Jack White: Questions

[Larry Peters]

dgh04: Mr. Peter's -- evidently you can't find the website where your questions about JFK related photos/films discussed in TGZFH are debated. I use to call it the dueling WEBSITE bake off.... Not to worry I'll post the URL for you, you may then witness what *real* PHOTO researchers have to say about the subject. Both Pro and Con -- you know any of the following folks...

Joe Durnavich - Louis Girdler - James Gordon - Ron Hepler - Barb Junkkarinen - Craig Lamson - Dave Perry - Josiah Thompson - David Wimp. Ready for an education on the subject matter? If not you will...

--------------------

Mr. Healy - you are speaking in favor of the film and photo alteration claims called into question from TGZFH. Because you are saying the critique Miller did is in error, some of which has been presented here without you offering one shred of a rubutal, I assume you know why the claims of film alteration are accurate, so please start telling us what they are. Would you like for me to go fetch another claim and see if it may be one you can actually address?

[David G. Healy]

dgh04: Mr. Peter's -- evidently you can't find the website where your questions about JFK related photos/films discussed in TGZFH are debated. I use to call it the dueling WEBSITE bake off.... Not to worry I'll post the URL for you, you may then witness what *real* PHOTO researchers have to say about the subject. Both Pro and Con -- you know any of the following folks...

Joe Durnavich - Louis Girdler - James Gordon - Ron Hepler - Barb Junkkarinen - Craig Lamson - Dave Perry - Josiah Thompson - David Wimp. Ready for an education on the subject matter? If not you will...

--------------------

Mr. Healy - you are speaking in favor of the film and photo alteration claims called into question from TGZFH. Because you are saying the critique Miller did is in error, some of which has been presented here without you offering one shred of a rubutal, I assume you know why the claims of film alteration are accurate, so please start telling us what they are. Would you like for me to go fetch another claim and see if it may be one you can actually address?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

dgh05: thanks Mr. Peter's, I thought you might know one of the above select photo researchers. Why is info so difficult to attain from some of these "preservers of history"? How's the weather in Scotland?

The URL will be up at Midnight US - PDT, have a nice weekend!

David Healy

----------

[Larry Peters]

dgh05: thanks Mr. Peter's, I thought you might know one of the above select photo researchers. Why is info so difficult to attain from some of these "preservers of history"? How's the weather in Scotland?

Mr. Healy - the only place where getting information has been difficult to do has been from you and your never addressing the point replies. An example of this is your asking how the weather is in Scotland ... what kind of a question is that? Do a web search if you want to see what the weather is like around the world.

Edited July 10, 2004 by Larry Peters

[Paul Kerrigan]

And I want to know; If the films weren't altered, how do you explain the violent backwards head snap?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You need to be more specific - what is there about the head snapping backwards that would make you think the films were altered because I have never read or heard where any witnesses have ever said that Kennedy's head did anything other than what has been seen on the assassination films?

BTW - some of the frames that were in the newspaper were showing Jackie on the back of the car after the shots. I am certain that frame Z313 was not placed in the newspaper. A lot of libraries carry major newspapers on microfilm. Contact a branch near you and ask if the Dallas Morning News or Dallas Hearld are on microfilm there and if they have them, then you can go in and scroll through them looking for these published frames.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

JFK's head going violently backwards. How can that be explained? And please don't say that a bullet caused it because that is impossible. Not bullet could have forcefully knocked JFK's head and body backwards so violently.

[Larry Peters]

And I want to know; If the films weren't altered, how do you explain the violent backwards head snap?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Without the ability to post images at the moment this may be tough for some to follow, but I'll give it a shot anyway. First of all, I am not sure why you'd think that a bullet cannot cause JFK's head to snap back and to the left? Some of the top leading forensic pathologist, regardless of which direction they believe the shot came from, have attributed JFK's head movement to being shot in the head.

