JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Dan O'meara on November 04, 2023, 11:11:53 AM
-
One of the many ludicrous claims made by Alteration Fantasists [Altfans] is that the Presidential limo came to a complete stop around the time of the head shot and, because the Z-film doesn't show this limo stop, it must be concluded that the film was altered. Most go a little bit further, insisting the Z-film doesn't even show the limo slowing down, let alone coming to a stop:
"...the fact that in the film (contrary to eyewitness testimony) JFK’s limousine does not stop or reduce speed during the assassination. At the time of the assassination, in the Zapruder film, JFK’s limousine glides forward at a steady (and unusually low) speed of about 11 mph; the car definitely does not stop or slow down."
["Grassy Knoll Shots? Limousine Slowdown?", Donald E. Wilkes Jr]
It is difficult to know what word to use to describe this claim - "Mistaken" would be kind, "Fraudulent" seems a bit harsh. Whatever the case, it's completely wrong and Wilkes Jr goes on to build his case on the back of this error. In mitigation it must be conceded that the radical deceleration of the limo shown in the Z-film isn't readily apparent. This is due to the background having few visual cues at the moment of the head shot. In the version of the Z-film below, Ant Davison has created a new way of looking at the Z-film by keeping all the visual information in place to create a backdrop against which we can clearly see the movement of the limo relative to it's surroundings.
In this version it is absolutely clear that just before the head shot the limo radically decelerates to almost walking pace:
This deceleration of the limo is an obvious fact. It is shown in the Z-film, the Nix film, the Muchmore film and the Bronson film. It is the reason the distance between the limo and the follow-up car rapidly diminishes, it is the reason the outriders suddenly catch up with the limo, it is the reason Hill can make the gap.
The likes of Wilkes and his Altfan buddies claiming the Z-film doesn't show this deceleration is a case of incredibly poor research and the arguments for alteration built on this non-observation are totally bogus.
Some of the outriders are said to have reported that the limo came to a complete stop for a brief second. The fact is that it was the outriders themselves who came to a complete stop as they suddenly caught up with the decelerating limo. This may have added to the impression that the whole motorcade had come to a brief halt and having JFK's head explode a matter of feet away may have also been distracting.
For those Altfans who believe the Z-film was altered to remove a complete limo stop, however brief, there are two seeming impossibilities:
1) The Nix, Muchmore and Bronson films must be similarly altered.
2) In all these films we see Jackie and the occupants of the limo constantly moving, Hill racing toward the limo, the outriders, the follow-up vehicle and the people stood on Elm Street watching the motorcade all moving at all times. For a limo stop to be removed all of these people must "freeze" for the amount of time removed to delete a limo stop. Everyone must stop moving at exactly the same moment and resume movement at exactly the same moment. In their childish beliefs, Altfans convince themselves it's just a matter of dealing with the movement of the limo. Everything else can be overlooked!
The limo slowed to almost walking pace. It didn't stop. And the Z-film most ceratinly wasn't altered in order to hide something that never even happened.
-
If it had stopped Clint Hill would have reached the car a lot faster. It didn't happen.
-
If it had stopped Clint Hill would have reached the car a lot faster. It didn't happen.
Agreed, and it's not just Hill's movements - there are so many elements in motion in various films of the assassination that it is impossible to remove a few frames from the Z-film to "delete" a limo stop without it being obvious.
There are so many Altfans present on this forum and I know many have looked at this thread but refuse to get involved because they're a cowardly bunch who know they're wrong but refuse to accept it. They believe they are non-conformists so they choose a radical theory to believe in and they become disciples of that theory. Something very similar happened with the Prayer Man zealots. But, far from being non-conformists they swallow the so-called research of others, they do no thinking of their own, simply regurgitating what they've been spoon-fed and when it comes to the crunch they disappear.
I challenge any Altfan out there to bring your best to this thread.
I guarantee it will be crushed Thumb1:
-
The speed of the jfklimo at about Z312 is not very important.
What is important is the speed of Queen Mary (the followup car) at about Z280 to Z300. Koz, when Queen Mary (ie Kinney) braked, Hickey fell forward, & he fired an accidental auto burst of at least 4 shots of his AR15. The auto burst started at say Z300 & finished at Z312. Taking into account reaction times etc, Kinney would have braked at say Z295, reacting to the jfklimo braking at say Z290.
My measurements of frames Z270 to Z308 show that the jfklimo did not alter its speed much during that period, ie there was no sudden braking at about Z290. Hence, if Queen Mary braked during that period it must have been in response to the brake lights of the jfklimo, but not to any actual braking.
The speed of the jfklimo at about Z312 is of minor interest. It had no effect on the accidental homicide.
-
The speed of the jfklimo at about Z312 is not very important.
What is important is the speed of Queen Mary (the followup car) at about Z280 to Z300. Koz, when Queen Mary (ie Kinney) braked, Hickey fell forward, & he fired an accidental auto burst of at least 4 shots of his AR15. The auto burst started at say Z300 & finished at Z312. Taking into account reaction times etc, Kinney would have braked at say Z295, reacting to the jfklimo braking at say Z290.
My measurements of frames Z270 to Z308 show that the jfklimo did not alter its speed much during that period, ie there was no sudden braking at about Z290. Hence, if Queen Mary braked during that period it must have been in response to the brake lights of the jfklimo, but not to any actual braking.
The speed of the jfklimo at about Z312 is of minor interest. It had no effect on the accidental homicide.
I'm warming to rookie SA Hickey accidentally firing the AR-15. My position unlike most is that Hickey fired the AR-15 but did Not hit JFK. That said, there was damage inflicted inside Dealey Plaza by that accidental discharge. ------- TO BE CONTINUED --------------
-
..........................This deceleration of the limo is an obvious fact. It is shown in the Z-film, the Nix film, the Muchmore film and the Bronson film. It is the reason the distance between the limo and the follow-up car rapidly diminishes, it is the reason the outriders suddenly catch up with the limo, it is the reason Hill can make the gap........................
Where can i find footage showing that the distance between the limo & the follow-up car diminishes?
Where can i find the listed measurements?
The Nix Muchmore Bronson footages show the gap (ie the 2 limos are in the same frame) starting at almost Z312. No good to me.
Likewize any footage or photo before say Z218 is of little use to me.
The critical period is say Z280 to Z300.
-
I'm warming to rookie SA Hickey accidentally firing the AR-15. My position unlike most is that Hickey fired the AR-15 but did Not hit JFK. That said, there was damage inflicted inside Dealey Plaza by that accidental discharge. ------- TO BE CONTINUED --------------
The damage was..........
....... At Z312 (jfk hit in head)(remnant slug cracks windshield).
....... At Z309 (slug hits chrome trim).
....... Earlier shots hit tarmac & kerb & Tague.
-
The damage was..........
....... At Z312 (jfk hit in head)(remnant slug cracks windshield).
....... At Z309 (slug hits chrome trim).
....... Earlier shots hit tarmac & kerb & Tague.
JFK's head and the tarmac are on opposite sides of Elm St. Basically, you got SA Hickey going John Rambo with the AR-15. I'm more inclined to believe he accidentally discharged the weapon in 1 Direction.
-
The damage was..........
....... At Z312 (jfk hit in head)(remnant slug cracks windshield).
....... At Z309 (slug hits chrome trim).
....... Earlier shots hit tarmac & kerb & Tague.
You might want to rethink that "remnant slug cracks windshield) hypothesis. Paramount+ has a trailer for their upcoming "JFK:What The Doctors Saw" Special. The 7 still living Dr's that were at Parkland Hospital on 11/22/63 and treated JFK are sticking with the throat wound being an ENTRANCE Wound.
-
JFK's head and the tarmac are on opposite sides of Elm St. Basically, you got SA Hickey going John Rambo with the AR-15. I'm more inclined to believe he accidentally discharged the weapon in 1 Direction.
The line from the AR15 to above jfk's head goes to the kerb near Tague.
All of Hickey's 4 or 5 shots were in one direction, but different elevations.
-
You might want to rethink that "remnant slug cracks windshield) hypothesis. Paramount+ has a trailer for their upcoming "JFK:What The Doctors Saw" Special. The 7 still living Dr's that were at Parkland Hospital on 11/22/63 and treated JFK are sticking with the throat wound being an ENTRANCE Wound.
The remnant slug that cracked the windshield is the slug that hit jfk in the head (from behind)(the last shot of Hickey's burst)(which veered say 6deg inside the head).
The slug before that is the slug that dented the chrome trim (having passed close over the windshield of Queen Mary)(& then having passed under the divider/rollbar of the limo).
-
The line from the AR15 to above jfk's head goes to the kerb near Tague.
All of Hickey's 4 or 5 shots were in one direction, but different elevations.
Hickey was sitting in the (L) Back Seat of the Queen Mary. (Behind the Driver). JFK was sitting in the (R) Back Seat of the JFK Limo. (Behind Kellerman/Shotgun). Tague was positioned to the front (L) of JFK. With the Queen Mary positioned behind the JFK Limo, how does a Hickey fired shot traveling to the (R), Strike JFK and then zig-zag back to the (L) striking the tarmac?
-
Hickey was sitting in the (L) Back Seat of the Queen Mary. (Behind the Driver). JFK was sitting in the (R) Back Seat of the JFK Limo. (Behind Kellerman/Shotgun). Tague was positioned to the front (L) of JFK. With the Queen Mary positioned behind the JFK Limo, how does a Hickey fired shot traveling to the (R), Strike JFK and then zig-zag back to the (L) striking the tarmac?
If u place the AR15 just left of the centerline of Queen Mary, & if u place JFK's head just right of the centerline of the jfklimo, then, in a plan-view, a line from the AR15 to JFK's head when extended goes to near where Tague is standing. And all of Hickey's shots were on about that line, but each shot having a different elevation if observed in a side-view.
But the exact direction of that line depends on the exact location of Queen Mary relative to the jfklimo, ie was Queen Mary directly behind, or, slightly to one side --- &, was Queen Mary parallel to the jfklimo or on a bit of an angle.
The shot that hit JFK did not hit the tarmac. The shot that hit the tarmac was the first & or second & or third.
But anyhow that stuff is in an old thread of mine, so if we want to look into it in more detail we should go to that thread.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2833.72.html
-
If u place the AR15 just left of the centerline of Queen Mary, & if u place JFK's head just right of the centerline of the jfklimo, then, in a plan-view, a line from the AR15 to JFK's head when extended goes to near where Tague is standing. And all of Hickey's shots were on about that line, but each shot having a different elevation if observed in a side-view.
But the exact direction of that line depends on the exact location of Queen Mary relative to the jfklimo, ie was Queen Mary directly behind, or, slightly to one side --- &, was Queen Mary parallel to the jfklimo or on a bit of an angle.
The shot that hit JFK did not hit the tarmac. The shot that hit the tarmac was the first & or second & or third.
But anyhow that stuff is in an old thread of mine, so if we want to look into it in more detail we should go to that thread.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2833.72.html
I took a look at the link you provided. Extending, " a line from the AR15 to JFK's Head when extended goes to near where Tague is standing". That is FALSE. Tague was standing between Main St & Commerce St, very close to the Triple Underpass. Extending the red lines you have drawn does Not come close to the Tague area between Main & Commerce,
-
I took a look at the link you provided. Extending, " a line from the AR15 to JFK's Head when extended goes to near where Tague is standing". That is FALSE. Tague was standing between Main St & Commerce St, very close to the Triple Underpass. Extending the red lines you have drawn does Not come close to the Tague area between Main & Commerce,
Yes it duzz.
(https://i.postimg.cc/RVq5qtXF/aerial-lester-slug.jpg)
-
Yes it duzz.
(https://i.postimg.cc/RVq5qtXF/aerial-lester-slug.jpg)
Thanks for the visual aid. Now I understand the crux of this issue. We really are discussing the possible angle of the AR-15 upon discharge/burst. Personally, I believe a possible AR-15 discharge went in the direction of The Steps/Short Wall. This would account for the Gordon Arnold description of "Report" still going over his head after he dove to the ground. It would also explain The Tarp that was seen over this same general area during the SS Reconstruction Filming.
-
Thanks for the visual aid. Now I understand the crux of this issue. We really are discussing the possible angle of the AR-15 upon discharge/burst. Personally, I believe a possible AR-15 discharge went in the direction of The Steps/Short Wall. This would account for the Gordon Arnold description of "Report" still going over his head after he dove to the ground. It would also explain The Tarp that was seen over this same general area during the SS Reconstruction Filming.
