature about how the film could not have been altered without detection sounded good to me, and I recall no effective rebuttal in the discussions I read. But again I cannot judge. You are talking about a subject, Charlie, that is not easily understood. (I'm talking about technical stuff, not things like shoes changing color or disappearing in the film, which IMO is just silliness.) The alterationists may be right, but they as well as the Bill Millers might as well be trying to explain quantum mechanics (which no less than Einstein said was a bunch of bunk) to the baser masses. But there are other things that point to conspiracy, such as, for example, the location of a bullet wound in JFK's back, a location known from an official photograph of the wound and eyewitness testimony, that is easily understandable and is the best way to go. Edited March 10, 2007 by Ron Ecker 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