JFK Assassination Forum

       

         Not sure on this as it seems to be part of the film that's missing but several things aren't right - the crowd on the left is wrong there is shade on the sidewalk on the left which isn't in Zapruder and the film is taken from further back - you can see the whole of the Stemmons sign. People are waving and jumping up and down and the limo hasn't arrived yet and exact opposite in Zapruder not a single wave from that group Maybe film from one of the re-enactments made to look old?

Possibly a reenactment for the JFK movie or something similar. Time of day and/or time of year is wrong (the shadows give that much away).

Please post some diagram that shows how it’s possible for a shot fired from TSBD 6th floor SE window thru JFKs back that exited  his throat to line up with JCs thigh wound without that bullet having gone thru some part of JCs  body before impacting his inner  left thigh.

Here:


The key is realizing that the first shot occurred just as JFK cleared the oak tree branches. He was opposite the first lamp post at that time. According to the WC map off Dealey Plaza that was at z187.

To be physical evidence of a shot you need something that tells you JBC’s movement could only have resulted from a bullet to the back. All the movement you see in JBC is consistent with voluntary motion reacting to hearing the sound of the first shot.

Besides, you want to use JBC’s statements of what he thought was his position at the time of the first shot to support your view. So you are relying on witness evidence that you say is not reliable.


As far as experts disagreeing with a second shot striking JBC at z271-272  (I don’t consider FBIs Robert Frazier to be a qualified medical expert)  or the bullet through JFK striking JBC in the left thigh directly, I would certainly appreciate it if you could point them out.  As far as I am aware no medical or ballistics expert has even considered the JFK throat to JBC thigh trajectory.

Andrew, we were discussing the evidence of a missed first shot. You have inexplicably changed the subject and misapplying the quote. 

You believe there is solid evidence the Zapruder film was altered?
Familiarise yourself with Roland Zavada and his report on the authentification of the Zapruder film. You can then put any silly notions of alteration behind you.

I agree. The experts (it wasn't just Zavada although he was, from what I've read, the most knowledgeable person about the film/camera) who studied the film said they saw no alteration. What are we to do with this pretty important conclusion? Just dismiss it? Zavada was a serious man, an expert on the camera and the film.

As to the doctor's accounts on the head wound:
Let's ask the question: Why would those *emergency* room doctors (remember: not all of them said back of the head; some said side; *see below) at Parkland in a, as they explained, brief hurried setting, be correct about the location of the wound but the autopsy doctors at Bethesda who examined the president for four hours and closely studied the head wrong? What makes the first group right and the second group wrong?

To put it differently: You have one group of doctors whose job it was to save the patient and NOT study the wounds and another group of doctors whose job it was TO study the wounds and not save the patient (since he was, of course, dead). So we have two completely different situations. Which one is more likely to "get it right"? Why would anyone rely on the ER doctors over the autopsy doctors? What makes that conclusion correct?

Moreover, the doctors at Bethesda have films, x-rays and photos - physical evidence - that supports their explanation. The Parkland doctors have none of that.

It seems to me that if you weigh the Parkland doctors accounts versus the Bethesda doctors accounts PLUS the photos and x-rays and films that it's not close who is right. We can add the accounts of the Connallys and Kellerman who said they were hit/sprayed with blood and brain matter. How could a blowout in the back of JFK's head deposit matter to the front of him? It's impossible. The motorcycle officers - Hargis - said he "rode" through it as it came down. He also said he was watching JFK and saw no exit wound out of the back of the head; only a "splash" out the side. So why didn't he see this rear blowout?

Add to it Zavada's analysis and the timeline and chain of possession of the film and I don't see how one can conclude it was altered.

*Dr. Charles Baxter, one of the attending physicians at Parkland: After JFK was pronounced dead "We had an opportunity to look at his head wound then and saw that the damage was beyond hope, that is, in a word-- literally the right side of his head had been blown off." Right side of the head NOT the back. Yes, other doctors said back of the head; why are they right and Baxter wrong?
Source/link for the above from Baxter: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/baxter.htm

JFK's skull x-ray on the right. No back of the head/rear exit. It's intact. Just as the Bethesda doctors said and the Zapruder film shows.

First of all, this is not physical evidence of a missed first shot.  Physical evidence of a missed first shot would be a divot in the pavement, or in whatever it struck showing signs of being made by a bullet - such as little pieces of lead/antimony in it.  There is no physical evidence of a missed first shot.

There are equivocal movements of people in the photographic record.  By itself, no one would ever say that record shows reactions to a shot.  On the other hand, there is a mountain of witness evidence that says there was no missed first shot - that JFK reacted to being struck by the first shot.  You say witnesses are not reliable yet you cling to a few vague witness statements to interpret the photographic images to support a first shot miss.

This is the one thing Dan has right - the first shot struck JFK.  I disagree with Dan that this occurred at z222 and that JBC was struck in the back by it.  Mary Woodward and others described all the things we see in the zfilm prior to the car disappearing behind the Stemmons sign as happening BEFORE the first shot.

First of all, this is not physical evidence of a missed first shot.


It is physical evidence. A witness account is not. That is the point.

 All evidence requires interpretation. And there are a lot of experts who disagree with your interpretation (opinion).