(https://i.postimg.cc/TPM9r7vX/Hickey-6-shot-burst.jpg)
-
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/TPM9r7vX/Hickey-6-shot-burst.jpg)
I'm not sure that the JFK Limo was partially traveling inside the Fast Lane vs being completely inside the Center Lane. Your video below shows the knockoff JFK Limo being entirely inside the Center Lane. Much like the SBT and the placement of Gov Connally's jump seat vs the position of JFK, you are doing likewise by moving the JFK Limo inside the Fast Lane vs SA Hickey's position inside the Queen Mary.
-
Just to keep things on track gentlemen - this thread is concerned with alteration to the Z-film, if you could keep your comments focused on this topic it would be appreciated.
I thought you'd be eager to present your best evidence for such alteration, Royell, but it appears you'd rather jump on board with a different fantasy in which an AR-15 is unleashed in front of a row of spectators stood feet away and nobody notices.
Go figure
-
I'm not sure that the JFK Limo was partially traveling inside the Fast Lane vs being completely inside the Center Lane. Your video below shows the knockoff JFK Limo being entirely inside the Center Lane. Much like the SBT and the placement of Gov Connally's jump seat vs the position of JFK, you are doing likewise by moving the JFK Limo inside the Fast Lane vs SA Hickey's position inside the Queen Mary.
I have answered in the following thread.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2833.96.html
-
Where can i find footage showing that the distance between the limo & the follow-up car diminishes?
Where can i find the listed measurements?
The Nix Muchmore Bronson footages show the gap (ie the 2 limos are in the same frame) starting at almost Z312. No good to me.
Likewize any footage or photo before say Z218 is of little use to me.
The critical period is say Z280 to Z300.
Marjan, I have actually been working on some of these measurements and calculations for a long time. I actually did extensive work several years ago and I am just now finding time to work on it some more and coax the data to be presentable in an understandable and scientific way. I want to publish the data along with ways in which someone can repeat it, verify it, scrutinize it, and critique it.
I can share some of it with you on a private basis, but I am not ready to do so openly until I'm ready. It answers this and several other things. But spoiler alert: the evidence shows the limo slows and that the Zapruder film appears to be consistent with a real, uncut film, at least in the portions I can study.
This invitation is open to anyone on the forum who wants to see the data rather than some guessing and supposition.
I am primarily researching an as-yet unknown feature of the Zapruder film, but one of the side benefits is that is can be used to calculate the limo motion pretty accurately ... or particularly, find anomalies in the motion of the limo. It could, conceivably, find anomalies in the Z-film itself, if there are any.
My research is somewhat like the work of Alvarez on the limo, but, unlike him, I show my work ... and, as other researchers have postulated, he was not completely accurate. If you look at his *HSCA report, Figure 7, you can tell without processing the data that he's cooking the numbers. (Watch his inaccurate use of the word "exactly" in the same sentence as the not-so-exact "few.") The epitome of absurdity in Alvarez's work on the limo stop is his Figure 7 caption: "Individual measurements are accurate to about +/- 4 inches." Yeah, ok, whatever. Meanwhile, the same graph has "~12 mph" and "~10 feet" which sounds pretty approximate! What hubris. He did not do anywhere near the research to come up with +/- 4 inch accuracy. That's ridiculous.
See A physicist examines the Kennedy assassination film (from LBL) as it is better than HSCA's copy.
(https://imgur.com/a/rOXS4zd)
https://imgur.com/a/rOXS4zd (https://imgur.com/a/rOXS4zd)
-
Marjan, I have actually been working on some of these measurements and calculations for a long time. I actually did extensive work several years ago and I am just now finding time to work on it some more and coax the data to be presentable in an understandable and scientific way. I want to publish the data along with ways in which someone can repeat it, verify it, scrutinize it, and critique it.
I can share some of it with you on a private basis, but I am not ready to do so openly until I'm ready. It answers this and several other things. But spoiler alert: the evidence shows the limo slows and that the Zapruder film appears to be consistent with a real, uncut film, at least in the portions I can study.
This invitation is open to anyone on the forum who wants to see the data rather than some guessing and supposition.
I am primarily researching an as-yet unknown feature of the Zapruder film, but one of the side benefits is that is can be used to calculate the limo motion pretty accurately ... or particularly, find anomalies in the motion of the limo. It could, conceivably, find anomalies in the Z-film itself, if there are any.
My research is somewhat like the work of Alvarez on the limo, but, unlike him, I show my work ... and, as other researchers have postulated, he was not completely accurate. If you look at his *HSCA report, Figure 7, you can tell without processing the data that he's cooking the numbers. (Watch his inaccurate use of the word "exactly" in the same sentence as the not-so-exact "few.") The epitome of absurdity in Alvarez's work on the limo stop is his Figure 7 caption: "Individual measurements are accurate to about +/- 4 inches." Yeah, ok, whatever. Meanwhile, the same graph has "~12 mph" and "~10 feet" which sounds pretty approximate! What hubris. He did not do anywhere near the research to come up with +/- 4 inch accuracy. That's ridiculous.
See A physicist examines the Kennedy assassination film (from LBL) as it is better than HSCA's copy.
(https://imgur.com/a/rOXS4zd)
https://imgur.com/a/rOXS4zd (https://imgur.com/a/rOXS4zd)
spoiler alert: the evidence shows the limo slows and that the Zapruder film appears to be consistent with a real, uncut film, at least in the portions I can study.
The authenticity of the Z-film is proven, The hugely comprehensive examination conducted by Roland Zavada and his subsequent findings should be considered the last word on this subject. The silence of the Altfans regarding the challenge for them to produce their best evidence of alteration is deafening.
The Davison version of the Z-film posted in the OP clearly shows a radical deceleration of the limo prior to the head shot.
Your work sounds intriguing but the proof is in the pudding.
-
spoiler alert: the evidence shows the limo slows and that the Zapruder film appears to be consistent with a real, uncut film, at least in the portions I can study.
The authenticity of the Z-film is proven, The hugely comprehensive examination conducted by Roland Zavada and his subsequent findings should be considered the last word on this subject. The silence of the Altfans regarding the challenge for them to produce their best evidence of alteration is deafening.
The Davison version of the Z-film posted in the OP clearly shows a radical deceleration of the limo prior to the head shot.
Your work sounds intriguing but the proof is in the pudding.
Hi Dan, Back in 2013 when Chris and I would correspond back and forth, he thought the Zapruder film was altered somehow. Thank you for everything, Sincerely yours, Michael
-
Marjan, I have actually been working on some of these measurements and calculations for a long time. I actually did extensive work several years ago and I am just now finding time to work on it some more and coax the data to be presentable in an understandable and scientific way. I want to publish the data along with ways in which someone can repeat it, verify it, scrutinize it, and critique it.
I can share some of it with you on a private basis, but I am not ready to do so openly until I'm ready. It answers this and several other things. But spoiler alert: the evidence shows the limo slows and that the Zapruder film appears to be consistent with a real, uncut film, at least in the portions I can study.
This invitation is open to anyone on the forum who wants to see the data rather than some guessing and supposition.
I am primarily researching an as-yet unknown feature of the Zapruder film, but one of the side benefits is that is can be used to calculate the limo motion pretty accurately ... or particularly, find anomalies in the motion of the limo. It could, conceivably, find anomalies in the Z-film itself, if there are any.
My research is somewhat like the work of Alvarez on the limo, but, unlike him, I show my work ... and, as other researchers have postulated, he was not completely accurate. If you look at his *HSCA report, Figure 7, you can tell without processing the data that he's cooking the numbers. (Watch his inaccurate use of the word "exactly" in the same sentence as the not-so-exact "few.") The epitome of absurdity in Alvarez's work on the limo stop is his Figure 7 caption: "Individual measurements are accurate to about +/- 4 inches." Yeah, ok, whatever. Meanwhile, the same graph has "~12 mph" and "~10 feet" which sounds pretty approximate! What hubris. He did not do anywhere near the research to come up with +/- 4 inch accuracy. That's ridiculous.
See A physicist examines the Kennedy assassination film (from LBL) as it is better than HSCA's copy.
(https://imgur.com/a/rOXS4zd)
https://imgur.com/a/rOXS4zd (https://imgur.com/a/rOXS4zd)
I had a look at the Alvaraz graph showing the jfklimo braking at Z300. My own measurements of the limo's motion (frame by frame from Z270 to Z312)(relative to gawkers) duznt show any obvious hard braking at any frame. I firstly measured Davidson's frames, but i then realized that this was fraught (Davison's frames are altered), & i then measured my own file of (original) Zapruder frames (which as i said contradicts Alvaraz) (ie there was no hard braking).
Anyhow, braking at Z300 duznt do the trick. Hickey's say shot-5 was at say Z312. Shot-4 was at Z309.25. Shot-3 was at Z306.50. Shot-2 was at Z303.75. Shot-1 was at Z301.00. Based on 400 rpm, & 18.3 fps.
Hickey picked the AR15 up off the floor, muzzle facing say left, & Hickey then raized the AR15 up over O'Donnell's head, swinging it around to his right, while trying to stand up (he had been half sitting half standing hi up on 2 leather cases positioned on the back seat), while shuffling to his right to get clear of O'Donnell's seat, to enable Hickey to turn around to his right-rear & look for Oswald & to return fire. During this time Hickey accidentally squeezed the trigger, starting an auto-burst of say 4 or 5 shots. The squeeze was probably due to falling forward. The falling was probably due to Kinney braking, together with Elm St having a grade of more than 3 deg.
So, Kinney's braking (of Queen Mary) might have been say 0.22 sec before Z301.00, which is 4 frames, which is Z297.00.
And Greer's braking in the jfklimo might have been say 0.22 sec before Z297.00, which is Z293.00.
So, the jfklimo braking at Z300 duznt do the trick. But, if Hickey fired only 4 shots, then the Z293.00 becomes Z295.75.
And, if the AR15-601 fired at 800 rpm instead of my estimate of 400 rpm, then the Z295.75 becomes Z299.86, which is close to Alvaraz's Z300. Some modern AR15s can fire at 1200 rpm i think.
Anyhow, Kinney might have braked as a reaction to seeing Greer touching his brakes (ie brake lights).
Or, Hickey might have fallen forward due to some imbalance, not due to any braking.
Or, Hickey might have accidentally fired due to butterfingers, not due to any falling.
If your measurements show that the jfklimo braked then that would be of interest to me.
-
One of the many ludicrous claims made by Alteration Fantasists [Altfans] is that the Presidential limo came to a complete stop around the time of the head shot and, because the Z-film doesn't show this limo stop, it must be concluded that the film was altered. Most go a little bit further, insisting the Z-film doesn't even show the limo slowing down, let alone coming to a stop:
"...the fact that in the film (contrary to eyewitness testimony) JFK’s limousine does not stop or reduce speed during the assassination. At the time of the assassination, in the Zapruder film, JFK’s limousine glides forward at a steady (and unusually low) speed of about 11 mph; the car definitely does not stop or slow down."
["Grassy Knoll Shots? Limousine Slowdown?", Donald E. Wilkes Jr]
It is difficult to know what word to use to describe this claim - "Mistaken" would be kind, "Fraudulent" seems a bit harsh. Whatever the case, it's completely wrong and Wilkes Jr goes on to build his case on the back of this error. In mitigation it must be conceded that the radical deceleration of the limo shown in the Z-film isn't readily apparent. This is due to the background having few visual cues at the moment of the head shot. In the version of the Z-film below, Ant Davison has created a new way of looking at the Z-film by keeping all the visual information in place to create a backdrop against which we can clearly see the movement of the limo relative to it's surroundings.
In this version it is absolutely clear that just before the head shot the limo radically decelerates to almost walking pace:
This deceleration of the limo is an obvious fact. It is shown in the Z-film, the Nix film, the Muchmore film and the Bronson film. It is the reason the distance between the limo and the follow-up car rapidly diminishes, it is the reason the outriders suddenly catch up with the limo, it is the reason Hill can make the gap.
The likes of Wilkes and his Altfan buddies claiming the Z-film doesn't show this deceleration is a case of incredibly poor research and the arguments for alteration built on this non-observation are totally bogus.