I think I have already said that there is evidence that the bones on the back of JFK's skull were sprung outward. I called attention to this with profiles of Kennedy's head as seen in both the Nix and Zapruder films. On Lancer there is a two frame clip showing a stabilized view of JFK at the moment his head rocks forward and then explodes in a backward direction. That clip shows JFK's head tilt forward while his shoulders are driven backwards. The author of that clip stated that when he consulted some medical personnel that he found that a blow to the head from the front and on a downward trajectory, while in the same forward posture as JFK, would do exactly what was seen in the clip that was presented. An easy way to test this observation is to sit with your head bowed to the front as JFK was at Z312. Next, have someone hit you in the back of the head and see what happens. You should find that your head and shoulders move forward. Now if someone hits you in the head somewhere on the top of the skull from where the bone plate came loose and with a front to back downward impact as the bullet would have done - you will find that your head rocks forward and your shoulder's are driven backwards. This causes a type of whiplash effect in reverse and the force of this effect is what snapped JFK's head back against the seat. This stabilized clip and data was then presented to Al Carrier who then shared it with some of the experts he works around. Al is a 20+ year officer and has a CSI background. Al Carrier then posted on Lancer his findings and they were supportive of the events described here for you. A search on Lancer under the name "head shot" may pull up the threads that dealt with this issue. I hope this has been somewhat helpful. I think it is better described and detailed on Lancer.

[Paul Kerrigan]

And I want to know; If the films weren't altered, how do you explain the violent backwards head snap?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Without the ability to post images at the moment this may be tough for some to follow, but I'll give it a shot anyway. First of all, I am not sure why you'd think that a bullet cannot cause JFK's head to snap back and to the left? Some of the top leading forensic pathologist, regardless of which direction they believe the shot came from, have attributed JFK's head movement to being shot in the head.

I think I have already said that there is evidence that the bones on the back of JFK's skull were sprung outward. I called attention to this with profiles of Kennedy's head as seen in both the Nix and Zapruder films. On Lancer there is a two frame clip showing a stabilized view of JFK at the moment his head rocks forward and then explodes in a backward direction. That clip shows JFK's head tilt forward while his shoulders are driven backwards. The author of that clip stated that when he consulted some medical personnel that he found that a blow to the head from the front and on a downward trajectory, while in the same forward posture as JFK, would do exactly what was seen in the clip that was presented. An easy way to test this observation is to sit with your head bowed to the front as JFK was at Z312. Next, have someone hit you in the back of the head and see what happens. You should find that your head and shoulders move forward. Now if someone hits you in the head somewhere on the top of the skull from where the bone plate came loose and with a front to back downward impact as the bullet would have done - you will find that your head rocks forward and your shoulder's are driven backwards. This causes a type of whiplash effect in reverse and the force of this effect is what snapped JFK's head back against the seat. This stabilized clip and data was then presented to Al Carrier who then shared it with some of the experts he works around. Al is a 20+ year officer and has a CSI background. Al Carrier then posted on Lancer his findings and they were supportive of the events described here for you. A search on Lancer under the name "head shot" may pull up the threads that dealt with this issue. I hope this has been somewhat helpful. I think it is better described and detailed on Lancer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have been unable to locate this shoulder whiplash demonstration on JFK Lancer but I did find an interview with literally, a rocket scientist. He had this to say.

G: It is common knowledge that, as captured by Abraham Zapruder, President Kennedy's head and upper torso lurch energetically immediately following the explosion of his head. Could this movement have been caused by the directly transferred momentum of a bullet? That is, can a bullet "push" somebody like that?

MacP: No, and no. The movement of a body due to bullet momentum cannot be greater than the movement of the same body if it was holding the gun that fired the bullet. This is a result of elementary physics and is not disputed by anyone who understands physics.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/macpher.htm

You also cite Dr. Peters saying that the large head wound was only visible from certain angles. That is not how others describe it. Other doctors and non-medical personnel describe and avulsed, exploded-out wound to the rear of the head. Secret Service Special Agent Roy Kellerman said, describing the rear of the head "the skull part was removed." But at frame 321, you can get a good look at the back of the head and you see no blood or brain matter, nor any large wound.