Some of the outriders are said to have reported that the limo came to a complete stop for a brief second. The fact is that it was the outriders themselves who came to a complete stop as they suddenly caught up with the decelerating limo. This may have added to the impression that the whole motorcade had come to a brief halt and having JFK's head explode a matter of feet away may have also been distracting.
For those Altfans who believe the Z-film was altered to remove a complete limo stop, however brief, there are two seeming impossibilities:
1) The Nix, Muchmore and Bronson films must be similarly altered.
2) In all these films we see Jackie and the occupants of the limo constantly moving, Hill racing toward the limo, the outriders, the follow-up vehicle and the people stood on Elm Street watching the motorcade all moving at all times. For a limo stop to be removed all of these people must "freeze" for the amount of time removed to delete a limo stop. Everyone must stop moving at exactly the same moment and resume movement at exactly the same moment. In their childish beliefs, Altfans convince themselves it's just a matter of dealing with the movement of the limo. Everything else can be overlooked!
The limo slowed to almost walking pace. It didn't stop. And the Z-film most ceratinly wasn't altered in order to hide something that never even happened.
Re the jfklimo stopping. U mentioned that the jfklimo stopped or allmost stopped just before the headshot.
My measurements show no appreciable slowing from Z270 to Z312.
I think that u meant to refer to a much later time, well after the headshot, ie at about when Hill jumped onto the limo.
-
Marjan, I have actually been working on some of these measurements and calculations for a long time. I actually did extensive work several years ago and I am just now finding time to work on it some more and coax the data to be presentable in an understandable and scientific way. I want to publish the data along with ways in which someone can repeat it, verify it, scrutinize it, and critique it.
I can share some of it with you on a private basis, but I am not ready to do so openly until I'm ready. It answers this and several other things. But spoiler alert: the evidence shows the limo slows and that the Zapruder film appears to be consistent with a real, uncut film, at least in the portions I can study.
This invitation is open to anyone on the forum who wants to see the data rather than some guessing and supposition.
I am primarily researching an as-yet unknown feature of the Zapruder film, but one of the side benefits is that is can be used to calculate the limo motion pretty accurately ... or particularly, find anomalies in the motion of the limo. It could, conceivably, find anomalies in the Z-film itself, if there are any.
My research is somewhat like the work of Alvarez on the limo, but, unlike him, I show my work ... and, as other researchers have postulated, he was not completely accurate. If you look at his *HSCA report, Figure 7, you can tell without processing the data that he's cooking the numbers. (Watch his inaccurate use of the word "exactly" in the same sentence as the not-so-exact "few.") The epitome of absurdity in Alvarez's work on the limo stop is his Figure 7 caption: "Individual measurements are accurate to about +/- 4 inches." Yeah, ok, whatever. Meanwhile, the same graph has "~12 mph" and "~10 feet" which sounds pretty approximate! What hubris. He did not do anywhere near the research to come up with +/- 4 inch accuracy. That's ridiculous.
See A physicist examines the Kennedy assassination film (from LBL) as it is better than HSCA's copy.
(https://imgur.com/a/rOXS4zd)
https://imgur.com/a/rOXS4zd (https://imgur.com/a/rOXS4zd)
At 12 mph, the limousine is moving at about 0.96 feet per z-film frame. Given that, measuring the limo's progress relative to the last frame is doable at +/-4 inches uncertainty. It also represents an uncertainty of 33% of the expected delta-x value, which is pretty big. A lot of people read Alvarez's paper, but do not consider how much uncertainty there is. It doesn't affect longer-term averages, but does affect frame-to-frame and other short term calculations quite a bit.
-
I firstly measured Davidson's frames, but i then realized that this was fraught (Davidson's frames are altered)
Davison doesn't equal Davidson.
Understand, I in stine
-
Davison doesn't equal Davidson.
Understand, I in stine
Hi Chris, Sorry, this is my mistake too! Thank you for correcting us! With Much Gratitude and Admiration, Sincerely yours, Michael
-
Davison doesn't equal Davidson.
Understand, I in stine
Thanx for that, have fixed.
I wish to point out to all that the Z film starts at Z133, & Oswald's first shot might have been as early as pseudo Z103 (ie when jfk was on the line of the Carcano & the overhead signals).
Alltho Wilkes & others reckon that some early Z frames were deleted by ?
Clearly the jfklimo duznt stop, from Z133 to when it enters the TUP.
But, we know that the jfklimo stops for about 30 seconds on the on-ramp after it passes under the Stemmons Fwy (as per Patrolman Brown on the rail bridge)(& as per Hoffman on Stemmons).
-
Re the jfklimo stopping. U mentioned that the jfklimo stopped or allmost stopped just before the headshot.
My measurements show no appreciable slowing from Z270 to Z312.
I think that u meant to refer to a much later time, well after the headshot, ie at about when Hill jumped onto the limo.
You couldn't be more wrong.
A consistent feature of your work.
-
One of the many ludicrous claims made by Alteration Fantasists [Altfans] is that the Presidential limo came to a complete stop around the time of the head shot and, because the Z-film doesn't show this limo stop, it must be concluded that the film was altered. Most go a little bit further, insisting the Z-film doesn't even show the limo slowing down, let alone coming to a stop:
"...the fact that in the film (contrary to eyewitness testimony) JFK’s limousine does not stop or reduce speed during the assassination. At the time of the assassination, in the Zapruder film, JFK’s limousine glides forward at a steady (and unusually low) speed of about 11 mph; the car definitely does not stop or slow down."
["Grassy Knoll Shots? Limousine Slowdown?", Donald E. Wilkes Jr]
It is difficult to know what word to use to describe this claim - "Mistaken" would be kind, "Fraudulent" seems a bit harsh. Whatever the case, it's completely wrong and Wilkes Jr goes on to build his case on the back of this error. In mitigation it must be conceded that the radical deceleration of the limo shown in the Z-film isn't readily apparent. This is due to the background having few visual cues at the moment of the head shot. In the version of the Z-film below, Ant Davison has created a new way of looking at the Z-film by keeping all the visual information in place to create a backdrop against which we can clearly see the movement of the limo relative to it's surroundings.
In this version it is absolutely clear that just before the head shot the limo radically decelerates to almost walking pace:
This deceleration of the limo is an obvious fact. It is shown in the Z-film, the Nix film, the Muchmore film and the Bronson film. It is the reason the distance between the limo and the follow-up car rapidly diminishes, it is the reason the outriders suddenly catch up with the limo, it is the reason Hill can make the gap.
The likes of Wilkes and his Altfan buddies claiming the Z-film doesn't show this deceleration is a case of incredibly poor research and the arguments for alteration built on this non-observation are totally bogus.
Some of the outriders are said to have reported that the limo came to a complete stop for a brief second. The fact is that it was the outriders themselves who came to a complete stop as they suddenly caught up with the decelerating limo. This may have added to the impression that the whole motorcade had come to a brief halt and having JFK's head explode a matter of feet away may have also been distracting.
For those Altfans who believe the Z-film was altered to remove a complete limo stop, however brief, there are two seeming impossibilities:
1) The Nix, Muchmore and Bronson films must be similarly altered.
2) In all these films we see Jackie and the occupants of the limo constantly moving, Hill racing toward the limo, the outriders, the follow-up vehicle and the people stood on Elm Street watching the motorcade all moving at all times. For a limo stop to be removed all of these people must "freeze" for the amount of time removed to delete a limo stop. Everyone must stop moving at exactly the same moment and resume movement at exactly the same moment. In their childish beliefs, Altfans convince themselves it's just a matter of dealing with the movement of the limo. Everything else can be overlooked!
The limo slowed to almost walking pace. It didn't stop. And the Z-film most ceratinly wasn't altered in order to hide something that never even happened.
Besides the graphic head shot, Life Magazine a week later published a number of key frames which fit perfectly into the Zapruder Film. So allowing for printing and distribution of the magazine, this gives a window of only a few days for any alterations.
(https://i.postimg.cc/XvzNCCVK/Zap-lifeb.gif)
JohnM
-
You couldn't be more wrong.
A consistent feature of your work.
I measured the movement of the jfklimo relative to fixed objects (light poles)(gawkers), frame by frame, Z270 to Z312, & there was no drastic slowing.
But we all know that the limo almost stopped at about when Hill jumped onto it, much later than the shots.
There is zero error in any of my theory re any of the shots.
-
I measured the movement of the jfklimo relative to fixed objects (light poles)(gawkers), frame by frame, Z270 to Z312, & there was no drastic slowing.
But we all know that the limo almost stopped at about when Hill jumped onto it, much later than the shots.
There is zero error in any of my theory re any of the shots.
You're nothing but wrong.
Just watch the Ant Davison version of the Z-film I posted in the OP. The limo drastically slows to almost a walking pace just before Hill gets to it.
There is the head shot, the limo begins to speed up and Hill reaches the limo.
You clearly don't know what you're doing.
Why do you think the outriders suddenly appear alongside the limo when they were alongside the follow-up car on Elm Street?
The limo slows to almost walking pace and the outriders are caught out by this sudden deceleration.
-
You're nothing but wrong.
Just watch the Ant Davison version of the Z-film I posted in the OP. The limo drastically slows to almost a walking pace just before Hill gets to it.
There is the head shot, the limo begins to speed up and Hill reaches the limo.
You clearly don't know what you're doing.
Why do you think the outriders suddenly appear alongside the limo when they were alongside the follow-up car on Elm Street?
The limo slows to almost walking pace and the outriders are caught out by this sudden deceleration.
If you're referring to the Motorcycle Cops when you say "outriders", please include "Motorcycle" in your description and/or the actual Motorcycle Officer Names. Being "dead-on balls accurate" eliminates any possible confusion.
-
You're nothing but wrong.
Just watch the Ant Davison version of the Z-film I posted in the OP. The limo drastically slows to almost a walking pace just before Hill gets to it.
There is the head shot, the limo begins to speed up and Hill reaches the limo.
You clearly don't know what you're doing.
Why do you think the outriders suddenly appear alongside the limo when they were alongside the follow-up car on Elm Street?
The limo slows to almost walking pace and the outriders are caught out by this sudden deceleration.
At Z313 (the headshot) Hill is level with the left front wheel of Queen Mary (Muchmore)(Nix).
At Z339 Hill touches the grip on the jfklimo (Zapruder).
Therefore u place the headshot at say Z330. No.
I had another look at Davison, there is no obvious slowing of the jfklimo at any time.
-
At Z313 (the headshot) Hill is level with the left front wheel of Queen Mary (Muchmore)(Nix).
At Z339 Hill touches the grip on the jfklimo (Zapruder).
Therefore u place the headshot at say Z330. No.
I had another look at Davison, there is no obvious slowing of the jfklimo at any time.
Therefore u place the headshot at say Z330. No.
Utter nonsense.
I had another look at Davison, there is no obvious slowing of the jfklimo at any time.
Wow.
-
Therefore u place the headshot at say Z330. No.
Utter nonsense.
I had another look at Davison, there is no obvious slowing of the jfklimo at any time.
Wow.
Yes, Z330 for the headshot is utter nonsense, but it is your nonsense, the headshot was at Z312 (hits just before Z313).
There is no obvious stopping or near stopping of the jfklimo at any time.
And the slowing is not very obvious. But i am sure that a detailed measure frame by frame would show that it did slow while Hill was climbing aboard.
-
Yes, Z330 for the headshot is utter nonsense, but it is your nonsense, the headshot was at Z312 (hits just before Z313).
I have never said the head shot was at z330. This is a lie.
Who do you think you are?
Everything you post is rubbish. Utter garbage.
You've clearly got problems.
There is no obvious stopping or near stopping of the jfklimo at any time.
And the slowing is not very obvious. But i am sure that a detailed measure frame by frame would show that it did slow while Hill was climbing aboard.
Dozens of witnesses report the limo slowing down.
I'm sure you're not aware of this as you seem to know very little about the case.
We can clearly see, in multiple films, the outriders suddenly catch up with the limo as it slows down.
The slowing down of the limo in the Ant Davison is obvious. I don't believe you when you say you can't see it.
-
I have never said the head shot was at z330. This is a lie.
Who do you think you are?
Everything you post is rubbish. Utter garbage.
You've clearly got problems.
Dozens of witnesses report the limo slowing down.
I'm sure you're not aware of this as you seem to know very little about the case.
We can clearly see, in multiple films, the outriders suddenly catch up with the limo as it slows down.
The slowing down of the limo in the Ant Davison is obvious. I don't believe you when you say you can't see it.
I agree almost 100% with your OP. So, its strange that we are arguing. I think that our semantics might have derailed a bit.
But there are 2 little side issues re some of your wordage that i have pointed out, & that u have not acknowledged.
(1). U said..........
.................You're nothing but wrong. Just watch the Ant Davison version of the Z-film I posted in the OP. The limo drastically slows to almost a walking pace just before Hill gets to it.
There is the head shot, the limo begins to speed up and Hill reaches the limo. You clearly don't know what you're doing.
Why do you think the outriders suddenly appear alongside the limo when they were alongside the follow-up car on Elm Street?
The limo slows to almost walking pace and the outriders are caught out by this sudden deceleration............
My understanding of that wordage is that the limo slows just before Hill gets to it, & then there is the head shot, then Hill reaches the limo.
This suggests that the headshot was at about Z330.
But, we know that the headshot was at Z312/313. And, we know that Hill was level with the left front wheel of Queen Mary at Z313 (Muchmore)(Nix).
(2). U said..........
...............This deceleration of the limo is an obvious fact. It is shown in the Z-film, the Nix film, the Muchmore film and the Bronson film. It is the reason the distance between the limo and the follow-up car rapidly diminishes, it is the reason the outriders suddenly catch up with the limo, it is the reason Hill can make the gap............
I asked u for info re the distance between the jfklimo & Queen Mary. Because i know that there is no such footage or info. But u failed to reply.
(3). I will add this (3). I said that there was no obvious stopping or near stopping or slowing in the Davison footage.........
U said that i was wrong. My meaning was not that there was no slowing, my meaning was that there was no obvious slowing, ie without doing some detailed frame by frame measurements.
In particular, i was referring to Z270 to Z312.
-
Besides the graphic head shot, Life Magazine a week later published a number of key frames which fit perfectly into the Zapruder Film. So allowing for printing and distribution of the magazine, this gives a window of only a few days for any alterations.
(https://i.postimg.cc/XvzNCCVK/Zap-lifeb.gif)
JohnM
Among all the ridiculous claims about alteration, Horne's claim that the wound created by the head shot was painted on to 8mm frames is, by far, the most ridiculous.
It is almost incomprehensible that anyone would even think that.
The head shot takes up less than 1mm square of the film. It would take more than a few days to paint this level of detail onto such a microscopic space:
(https://i.postimg.cc/tJF858sd/Head-Shot-close.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
-
Among all the ridiculous claims about alteration, Horne's claim that the wound created by the head shot was painted on to 8mm frames is, by far, the most ridiculous.
It is almost incomprehensible that anyone would even think that.
The head shot takes up less than 1mm square of the film. It would take more than a few days to paint this level of detail onto such a microscopic space:
(https://i.postimg.cc/tJF858sd/Head-Shot-close.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
"Detail"?? Really?
-
"Detail"?? Really?
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Gerda_Dunckel_Gif_1.gif)
-
"Detail"?? Really?
Yeah, Royell - detail.
You don't see because you refuse to look because your mind is already made up.
Two details worth noting:
1) The large pendulous strip of scalp that dangles towards the front of JFK's head
2) The massive crater that appears where the top of his head was.
The second point requires, not just the addition of the head wound in consecutive 1mm square spaces but it is also necessary to fill in the background where the crater in JFK's head appears. It is a staggeringly small space to work with.
You're like all Altfans - you don't look, so you don't see, because you don't want to see.
You'd rather believe a batsh*t crazy piece of tinfoil nonsense that you can't back up when it comes to the crunch.
-
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Gerda_Dunckel_Gif_1.gif)
Hi Michael, I hope you are absolutely fabulous, but Gerda used very low quality images and a lot of imagination.
Here's a much superior version, which matches the wound seen in the Zapruder film.
(https://i.postimg.cc/WzrZpD0m/JFKAutopsy-Morph.gif)
Besides a bullet entrance hole, there was NO other wound on the back of Kennedy's head.
(https://i.postimg.cc/XJmbcLpW/JFKBOHlatest-700.gif)
JohnM
-
Among all the ridiculous claims about alteration, Horne's claim that the wound created by the head shot was painted on to 8mm frames is, by far, the most ridiculous.
It is almost incomprehensible that anyone would even think that.
The head shot takes up less than 1mm square of the film. It would take more than a few days to paint this level of detail onto such a microscopic space:
(https://i.postimg.cc/tJF858sd/Head-Shot-close.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
It would take more than a few days to paint this level of detail onto such a microscopic space:
Thumb1:
(https://i.postimg.cc/xCcWpmzP/Z-317-crop.jpg)
And with mathematical pixel perfect motion blur, which even computers of today can't replicate.
(https://i.postimg.cc/rsytL8qg/Z-318-crop.jpg)
JohnM
-
Certainly is gonna be interesting to hear those 7 Parkland Hospital Dr's on Nov 14, Paramount+ "JFK:What The Doctors Saw". The trailer is very good.
-
Certainly is gonna be interesting to hear those 7 Parkland Hospital Dr's on Nov 14, Paramount+ "JFK:What The Doctors Saw". The trailer is very good.
Yep, sure will be very interesting. LOL!
(https://i.postimg.cc/tCHf9mcK/Parkland-doctors-before-after-zps6dycr4dk.jpg)
JohnM
-
We've seen all of these macabre cartoons. Why not listen to the 1st hand accounts of these 7 Dr's that observed/treated the body of JFK before it was stolen?
-
Hi Michael, I hope you are absolutely fabulous, but Gerda used very low quality images and a lot of imagination.
Here's a much superior version, which matches the wound seen in the Zapruder film.
(https://i.postimg.cc/WzrZpD0m/JFKAutopsy-Morph.gif)
Besides a bullet entrance hole, there was NO other wound on the back of Kennedy's head.
(https://i.postimg.cc/XJmbcLpW/JFKBOHlatest-700.gif)
JohnM
Hi John. But if you look down in your first image, the area above JFK's right ear is missing and his hair is longer. The last image shows scalp being held that is missing earlier; the hair is shorter; and if you fold up the piece that is hanging down, it will be up on top of clean short hairline scalp. Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
-
We've seen all of these macabre cartoons. Why not listen to the 1st hand accounts of these 7 Dr's that observed/treated the body of JFK before it was stolen?
Huh?
These are YOUR eyewitnesses who never even touched Kennedy's blood splattered head much less a thorough examination, and they all deferred to the actual autopsy report and photos of a cleaned up head which was closely examined for hours and not a vague cursory glimpse for minutes. There's a reason why Autopsies are done instead of relying the frantic observations in a hospital emergency room and especially when the patient wasn't specifically examined or even turned over.
(https://i.postimg.cc/tCHf9mcK/Parkland-doctors-before-after-zps6dycr4dk.jpg)
And doesn't it boggle your little biased mind that even though Kennedy was never turned over that McClelland looked down into the wound? ? ? ?
c
(https://i.postimg.cc/WpSQC06P/Mc-Clelland-Bullspombleprofglidnoctobunsa-zpseecf9014.jpg)
Zapruder film = Xrays = Dealey Plaza eyewitnesses = a LOT of eyewitnesses Vs A few doctors
(https://i.postimg.cc/cJwwV4fp/alotofevidence2-zpsri8gm5gr.jpg)
JohnM
-
Hi John. But if you look down in your first image, the area above JFK's right ear is missing and his hair is longer. The last image shows scalp being held that is missing earlier; the hair is shorter; and if you fold up the piece that is hanging down, it will be up on top of clean short hairline scalp. Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
I see wet hair that is patted down and the second image is the flap at the back being brought forward. No offence but I constantly see you completely out of your depth when analysing film and photos and I feel it would be best for you to focus elsewhere.
Have the awesomest day ever.
JohnM
-
I see wet hair that is patted down and the second image is the flap at the back being brought forward. No offence but I constantly see you completely out of your depth when analysing film and photos and I feel it would be best for you to focus elsewhere.
Have the awesomest day ever.
JohnM
Hi John, This is what JFK's hair length was. It was longer than in the autopsy photo.
This image is not possible; therefore it is fake.
"...I feel it would be best for you to focus elsewhere." says the brilliant man who said this earlier: Hi Michael, sometime in the eight months between the two events Oswald upgraded the strap, why is that a problem?
JohnM
Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
-
Sandra Spencer who developed the autopsy films said the back of the head showed a large exit wound. She was previously an autopsy photographer before being a film developer. Also the film paper used to develop the current autopsy pictures was not the paper used back in 1963! So the autopsy picture showing a complete back of the head is a fake.
Starting at the 37 minute mark:
Sincerely yours, Michael
-
Hi John, This is what JFK's hair length was. It was longer than in the autopsy photo.
This image is not possible; therefore it is fake.
"...I feel it would be best for you to focus elsewhere." says the brilliant man who said this earlier: Hi Michael, sometime in the eight months between the two events Oswald upgraded the strap, why is that a problem?
JohnM
Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
Hi John, This is what JFK's hair length was. It was longer than in the autopsy photo.
Prove it. Thumb1:
This image is not possible; therefore it is fake.
Well Einstein explain your theory, did they kill someone else and transplant the scalp or something equally stupid? Alterationist's without a clue who make wild implausible accusations based on their ineptness does your whole CT community a disservice.
"...I feel it would be best for you to focus elsewhere." says the brilliant man who said this earlier: Hi Michael, sometime in the eight months between the two events Oswald upgraded the strap, why is that a problem?
Question, are the straps the same?
(https://freerangeamerican.us/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Carcano_4.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/ZK5HYZzp/Oswald-rifle-side-mounts.png)
"The Warren Report says that the rifle in the backyard photographs 'seem to be equipped with a homemade rope sling.' In one of the photos (133-A) they decided that the portion of the sling that is visible is too small to establish whether it is rope or leather, but it has the appearance of rope, and its configuration is consistent with the rope sling pictured in 133-B."
Sylvia Meagher (Accessories After the Fact)
JohnM
-
Sandra Spencer who developed the autopsy films said the back of the head showed a large exit wound. She was previously an autopsy photographer before being a film developer. Also the film paper used to develop the current autopsy pictures was not the paper used back in 1963! So the autopsy picture showing a complete back of the head is a fake.
Starting at the 37 minute mark:
Sincerely yours, Michael
Hilarious, hearsay evidence without a shred of physical evidence is oh so convincing. LOLOL!
Look Michael, the original stereoscopic photos taken in 1963 and used to create my stereoscopic morphs simply wouldn't be possible without 21st century computer power and there is no way the original "conspirators" would be able to predict this advancement in technology. As I said, you're completely out of your depth! Try tiddlywinks for a more stimulating hobby.
(https://i.postimg.cc/WzrZpD0m/JFKAutopsy-Morph.gif)
Besides a bullet entrance hole, there was NO other wound on the back of Kennedy's head.
(https://i.postimg.cc/XJmbcLpW/JFKBOHlatest-700.gif)
Have a fabulous day! Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1:
JohnM
-
Prove it. Thumb1:
Well Einstein explain your theory, did they kill someone else and transplant the scalp or something equally stupid? Alterationist's without a clue who make wild implausible accusations based on their ineptness does your whole CT community a disservice.
Question, are the straps the same?
(https://freerangeamerican.us/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Carcano_4.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/ZK5HYZzp/Oswald-rifle-side-mounts.png)
"The Warren Report says that the rifle in the backyard photographs 'seem to be equipped with a homemade rope sling.' In one of the photos (133-A) they decided that the portion of the sling that is visible is too small to establish whether it is rope or leather, but it has the appearance of rope, and its configuration is consistent with the rope sling pictured in 133-B."
Sylvia Meagher (Accessories After the Fact)
JohnM
The strap mount in this backyard photo is on the side. And as for the strap itself it's believed to be a strap from a United States Air Force holster. I'll do some research to make sure the backyard photo has this sling or something else.
(https://i.postimg.cc/ZK5HYZzp/Oswald-rifle-side-mounts.png)
JohnM
Hi John, We were talking about the bottom strap mount not the strap!Hi Michael, sometime in the eight months between the two events Oswald upgraded the strap, why is that a problem?
JohnM
Bruglioni said Hawkeye Works could do anything back in 1963 and the autopsy photos were not seen for thirty years! If you measure JFK's hair strands on top, they are about 6 inches in the brain messy globs photo. In the one clean matted down, they are about three inches. Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
-
Hi John, A bullet shot from the Sniper's Nest would be travelling from right to left, thus coming out the left side of JFK's head. So your analysis is faulty. Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/icptmsdata/z/a/p/r/zapruder_abraham_1845_2005_446473_displaysize.jpg)
-
Hi John, We were talking about the bottom strap mount not the strap!