For the sake of argument, let's say Kennedy's head was driven backward by the force of a bullet. Where was the shooter located?

[Anthony Frank]

On January 23, 1964, the doctors who worked on Kennedy described the effort to save his life in an article in the Texas State Journal of Medicine.

“Dr. William Kemp Clark, a specialist in head injuries, said most of the right side of the back of the skull was gone . . . Dr. Charles J. Carrico, the first physician to see Mr. Kennedy, noted two external wounds, one in the neck and another in his head. In the head wound, he saw shredded brain tissue.” [Washington Post, 1-25-64, page 4]

An article on November 23, 1963, the day after Kennedy was shot, said that Dr. Clark had described Kennedy’s head wound as “a large gaping wound with considerable loss of tissue.” [Washington Post, 11-23-63, page 9]

On December 18, 1963, the Washington Post reported that the “as yet unofficial report of pathologists who performed the autopsy on the President’s body the night of November 22” says that “the second bullet to hit the President tore off the right rear portion of his head so destructively as to be ‘completely incompatible with life.’”

Let's face it. He was hit by a rifle shot to the front. His head would not remain stationary when the bullet impacted with enough force to blast through his head and blow the back of his skull off.

Where the shooter was does not matter.

Edited July 12, 2004 by Anthony Frank

[Larry Peters]

You also cite Dr. Peters saying that the large head wound was only visible from certain angles.  That is not how others describe it.  Other doctors and non-medical personnel describe and avulsed, exploded-out wound to the rear of the head.  Secret Service Special Agent Roy Kellerman said, describing the rear of the head "the skull part was removed."  But at frame 321, you can get a good look at the back of the head and you see no blood or brain matter, nor any large wound.

If you are refering to the MPI version of the Zapruder film which is somewhat dark and blured - I can see your point only in part. The back of the head had to be split open because of the coning effect that is seen of the back of the head. The back portion of the head as seen on the Zapruder film has been described as looking like the butt end of a watermelon by some. For the head to reach that shape - it has to split open. The fact that the Zapruder film doesn't offer us clear and complete images does not mean the back of the head is not open.

MacP: No, and no. The movement of a body due to bullet momentum cannot be greater than the movement of the same body if it was holding the gun that fired the bullet. This is a result of elementary physics and is not disputed by anyone who understands physics.

I'm not sure that a rocket scientist would stand up in court with a forensic pathologist. I know that Cyril Wecht and the medical people Miller spoke to did not share this man's opinion. I would had to of been there to see how they explained the angle of the shot and how the body absorbed the impact so to know he was told the same things the doctors had said to Miller when he spoke to them.

Edited July 12, 2004 by Larry Peters

[Larry Peters]

Photo attachment test was unsuccessful.

Edited July 12, 2004 by Larry Peters

[Paul Kerrigan]

Photo attachment test was unsuccessful.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In both films, you can plainly see that there is no explosion of blood and brain matter out the back of the head which was reported by at least four witnesses. Officer Bobby Hargis was hit so hard by brain matter that he thought he had been struck by a bullet. The very quick explosion on the top of the head could not have caused this.

If blood sprayed out of the top of the head at this point, then Mrs. Kennedy should have been plastered with blood and brains but you can clearly see she was not.

[Larry Peters]

In both films, you can plainly see that there is no explosion of blood and brain matter out the back of the head which was reported by at least four witnesses.  Officer Bobby Hargis was hit so hard by brain matter that he thought he had been struck by a bullet.  The very quick explosion on the top of the head could not have caused this. 

If blood sprayed out of the top of the head at this point, then Mrs. Kennedy should have been plastered with blood and brains but you can clearly see she was not.

Yes, and that brain matter was traveling close to the speed of the bullet. By the time Zapruder frame 313 was exposed - the skull flap was already off the head and the spray in midair. The back spatter moves much slower than the bullet did and by the time that frame was exposed - much of the debris coming out of the back of the head through the avulsed bones was long gone out of the film frame. The mist that came off the top of the head was slowed down because of the air flow and it was allowed to be seen for two to three film frames until it dissipated.