Bruglioni said Hawkeye Works could do anything back in 1963 and the autopsy photos were not seen for thirty years! If you measure JFK's hair strands on top, they are about 6 inches in the brain messy globs photo. In the one clean matted down, they are about three inches. Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
Hi John, We were talking about the bottom strap mount not the strap!
Okey dokey, from all the Carcano rifle mounts I have seen, they are on the side because that would be the most logical place for them, yes?
(https://i.postimg.cc/vBXBT1sJ/Carcano-side-strap-mount.jpg)
Bruglioni said Hawkeye Works could do anything back in 1963 and the autopsy photos were not seen for thirty years!
The relevant Zaruder film frames including the headshot were in the 1964 Warren report and are exactly what we see today and these images are 100% corroborated with the autopsy photos.
If you measure JFK's hair strands on top, they are about 6 inches in the brain messy globs photo. In the one clean matted down, they are about three inches
Your biased observations are not scientific, show me some forensic comparisons that would have a better chance of convincing me. k?
JohnM
-
Hi John, A bullet shot from the Sniper's Nest would be travelling from right to left, thus coming out the left side of JFK's head. So your analysis is faulty. Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/icptmsdata/z/a/p/r/zapruder_abraham_1845_2005_446473_displaysize.jpg)
For a start, Kennedy was looking down and to the left and secondly after the bullet fragments entered Kennedy's cracking skull, the heavier casing went through and the internal fluid pressure just exploded through the weakest point.
(https://i.postimg.cc/4x0Pm5Zg/z-312-crop.jpg)
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/dFVtNqBNmC0/hqdefault.jpg)
(https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/images/fig_h16_lrg.jpg)
Btw as a running count, you have the backyard photos, the Zapruder/Nix/Muchmore Films, the autopsy photos and by extension the XRays ALL being manipulated, is that right? And goodness knows what else but whatever it takes to clear a double murder, eh Michael??
JohnM
-
Okey dokey, from all the Carcano rifle mounts I have seen, they are on the side because that would be the most logical place for them, yes?
(https://i.postimg.cc/vBXBT1sJ/Carcano-side-strap-mount.jpg)
The relevant Zaruder film frames including the headshot were in the 1964 Warren report and are exactly what we see today and these images are 100% corroborated with the autopsy photos.
Your biased observations are not scientific, show me some forensic comparisons that would have a better chance of convincing me. k?
JohnM
Hi John, The magazine Oswald ordered the rifle from pictured a Klein's rifle with mounts on the bottom! The autopsy photos do put damage further back than the Z film. I will see about finding some comparisons. I have an assignment for you------ show the hole in the back of JFK's head matching a trajectory from the SN that would not blow out the left side of JFK's head. Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
credit: David Von Pein
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-xkdKVRtQe3k/UrKs7tMMUUI/AAAAAAAAxbE/9XTcHWjNbuE/s535/Kleins-Rifle-Ad-February-1963.jpg)
(https://media.istockphoto.com/id/469389354/photo/mannlicher-carcano-assassination-rifle.jpg?s=1024x1024&w=is&k=20&c=LzetRiKatkGUQYlRWpTUa5ClJwy_AgFvWyRc1ZU_pFw=)
-
For a start, Kennedy was looking down and to the left and secondly after the bullet fragments entered Kennedy's cracking skull, the heavier casing went through and the internal fluid pressure just exploded through the weakest point.
(https://i.postimg.cc/4x0Pm5Zg/z-312-crop.jpg)
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/dFVtNqBNmC0/hqdefault.jpg)
(https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/images/fig_h16_lrg.jpg)
Btw as a running count, you have the backyard photos, the Zapruder/Nix/Muchmore Films, the autopsy photos and by extension the XRays ALL being manipulated, is that right? And goodness knows what else but whatever it takes to clear a double murder, eh Michael??
JohnM
Sorry John, your pictures just do not line up with the hole!
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/JFK_posterior_head_wound.jpg/800px-JFK_posterior_head_wound.jpg)
Maybe the County Records Building would work! Thank you for everything! In my opinion, the Backyard Photos are genuine. If any film matches the autopsy photo, it has been altered. All that had to be done was put the Carcano on the sixth floor. Oswald was outside. Somebody fired Oswald's rifle towards James Tague. It was not Oswald though. Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
-
Hi John, The magazine Oswald ordered the rifle from pictured a Klein's rifle with mounts on the bottom! The autopsy photos do put damage further back than the Z film. I will see about finding some comparisons. I have an assignment for you------ show the hole in the back of JFK's head matching a trajectory from the SN that would not blow out the left side of JFK's head. Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
credit: David Von Pein
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-xkdKVRtQe3k/UrKs7tMMUUI/AAAAAAAAxbE/9XTcHWjNbuE/s535/Kleins-Rifle-Ad-February-1963.jpg)
(https://media.istockphoto.com/id/469389354/photo/mannlicher-carcano-assassination-rifle.jpg?s=1024x1024&w=is&k=20&c=LzetRiKatkGUQYlRWpTUa5ClJwy_AgFvWyRc1ZU_pFw=)
The magazine Oswald ordered the rifle from pictured a Klein's rifle with mounts on the bottom!
It also says 36 inch. Oswald received the longer model, but thanks for the photos.
Getting back to the original problem, the side mounts are consistent across the backyard photos and the rifle in evidence.
The autopsy photos do put damage further back than the Z film.
In Zapruder you're looking at the bone flap, which came forward but the damage is exactly the same, and on both the wound is no where near the fabled back of head exit wound.
I have an assignment for you------ show the hole in the back of JFK's head matching a trajectory from the SN that would not blow out the left side of JFK's head.
I explained that to you already.
Anyway using this reasoning of yours, tell me how a shot from the front right grassy knoll puts a hole on the rear right of Kennedy's head and don't forget in your calculations that JFK was looking down and to the left?
JohnM
-
Sorry John, your pictures just do not line up with the hole!
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/JFK_posterior_head_wound.jpg/800px-JFK_posterior_head_wound.jpg)
Maybe the County Records Building would work! Thank you for everything! In my opinion, the Backyard Photos are genuine. If any film matches the autopsy photo, it has been altered. All that had to be done was put the Carcano on the sixth floor. Oswald was outside. Somebody fired Oswald's rifle towards James Tague. It was not Oswald though. Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
Sorry John, your pictures just do not line up with the hole!
Show me where you think the hole should be?
(http://Maybe the County Records Building would work!)
The bullet fragments found in the Limo were an exclusive match to Oswald's rifle found on the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository.
In my opinion, the Backyard Photos are genuine.
Thumb1:
If any film matches the autopsy photo, it has been altered.
Altering the synchronized Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films is impossible, do some research into film alteration and get back to me with another theory.
Oswald was outside.
Even though he's on film agreeing that he was inside at the time and not a single eyewitness saw him outside?
Somebody fired Oswald's rifle towards James Tague. It was not Oswald though.
The rifle with Oswald's prints and 3 types of fibre that matched Oswald's arrest shirt was fired by someone else? Seriously?
And don't forget that the relatively fresh prints on the rifle rest in the sniper's Nest also belonged to Oswald.
And also don't forget that Oswald in flight from the horrendous crime he just committed, left the Depository immediately, went to his room and grabbed his revolver and killed Officer Tippit and when arrested tried to kill more policeman.
And you honestly are trying to defend this Double Murderer, shame on you.
JohnM
-
It also says 36 inch. Oswald received the longer model, but thanks for the photos.
Getting back to the original problem, the side mounts are consistent across the backyard photos and the rifle in evidence.
In Zapruder you're looking at the bone flap, which came forward but the damage is exactly the same, and on both the wound is no where near the fabled back of head exit wound.
I explained that to you already.
Anyway using this reasoning of yours, tell me how a shot from the front right grassy knoll puts a hole on the rear right of Kennedy's head and don't forget in your calculations that JFK was looking down and to the left?
JohnM
Hi John, You are welcome! Concerning a shot from the front, you and I have the same problem that you have for your shot from the back[your evidence just does not line up! unless it makes a right hook into the hole!] With my right front head shot, it is a lot easier! I consider the right front head shot being shot from the Hatman location---approximately 10 to 15 feet back from the corner of the picket fence. The bullet entered near the right temple and exited out the back. The bullet was frangible and exploded. Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
-
Show me where you think the hole should be?
(http://Maybe the County Records Building would work!)
The bullet fragments found in the Limo were an exclusive match to Oswald's rifle found on the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository.
Thumb1:
Altering the synchronized Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films is impossible, do some research into film alteration and get back to me with another theory.
Even though he's on film agreeing that he was inside at the time and not a single eyewitness saw him outside?
The rifle with Oswald's prints and 3 types of fibre that matched Oswald's arrest shirt was fired by someone else? Seriously?
And don't forget that the relatively fresh prints on the rifle rest in the sniper's Nest also belonged to Oswald.
And also don't forget that Oswald in flight from the horrendous crime he just committed, left the Depository immediately, went to his room and grabbed his revolver and killed Officer Tippit and when arrested tried to kill more policeman.
And you honestly are trying to defend this Double Murderer, shame on you.
JohnM
Hi John, Oswald's ammo was magical. It did not break up! The hole is not the problem. It is getting Oswald's bullet into the hole and making it go to the right. It just does not line up! Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
-
Hi John, Oswald's ammo was magical. It did not break up! The hole is not the problem. It is getting Oswald's bullet into the hole and making it go to the right. It just does not line up! Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
Hi John, Oswald's ammo was magical.
They were just standard full metal jacket bullets. CE399 passed through Kennedy's soft flesh, slowed and tumbled into Connally then fractured his wrist and ended up barely penetrating his thigh and thus easily fell out. CE399 lost a little lead and a small amount of lead was found in Connally. CE399 was also flattened on one side which was caused by passing through Connally's ribs side on.
John Lattimer removed a similar amount of lead from a simiar bullet and made more than enough lead fragments to cover what was retreived and in Connally.
(https://i.postimg.cc/mDJ3CV17/Lattimer-fragments-zps20a799c6.jpg)
(https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/1/11/Photo_ce399_base.jpg)
It did not break up!
The head shot bullet's copper coating broke into two pieces and the lead showered the inside of Kennedy's brain.
It is getting Oswald's bullet into the hole and making it go to the right.
For the last time the internal pressure escaped through a weak part of Kennedy's fractured skull and hishead was pointed down to the left, you posted Z312 yourself.
JohnM
-
They were just standard full metal jacket bullets. CE399 passed through Kennedy's soft flesh, slowed and tumbled into Connally then fractured his wrist and ended up barely penetrating his thigh and thus easily fell out. CE399 lost a little lead and a small amount of lead was found in Connally. CE399 was also flattened on one side which was caused by passing through Connally's ribs side on.
John Lattimer removed a similar amount of lead from a simiar bullet and made more than enough lead fragments to cover what was retreived and in Connally.
(https://i.postimg.cc/mDJ3CV17/Lattimer-fragments-zps20a799c6.jpg)
(https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/1/11/Photo_ce399_base.jpg)
The head shot bullet's copper coating broke into two pieces and the lead showered the inside of Kennedy's brain.
For the last time the internal pressure escaped through a weak part of Kennedy's fractured skull and hishead was pointed down to the left, you posted Z312 yourself.
JohnM
Yes John that is your problem! The trajectory does not line up! Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
-
Yes John that is your problem! The trajectory does not line up! Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
Again I have your opinion but as usual with no evidence, to be credible you must forensically prove that my scientific analysis is wrong, and please understand that your clearly biased opinions are worthless.
All the best.
JohnM
-
Hi John, You are welcome! Concerning a shot from the front, you and I have the same problem that you have for your shot from the back[your evidence just does not line up! unless it makes a right hook into the hole!] With my right front head shot, it is a lot easier! I consider the right front head shot being shot from the Hatman location---approximately 10 to 15 feet back from the corner of the picket fence. The bullet entered near the right temple and exited out the back. The bullet was frangible and exploded. Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
Marylin Sitzman would've seen anyone in that position and would have been deafened by the blast.
There was no-one in that area other than the young black couple. So that's that dealt with.
As for JFK's head injury.
The morphs John Mytton posted show a truly massive wound to the top right of the skull extending from just behind the hairline at the front to the to the back of the skull.
It's quite difficult to comprehend how large this wound is.
What is really unusual about the injury, whether the shot is from the front or the back, is that the top of JFK's skull blew off.
Dino Brugluoni, who got to closely examine the original Z-film describes skull fragments being blown into the air. And that is what we see in the Z-film.
At the moment of impact two powerful "jets" of, what I assume are skull and brain tissue can be clearly seen in the film. The main "jet" is picked out by the red arrow, the lesser "jet" by the yellow arrow:
(https://i.postimg.cc/qq1bNBdL/z313-4.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
As I say, the unusual part of this is that these "jets" of skull and brain tissue are blown out of the top of the skull.
In the frame below, the yellow line represents the line running through the top of his head. This is my own rough estimation and is made to give a general idea of the direction of the "Jets" (marked in red). There can be little doubt these powerful "jets" of skull/brain material are travelling in a straight line from the top part of JFK's head. There is nothing even remotely similar exiting the back of his head.
(https://i.postimg.cc/xCwxHpkk/z313-3.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Does the Z-film show the same injury as the autopsy photos?
Yes, it does.
A close examination of the wound after the head shot reveals a massive crater in the top of JFK's head,in exactly the same place we have seen the skull fragments exiting from:
In the clip below focus on the top of JFK's head before the impact. Focus on the shape of it.
Immediately after the impact the large flap of scalp appears at the side of his head.
As his head moves forward a massive crater is apparent at the top of his head.
(https://i.postimg.cc/RFV4RpQQ/Head-Shot-close.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
This is an extreme close up of JFK before the headshot. Note the shape of the top of his head:
(https://i.postimg.cc/LXb8kHsN/z292-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
This is an extreme close up of JFK after the headshot. Note the shape of the top of his head:
(https://i.postimg.cc/xdjmt102/z330-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
The difference is truly dramatic. There is a massive crater where the top of his head once was. This is to be expected as we have seen parts of his skull blown into the air from the top part of his head. It is also a match for the autopsy morph John posted.
The problem with Altfans [and it seems to be a thing with Tinfoil Nutters in general] is that they believe witness testimony over actual film footage of something, which I find difficult to grasp. It's the same with the Mauser bullsh*t and the Alyea footage.
Rather than trying to see if there's any way of reconciling these, apparently contradictory, aspects - film footage and witness testimony - it is preferable to accept some truly bizarre, unsupported "theory".
Many people describe a head wound towards the back of the head but the autopsy pictures and the Z-film show a massive wound to the top part of the skull.
In order to understand how these can be reconciled it is important to understand the exact nature of the wound to JFK's head.
-
Marylin Sitzman would've seen anyone in that position and would have been deafened by the blast.
There was no-one in that area other than the young black couple. So that's that dealt with.
As for JFK's head injury.
The morphs John Mytton posted show a truly massive wound to the top right of the skull extending from just behind the hairline at the front to the to the back of the skull.
It's quite difficult to comprehend how large this wound is.
What is really unusual about the injury, whether the shot is from the front or the back, is that the top of JFK's skull blew off.
Dino Brugluoni, who got to closely examine the original Z-film describes skull fragments being blown into the air. And that is what we see in the Z-film.
At the moment of impact two powerful "jets" of, what I assume are skull and brain tissue can be clearly seen in the film. The main "jet" is picked out by the red arrow, the lesser "jet" by the yellow arrow:
(https://i.postimg.cc/qq1bNBdL/z313-4.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
As I say, the unusual part of this is that these "jets" of skull and brain tissue are blown out of the top of the skull.
In the frame below, the yellow line represents the line running through the top of his head. This is my own rough estimation and is made to give a general idea of the direction of the "Jets" (marked in red). There can be little doubt these powerful "jets" of skull/brain material are travelling in a straight line from the top part of JFK's head. There is nothing even remotely similar exiting the back of his head.
(https://i.postimg.cc/xCwxHpkk/z313-3.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Does the Z-film show the same injury as the autopsy photos?
Yes, it does.
A close examination of the wound after the head shot reveals a massive crater in the top of JFK's head,in exactly the same place we have seen the skull fragments exiting from:
In the clip below focus on the top of JFK's head before the impact. Focus on the shape of it.
Immediately after the impact the large flap of scalp appears at the side of his head.
As his head moves forward a massive crater is apparent at the top of his head.
(https://i.postimg.cc/RFV4RpQQ/Head-Shot-close.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
This is an extreme close up of JFK before the headshot. Note the shape of the top of his head:
(https://i.postimg.cc/LXb8kHsN/z292-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
This is an extreme close up of JFK after the headshot. Note the shape of the top of his head:
(https://i.postimg.cc/xdjmt102/z330-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
The difference is truly dramatic. There is a massive crater where the top of his head once was. This is to be expected as we have seen parts of his skull blown into the air from the top part of his head. It is also a match for the autopsy morph John posted.
The problem with Altfans [and it seems to be a thing with Tinfoil Nutters in general] is that they believe witness testimony over actual film footage of something, which I find difficult to grasp. It's the same with the Mauser bullsh*t and the Alyea footage.
Rather than trying to see if there's any way of reconciling these, apparently contradictory, aspects - film footage and witness testimony - it is preferable to accept some truly bizarre, unsupported "theory".
Many people describe a head wound towards the back of the head but the autopsy pictures and the Z-film show a massive wound to the top part of the skull.
In order to understand how these can be reconciled it is important to understand the exact nature of the wound to JFK's head.
Hi Dan, Did you notice JFK's hair puffs out in the back? Mary Moorman said the exact same thing his hair puffed out. Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
(https://i.postimg.cc/RFV4RpQQ/Head-Shot-close.gif)
-
Hi Dan, Did you notice JFK's hair puffs out in the back? Mary Moorman said the exact same thing his hair puffed out. Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
(https://i.postimg.cc/RFV4RpQQ/Head-Shot-close.gif)
Odd that you post the "altered" Zapruder film as evidence? ::)
Anyway, the first Dealey Plaza eyewitnesses who were interviewed within hours all agree with the head wound as seen in the Zapruder film.
(https://i.postimg.cc/nz4LKb24/first-day-dealey-polaza-eyewitnesses.gif)
JohnM
-
Hi Dan, Did you notice JFK's hair puffs out in the back? Mary Moorman said the exact same thing his hair puffed out. Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
(https://i.postimg.cc/RFV4RpQQ/Head-Shot-close.gif)
I have to assume that you agree with my analysis of the Z-film, that the wound to JFK's head is to the top part of his skull, that skull fragments are blown upwards and that this is the same wound as shown in the autopsy photographs.
I say this because you haven't dealt with a single issue I raised. And you're right not to deal with them because they show what a tenuous grasp you have on the evidence for this case.
Instead of dealing with these issues [because you know they will crush your little fantasy] you raise another issue.
Did you notice JFK's hair puffs out in the back?
The head shot causes an unbelievably large deformation of the skull.
The skull literally shatters into countless pieces. Some are blown upwards, some are still attached to the massive piece of scalp that is blown to the side of his head and those still inside the remaining scalp have lost their structural integrity.
It is possible that there is deformation shown at the back of the head [or puffing out] but it is very slight. Certainly when compared with the massive deformation of the top part of the skull. More importantly, no debris exits the back part of the head. Bruglioni studied the Z-film in close detail and he never mentions debris exiting the back of the head,
I'm glad you agree that it was the top part of JFK's skull that was blown up in the air in the Z-film and that this is the same wound we see in the autopsy pics Thumb1:
-
Odd that you post the "altered" Zapruder film as evidence? ::)
Anyway, the first Dealey Plaza eyewitnesses who were interviewed within hours all agree with the head wound as seen in the Zapruder film.
(https://i.postimg.cc/nz4LKb24/first-day-dealey-polaza-eyewitnesses.gif)
JohnM
Odd that you post the "altered" Zapruder film as evidence? ::)
:D :D
What a shock.
-
Odd that you post the "altered" Zapruder film as evidence? ::)
Anyway, the first Dealey Plaza eyewitnesses who were interviewed within hours all agree with the head wound as seen in the Zapruder film.
(https://i.postimg.cc/nz4LKb24/first-day-dealey-polaza-eyewitnesses.gif)
JohnM
Hi John, They left a few of the light colored legitimate real undarkened out hairs! Remember Bobby Hargis said he was hit with the president's blood, water, skull and brain with the force of concrete! This put him into shock. He no longer did his duty. He parked his motorcycle and headed to the Grassy Knoll. Then further was in dereliction of duty and ended up in front of the TSBD's entrance helping out. Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
-
Odd that you post the "altered" Zapruder film as evidence? ::)
:D :D
What a shock.
They're nothing if not predictable.
They quote the WC testimony even though they claim it's been falsified.
They quote the WC themselves even though they're part of it.
They present FBI analysis even though it's tainted.
They quote the Dallas Police even though they lie.
Etc etc.
JohnM
-
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/BE2_HI_Crop.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/RFV4RpQQ/Head-Shot-close.gif)
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Be2_hi.jpg)
Do these match or is their significant damage behind JFK's right ear that does not exist in the Z-film?
-
Hi John, They left a few of the light colored legitimate real undarkened out hairs! Remember Bobby Hargis said he was hit with the president's blood, water, skull and brain with the force of concrete! This put him into shock. He no longer did his duty. He parked his motorcycle and headed to the Grassy Knoll. Then further was in dereliction of duty and ended up in front of the TSBD's entrance helping out. Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
Hargis simply rode through the exploded matter and if Hargis was hit with a piece of skull that felt like concrete, where is it, embedded in his side, on the road? Where is it Michael?
Hargis's testimony makes more sense.
Mr. STERN - Did something happen to you, personally in connection with the shot you have Just described?
Mr. HARGIS - You mean about the blood hitting---
Mr. STERN - Yes.
Mr. HARGIS - Yes; when President Kennedy straightened back up in the car the bullet him in the head, the one that killed him and it seemed like his head exploded, and I was splattered with blood and brain, and kind of bloody water, It wasn't really blood. And at that time the Presidential car slowed down. I heard somebody say, "Get going," or "get going,"
JohnM
-
Hargis simply rode through the exploded matter and if Hargis was hit with a piece of skull that felt like concrete, where is it, embedded in his side, on the road? Where is it Michael?
Hargis's testimony makes more sense.
Mr. STERN - Did something happen to you, personally in connection with the shot you have Just described?
Mr. HARGIS - You mean about the blood hitting---
Mr. STERN - Yes.
Mr. HARGIS - Yes; when President Kennedy straightened back up in the car the bullet him in the head, the one that killed him and it seemed like his head exploded, and I was splattered with blood and brain, and kind of bloody water, It wasn't really blood. And at that time the Presidential car slowed down. I heard somebody say, "Get going," or "get going,"
JohnM
Hi John, Here you go! Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
(https://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/witnessMap/documents/DailyNews_11-24-63_0001a.gif)
And John, please tell Dan that Bobby said the limo stopped.....
-
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/BE2_HI_Crop.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/RFV4RpQQ/Head-Shot-close.gif)
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Be2_hi.jpg)
Do these match or is their significant damage behind JFK's right ear that does not exist in the Z-film?
The autopsy photo shows the scalp pulled back, look closely and you can see the skull perimeter which matches Zapruder.
This is precisely what I don't understand about you alteration believers, even if these images and films were faked, don't you think the professional guys doing these extensive photorealistic forgeries would be able to see the other images and films and make it all match or do you think they were unrealistically all doing this alone from some vague blueprint? Its bizarre that you think you can solve your conspiracy with these amateur observations.
JohnM
-
The autopsy photo shows the scalp pulled back, look closely and you can see the skull perimeter which matches Zapruder.
This is precisely what I don't understand about you alteration believers, even if these images and films were faked, don't you think the professional guys doing these extensive photorealistic forgeries would be able to see the other images and films and make it all match or do you think they were unrealistically all doing this alone from some vague blueprint? Its bizarre that you think you can solve your conspiracy with these amateur observations.
JohnM
Hi John, I do not see the scalp being pulled from anywhere. Thank you for your input! Sincerely yours, Michael
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/JFK_autopsy.jpg)
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Be2_hi.jpg)
-
Hi John, Here you go! Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
(https://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/witnessMap/documents/DailyNews_11-24-63_0001a.gif)
And John, please tell Dan that Bobby said the limo stopped.....
Oh, I post testimony under oath and you show me a hearsay newspaper report, nice work Michael.