By the way - I have seen enhancements of Mrs. Kennedy's face and there is bloody debris stuck to her face.

[Larry Peters]

The Nix film showing the moment of the head shot seems to have been exposed a fraction of a second sooner than Zapruder's frame #313 was. If you watch the film closely - you should be able to pick up on the skull bone that is seen in Z313 that flew upward and to the front which may have landed near Altgens feet. Nix picks that bone up in flight just as it is leaving the immediate area around JFK's head. You should also see a piece of bone flying towards the rear at the same instant which seems to have possibly been the bone that landed at the curb near assassination witness Charles Brehm. That bone and debris was already out of the frame when Zapruder captured the head explosion.

The blood spatter at impact and the coning effect that it left behind will be in the next photo. Note that the back spray seen at impact in the photo example is just what is seen in the Nix and Zapruder film, while the much narrower debris pattern follows the bullets path.

(Click on the Nix frame to start in motion)

Edited July 13, 2004 by Larry Peters

[Robert Howard]

I have a question for Jack, and thank God it does not have anything to do with disputes over the Zapruder or Moorman films.

In the Book Forgive My Grief Vol IV, there is a high quality photograph, albeit taken from a distance which shows a figure walking along the railroad tracks, [ostensibly between the Texas School Book Depository and the long ago torn down Cobb Stadium,] with the caption 15 minutes after the assassination a woman is seen running on the West Side of the Texas School Book Depository along the railroad tracks.

The photo is not credited, but the quality is such, that I would think it is undoubtedly out of the Warren Commissions Photo Exhibits, are you familiar with the photo?

PS This photo is not exactly a treasure trove as far as being able to use it for ID purposes, the only thing about the image that qualifies it as identifying a woman is that said person is wearing a dress, or from a distance looks like a dress.

still I think it is important.

Edited November 6, 2008 by Robert Howard

[Jack White]

I have a question for Jack, and thank God it does not have anything to do with disputes over the Zapruder or Moorman films.

In the Book Forgive My Grief Vol IV, there is a high quality photograph, albeit taken from a distance which shows a figure walking along the railroad tracks, [ostensibly between the Texas School Book Depository and the long ago torn down Cobb Stadium,] with the caption 15 minutes after the assassination a woman is seen running on the West Side of the Texas School Book Depository along the railroad tracks.

The photo is not credited, but the quality is such, that I would think it is undoubtedly out of the Warren Commissions Photo Exhibits, are you familiar with the photo?

PS This photo is not exactly a treasure trove as far as being able to use it for ID purposes, the only thing about the image that qualifies it as identifying a woman is that said person is wearing a dress, or from a distance looks like a dress.

still I think it is important.

To me that is a totally irrelevant photo. It probably is a woman walking along railroad tracks. She appears to

be walking toward downtown, not Cobb Stadium, which was about a mile to the north. Penn sometimes was

suspicious of innocuous things.

Jack

[Robert Howard]

To me that is a totally irrelevant photo. It probably is a woman walking along railroad tracks. She appears to

be walking toward downtown, not Cobb Stadium, which was about a mile to the north. Penn sometimes was

suspicious of innocuous things.

Jack

Thanks for responding, the direction she was walking was not obvious to me, as well as the significance, or insignificance of the photo. Regardless of Penn's shortcomings, I believe it is a sad state of affairs that there are so many of the current generation of researchers, who are unaware, for the most part of the contribution he made, and that in my mind his work is essential to be aware of unless, youre sitting on the sidelines.

Every time I get an opportunity to peruse his work, there is something that I find really striking.

Example the Robert Perrin - Zack Starr identity issue, one of the issues I recently looked at mentioned the possibility that a CIA Agent may have been living underneath Jack Ruby before the assassination. But I am sure you already knew that.

Thanks Again.

Robert