Btw how does all this concrete like matter which can't be seen in Zapruder shoot out horizontally and strike Hargis, does this flight path coincide with your trajectory from Kennedy's forehead to the rear exit wound or did it follow another magical path??
PS my original question remains, what happened to these large chunks that struck Hargis, they must be somewhere? Hmmm?
JohnM
-
Hi John, I do not see the scalp being pulled from anywhere. Thank you for your input! Sincerely yours, Michael
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/JFK_autopsy.jpg)
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Be2_hi.jpg)
Huh?
Have you heard of gravity?
Anyway, no offence but I've had enough stupid for one day but good luck in your research. Thumb1:
JohnM
-
You guys are ALL Focusing on these gory autopsy photos and the Z Film. These alleged autopsy photos are stolen and the Z Film was locked up for 12 years before Groden got his mitts on it and further did who knows what to it. These messy/eye catching autopsy photos and the Z Film have ZERO CREDIBILITY. Your falling once again into the intended Mis-Direction tactics of the conspirators. How about holding your water until you hear from the 7 Dr's that were at Parkland Hospital and were observing and treating the ENTRANCE wound in the throat? You continue having your attention diverted to those Shiny Objects being waved around in front of you .Take a breath and FOCUS. THE THROAT !!!!!!
-
Oh, I post testimony under oath and you show me a hearsay newspaper report, nice work Michael.
Btw how does all this concrete like matter which can't be seen in Zapruder shoot out horizontally and strike Hargis, does this flight path coincide with your trajectory from Kennedy's forehead to the rear exit wound or did it follow another magical path??
PS my original question remains, what happened to these large chunks that struck Hargis, they must be somewhere? Hmmm?
JohnM
Hi John, I did not say it, Bobby did! It could be skull pieces or brain; he had both on his lip!
17) JOHN EBERSOLE, MD: was Assistant Chief of Radiology and head of the Radiology Division at Bethesda, and was the radiologist who evaluated the X-rays in close cooperation with the autopsists on the night of the autopsy. He was not called to testify before the Warren Commission. However he was called to testify by the HSCA on March 11, 1978. Ebersole's deposition was not published by the HSCA causing it to be sealed for 50 years under congressional rules. (Due to pressure, however, the transcript of his interview was released in October, 1993.) A brief wire service account appeared regarding his appearance before the HSCA claiming that he agreed with the Warren Commissions' conclusions. However, in an interview with reporter Gil Dulaney published two days before his HSCA appearance Ebersole said of the head wound, "When the body was removed from the casket there was a very obvious horrible gaping wound to the back of the head (BE:543).", and "The front of the body, except for a very slight bruise above the right eye on the forehead, was absolutely intact. It was the back of the head that was blown off." (BE:546)
In HSCA testimony recently released, Ebersole claimed, "The back of the head was missing..."(HSCA interview with Ebersole, 3-11-78, p.3), and when shown the autopsy photograph with the back of the scalp intact, Ebersole commented, "You know, my recollection is more of a gaping occipital wound than this but I can certainly not state that this is the way it looked. Again we are relying on a 15 year old recollection. But had you asked me without seeing these or seeing the pictures, you know, I would have put the wound here rather than more forward." (HSCA interview with Ebersole, 3-11-78, p. 62). Ebersole, faced with the photographs before the HSCA, said JFK's skull defect was, "More lateral. Much more lateral and superior than I remembered." (HSCA interview with Ebersole, 3-11-63, p. 63) Yet Ebersole claimed that "I had the opportunity (to examine the back of JFK's head while positioning the head for X-rays) (HSCA Ebersole interview, 3-11-78, p. 64). Later Ebersole said, "...perhaps about 12:30 (am) a large fragment of the occipital bone was received from Dallas and at Dr. Finck's request I X-rayed these (sic)...". As Lifton observed about Ebersole's HSCA enlightenment, "When Ebersole met with Art Smith on March 28, and of course after his HSCA interview, he said: 'The back portion of the head...the back part of the head, was reasonably intact.' Ebersole claimed that Dulaney had misquoted him. Smith asked: "That was a misquote?" Ebersole: "Yes, Misquoted. I, really, ah, I may have said that--what I meant was, the side." David Lifton had Dulaney read a verbatim transcript of the Ebersole interview. Dulaney again quoted Ebersole describing the head wound as "a very obvious horrible gaping wound at the back of the head..." (BE:546) (Emphasis added.) Ebersole's reliability has also been questioned as he also claimed that the neck wound upon arrival at Bethesda was sutured closed. Ebersole told this to both Dulaney and to Art Smith (BE:543).
Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
Here is Dr. Ebersole's sworn testimony.
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/audio/HSCA_Ebersole_R1S1.mp3
-
Huh?
Have you heard of gravity?
Anyway, no offence but I've had enough stupid for one day but good luck in your research. Thumb1:
JohnM
Hi John, The z-film does not seem to show this messy brain globs after JFK's ear. I do not think gravity is the answer. Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
(https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z327.jpg)
-
You guys are ALL Focusing on these gory autopsy photos and the Z Film. These alleged autopsy photos are stolen and the Z Film was locked up for 12 years before Groden got his mitts on it and further did who knows what to it. These messy/eye catching autopsy photos and the Z Film have ZERO CREDIBILITY. Your falling once again into the intended Mis-Direction tactics of the conspirators. How about holding your water until you hear from the 7 Dr's that were at Parkland Hospital and were observing and treating the ENTRANCE wound in the throat? You continue having your attention diverted to those Shiny Objects being waved around in front of you .Take a breath and FOCUS. THE THROAT !!!!!!
These messy/eye catching autopsy photos and the Z Film have ZERO CREDIBILITY.
Just to clarify, Royell, it is you who has ZERO CREDIBILITY.
You have provided ZERO in terms of evidence for alteration of the Z-film, other than what you believe.
The Z-film is authentic. Roland Zavada's report ends the argument on this matter. But rather than read the report and critique it, fantasists like yourself brush it off with some glib, empty comment. When Horne's documentary was shown up for the BS: it is, you didn't debate it, you just slid off into the shadows only to re-emerge still spouting your Altfan nonsense.
The autopsy pictures and the Z-film tell exactly the same story - pieces of JFK's skull were blown through the top of his head, lacerating large sections of his scalp in the process.
To imagine both the autopsy pics and the Z-film were altered to such a degree demonstrates a child-like grasp on the realities you are proposing.
The impossibility of what you are proposing simply escapes you.
The most cursory examination of the logic you use to justify these incredible claims reveals that your arguments are built on nothing.
Any alteration would not leave the "back and to the left" motion in film. This motion has become the most celebrated "proof" of a shot from the front? All other alterations are absolutely pointless while this motion is left in. There is ZERO REASON to alter anything if you can't alter everything.
Bring to the table the very best evidence you have that demonstrates the Z-film has been altered.
-
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/BE2_HI_Crop.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/RFV4RpQQ/Head-Shot-close.gif)
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Be2_hi.jpg)
Do these match or is their significant damage behind JFK's right ear that does not exist in the Z-film?
You can't see behind JFK's right ear in the autopsy pics. Explain what you mean.
The autopsy pic is a view from above JFK's head,
The Z-film is a view of JFK's head in profile, a side view.
I get the impression you are being confused by these differing perspectives.
The massive head wound shown in the Z-film extends far behind the ear but it is on top of the head:
(https://i.postimg.cc/0NyPJtsw/Z337headshotredline.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
So when this injury is viewed from above it should correctly appear as if it is an injury that extends "behind the ear", as you put it.
Also, as John has already pointed out, gravity is dragging down JFK's hair and the matter escaping from his skull which gives a distorted perception of the injury which you don't seem to have taken into account.
Do me a favour Michael.
Rather than just blurting out your next irrelevant point, take a close look at the evidence being presented to you and take it from there.
-
These messy/eye catching autopsy photos and the Z Film have ZERO CREDIBILITY.
Just to clarify, Royell, it is you who has ZERO CREDIBILITY.
You have provided ZERO in terms of evidence for alteration of the Z-film, other than what you believe.
The Z-film is authentic. Roland Zavada's report ends the argument on this matter. But rather than read the report and critique it, fantasists like yourself brush it off with some glib, empty comment. When Horne's documentary was shown up for the BS: it is, you didn't debate it, you just slid off into the shadows only to re-emerge still spouting your Altfan nonsense.
The autopsy pictures and the Z-film tell exactly the same story - pieces of JFK's skull were blown through the top of his head, lacerating large sections of his scalp in the process.
To imagine both the autopsy pics and the Z-film were altered to such a degree demonstrates a child-like grasp on the realities you are proposing.
The impossibility of what you are proposing simply escapes you.
The most cursory examination of the logic you use to justify these incredible claims reveals that your arguments are built on nothing.
Any alteration would not leave the "back and to the left" motion in film. This motion has become the most celebrated "proof" of a shot from the front? All other alterations are absolutely pointless while this motion is left in. There is ZERO REASON to alter anything if you can't alter everything.
Bring to the table the very best evidence you have that demonstrates the Z-film has been altered.
You do know you're proffering a film which was under Private lock-n-key for 12 yrs, + a Stolen Body? I'll raise you those 7 Living Parkland Hospital Dr's and what they have to say regarding the condition of JFK's body only 10-15 minutes after the Kill Shot. And I am doing this without knowing what they are gonna say. You guys continue immersing the jury in that gory head stuff, when it is that throat wound that proves at least 2 shooters = Conspiracy. The Mis-Direction you have fallen for ends when these 7 Professionals tell what they saw.
-
You do know you're proffering a film which was under Private lock-n-key for 12 yrs, + a Stolen Body? I'll raise you those 7 Living Parkland Hospital Dr's and what they have to say regarding the condition of JFK's body only 10-15 minutes after the Kill Shot. And I am doing this without knowing what they are gonna say. You guys continue immersing the jury in that gory head stuff, when it is that throat wound that proves at least 2 shooters = Conspiracy. The Mis-Direction you have fallen for ends when these 7 Professionals tell what they saw.
You would rely on the description of the wounds on a person by emergency room doctors who see a patient in a rushed setting for about 20 minutes over autopsy doctors who examined the same patient for four hours? And would favor the account of the wounds by ER doctors over the *actual* photos of the wounds?
Why would anyone rely on the ER doctors over this other evidence? Would you do that in *any* other case? ER doctors are known for getting the injuries wrong. That's understandable. Their job is to keep a patient alive not examine his or her wounds.
Here: "As many as 250,000 people die every year because they are misdiagnosed in the emergency room, with doctors failing to identify serious medical conditions like stroke, sepsis and pneumonia, according to a new analysis from the federal government." Link/source: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/15/health/medical-errors-emergency-rooms.html
Granted, that's not *obvious* wounds like gunshot wounds; it's more internal injuries or conditions. But I think the same idea applies, i.e., ER doctors simply make mistakes that regular doctors don't.
ER doctors simply make mistakes, get things wrong: again, it's a rushed/hurried situation, they have to act fast and because of this get things wrong.
As to the film: still black and white frames from the Zapruder film were published by Life magazine on November 29. And color frames a month later. And the Zapruder film was shown in the Clay Shaw trial in New Orleans in 1967 1969. None of those show a exit wound in the back of JFK's head. The film was not under lock-n-key for 12 years.
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/57/b5/69/57b56912dbcd7b7b80b129143f8d9f12.jpg)
-
ER Dr's work in these rushed conditions every day. Yeah, it's the POTUS, but these Professionals have a detailed step-by-step process they repeatedly go through/religiously follow. I prefer the observations of Dr's seeing/treating a person/body 10-15 minutes after an event vs Military Dr's that salute and then are instructed how to do their job. Humes burning of his Original Autopsy Notes tells you all you need to know. Who does that? Somebody following orders does that, that's who!
-
You would rely on the description of the wounds on a person by emergency room doctors who see a patient in a rushed setting for about 20 minutes over autopsy doctors who examined the same patient for four hours? And would favor the account of the wounds by ER doctors over the *actual* photos of the wounds?
Why would anyone rely on the ER doctors over this other evidence? Would you do that in *any* other case? ER doctors are known for getting the injuries wrong. That's understandable. Their job is to keep a patient alive not examine his or her wounds.
Here: "As many as 250,000 people die every year because they are misdiagnosed in the emergency room, with doctors failing to identify serious medical conditions like stroke, sepsis and pneumonia, according to a new analysis from the federal government." Link/source: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/15/health/medical-errors-emergency-rooms.html
Granted, that's not *obvious* wounds like gunshot wounds; it's more internal injuries or conditions. But I think the same idea applies, i.e., ER doctors simply make mistakes that regular doctors don't.
ER doctors simply make mistakes, get things wrong: again, it's a rushed/hurried situation, they have to act fast and because of this get things wrong.
As to the film: still black and white frames from the Zapruder film were published by Life magazine on November 29. And color frames a month later. And the Zapruder film was shown in the Clay Shaw trial in New Orleans in 1967. None of those show a exit wound in the back of JFK's head. The film was not under lock-n-key for 12 years.
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/57/b5/69/57b56912dbcd7b7b80b129143f8d9f12.jpg)
Thanks Steve, Storing is well known Liar because he knows full well that the Zapruder film was not under Private lock-n-key for 12 yrs, he's just afraid that the film shatters his deluded views on conspiracy.
Anyway further to your post, in the following year The Warren Commission published every single frame from Z171 though to Z334 and they are all the Full Frames that included the ghost images between the sprockets, they also included the graphic head shot.
And every frame is exactly what we saw published in Life Magazine a week later and up until what we see today.
(https://i.postimg.cc/bN3Zvgnw/ce-885-zapruder-171-172.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/MpHvfB0b/ce-885-zapruder-313-314.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/tCX1ywYc/ce-885-zapruder-333-334.jpg)
JohnM
-
John- Like I have said for awhile now, this is why they had 2 separate Briefing Board sessions. See what you can get by Brugioni in Session 1, and then improve on that for Session 2. To this day, nobody knows exactly what Brugioni examined in Session 1, Session 2 likewise, and then what we have today = Current Z Film. All phony. You might wanna take a look at the SS Reconstruction. (1) No bush blocking the camera, (2) filmed the Black Dog Man Nook, (3) filmed the cement walkway.
-
You do know you're proffering a film which was under Private lock-n-key for 12 yrs, + a Stolen Body? I'll raise you those 7 Living Parkland Hospital Dr's and what they have to say regarding the condition of JFK's body only 10-15 minutes after the Kill Shot. And I am doing this without knowing what they are gonna say. You guys continue immersing the jury in that gory head stuff, when it is that throat wound that proves at least 2 shooters = Conspiracy. The Mis-Direction you have fallen for ends when these 7 Professionals tell what they saw.
So here we have it.
Royell's best evidence for Z-film alteration - the Parkland Doctors.
First thing to note, this has absolutely nothing to do with the Z-film. It's not evidence that the film was tampered with or altered in any way. This is a really important point.
It boils down to this - what the Parkland Doctors report seeing concerning the head wound is different from what we see in the Z-film.
This seems like an insurmountable issue, it's either one or the other.
I believe these two, seemingly contradictory, positions can actually be reconciled. The key is understanding the exact nature of JFK's head wound.
The above is an interview with Jim Jenkins. He was a student at the Medical Technology School, part of Bethesda Naval Hospital and assisted with the autopsy that took place at Bethesda.
At around the 30 min mark Jenkins is describing the wound to the skull. He uses a replica skull to describe an area where occipital bone and tissue were missing. There was no laceration to the scalp in this area just missing bone and tissue:
"The wound was here, approximately where my finger is [he places his finger on the back right of the skull, next to the occipital bone]...and it extended down here. It was about three and a half inches long...about two inches wide. That was where the missing bone was and the missing tissue was."
He then goes on to describe a much larger injury:
"Remember, all of this portion [of the skull] in this area was fractured to the saggital suture[he indicates nearly the whole right side/top of the skull]...but it wasn't gone, it was still being kept intact by the scalp. The scalp had rents and tears in it [he indicates a line running along the saggital suture on the crown of the skull]...it seemed like some of those tears in the scalp had been surgically connected, little connections to follow the fracture line in here [again he indicates the length of the saggital suture on the crown of the skull]...
When Dr. Humes took the wrappings off the head, there was a secondary wrapping on it that I think was a towel...as he was taking it off this area kind of gapped open [he indicates that the whole top right side of the skull from the saggital suture downwards opened up] but as soon as we separated it from the towel it went back together."
Jenkins is describing an injury in which the whole right upper side of JFK's head comes away but can be put back again. He goes on:
"Now, that's significant for the fact is you could actually...lay this skull open, you could actually take your hands and separate it [he makes a motion with his hand to indicate the side of the skull could be opened up like a small, hinged door]. So, that would have given you access to the brain."
This is the key point about JFK's head wound - it was possible to "lay this skull open", to open up the side of his head and then put it back again. Jenkins is describing the truly massive wound we see in the autopsy pics and the Z-film. Not a localised wound at the back of the head but something that takes up the majority of the upper right side of JFK's head.
And this is why the doctors at Parkland didn't appreciate the full extent of JFK's head wound. They may have saw it but none of them actually examined it as they were busy trying to save his life. What they saw was the side of his head put back in place by Jackie on the way to Parkland but there was no real structural integrity to it, as he was lying on his back the contents of his head oozed out of a gap in the wound towards the rear of his head. Almost everyone at Parkland saw the same thing, matter oozing from a big hole towards the back of JFK's head.
What they did not see was that the whole side of JFK's head could come away to reveal the truly massive wound seen in the autopsy pics and the Z-film.
No need for film alteration.
The Z-film shows the injury Jenkins describes.
The way Jenkins describes the injury allows us to understand why the Parkland doctors appeared to report something different from the photo/film record.
-
As usual, you like others wanna jump to the JFK Autopsy and go with the observations of a STOLEN BODY. That pales in comparison to what Trained Professional Dr's saw at Parkland Hospital with regard to JFK's body 10-15 minutes after the Kill Shot. You're getting killed here.
-
As usual, you like others wanna jump to the JFK Autopsy and go with the observations of a STOLEN BODY. That pales in comparison to what Trained Professional Dr's saw at Parkland Hospital with regard to JFK's body 10-15 minutes after the Kill Shot. You're getting killed here.
No, Royell, I'm explaining how what the doctors at Parkland saw is consistent with the wound seen in the authenticated Z-film and the autopsy pics.
Jenkins description of the head wound is confirmed by the Z-film which is confirmed by the autopsy pics. Three main lines of evidence corroborating each other.
All you offer is your meaningless, unsupported opinion.
Who cares what you think, Royell?
If you want to discuss the evidence I've presented in the last few posts, that's fine.
If you just want to stamp your foot and insist that you're right, go for it.
Time after time you've refused to engage in serious debate because you have nothing to offer, only your insistence that you're right.
You're getting killed here.
Who by?
YOU??
:D :D :D
That's like being attacked by a marshmallow.
-
No, Royell, I'm explaining how what the doctors at Parkland saw is consistent with the wound seen in the authenticated Z-film and the autopsy pics.
Jenkins description of the head wound is confirmed by the Z-film which is confirmed by the autopsy pics. Three main lines of evidence corroborating each other.
All you offer is your meaningless, unsupported opinion.
Who cares what you think, Royell?
If you want to discuss the evidence I've presented in the last few posts, that's fine.
If you just want to stamp your foot and insist that you're right, go for it.
Time after time you've refused to engage in serious debate because you have nothing to offer, only your insistence that you're right.
You're getting killed here.
Who by?
YOU??
:D :D :D
That's like being attacked by a marshmallow.
What exactly do you call ALL THAT SPACE you devoted to Jim Jenkins? He was at the Bethesda Autopsy of the STOLEN BODY. You need to concentrate on: (1) Focus and (2) Discipline. Also, put some time in with your memory.
-
Question, are the straps the same?
:D :D :D
You can’t even prove the rifles are the same.
-
The bullet fragments found in the Limo
LOL
were an exclusive match to Oswald's rifle
LOL
The rifle with Oswald's prints
LOL
and 3 types of fibre that matched Oswald's arrest shirt
LOL
And don't forget that the relatively fresh prints on the rifle rest
LOL
And also don't forget that Oswald in flight
LOL
from the horrendous crime he just committed
LOL
went to his room and grabbed his revolver
LOL
and killed Officer Tippit
LOL
and when arrested tried to kill more policeman.
LOL
And you honestly are trying to defend this Double Murderer
LOL
Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, John
-
What exactly do you call ALL THAT SPACE you devoted to Jim Jenkins? He was at the Bethesda Autopsy of the STOLEN BODY. You need to concentrate on: (1) Focus and (2) Discipline. Also, put some time in with your memory.
Just more nothingness.
You are so irrelevant it's a joke.
There is never any substance in anything you post.
Just meaningless drivel.
Honestly, why do you bother even posting anything?
Just for the record - Royell's best evidence for alteration of the Z-film has been dealt with. His piss-weak attempt to uphold his fantastical beliefs has been dashed.
Are there any other Alteration Fantasists out there who fancy their chances?
Come on down.
-
Just more nothingness.
You are so irrelevant it's a joke.
There is never any substance in anything you post.
Just meaningless drivel.
Honestly, why do you bother even posting anything?
Just for the record - Royell's best evidence for alteration of the Z-film has been dealt with. His piss-weak attempt to uphold his fantastical beliefs has been dashed.
Are there any other Alteration Fantasists out there who fancy their chances?
Come on down.
Hi Dan, According to the Knudsens, anything that looks like this is fake.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/JFK_posterior_head_wound.jpg/800px-JFK_posterior_head_wound.jpg)
Dr. John Ebersole in charge of X-Rays at the autopsy says "back of the head was missing."https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/audio/HSCA_Ebersole_R1S1.mp3
Why does your hand drawn red line not extend beyond the right ear??quote author=Dan O'meara link=topic=3832.msg152218#msg152218 date=1699553071]
You can't see behind JFK's right ear in the autopsy pics. Explain what you mean.
The autopsy pic is a view from above JFK's head,
The Z-film is a view of JFK's head in profile, a side view.
I get the impression you are being confused by these differing perspectives.
The massive head wound shown in the Z-film extends far behind the ear but it is on top of the head:
(https://i.postimg.cc/0NyPJtsw/Z337headshotredline.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
So when this injury is viewed from above it should correctly appear as if it is an injury that extends "behind the ear", as you put it.
Also, as John has already pointed out, gravity is dragging down JFK's hair and the matter escaping from his skull which gives a distorted perception of the injury which you don't seem to have taken into account.
Do me a favour Michael.
Rather than just blurting out your next irrelevant point, take a close look at the evidence being presented to you and take it from there.
[/quote]
Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
-
You can't see behind JFK's right ear in the autopsy pics. Explain what you mean.
The autopsy pic is a view from above JFK's head,
The Z-film is a view of JFK's head in profile, a side view.
I get the impression you are being confused by these differing perspectives.
The massive head wound shown in the Z-film extends far behind the ear but it is on top of the head:
(https://i.postimg.cc/0NyPJtsw/Z337headshotredline.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
So when this injury is viewed from above it should correctly appear as if it is an injury that extends "behind the ear", as you put it.
Also, as John has already pointed out, gravity is dragging down JFK's hair and the matter escaping from his skull which gives a distorted perception of the injury which you don't seem to have taken into account.
Do me a favour Michael.
Rather than just blurting out your next irrelevant point, take a close look at the evidence being presented to you and take it from there.
Check out the audio HSCA Testimony of Dr John Ebersole on "YOU TUBE". Ebersole was Active Chief Of Radiology at Bethesda on 11/22/63. Regarding the head of JFK, Ebersole details, "BACK of the head was MISSING, an irregular, messy wound". He was present when JFK's body was removed from the casket and remained there until about 3 AM. Ebersole's testimony is posted by "The JFK Theorist" and runs a little under 2hrs. It'a very informative/educational.
-
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, John
Thanks John for confirming that you're still just a sad old Clown and your best effort of refutation is being reduced to maniacally laughing at every piece of rock solid evidence.
After 60 years and hundreds of thousands of hours devoted to interviewing, researching, speculating and moronic observations and not one of you have come close to presenting a viable alternative to the the one man where ALL the evidence leads >>> Lee Harvey Oswald!
I truly feel sorry for you and all the time you've wasted searching for your mythical Holy Grail.
JohnM
-
Hi Dan, According to the Knudsens, anything that looks like this is fake.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/JFK_posterior_head_wound.jpg/800px-JFK_posterior_head_wound.jpg)
Mr. PURDY - A photograph of the back of the President's head. Let me just ask you if that looks like one that you saw, or that matches your recollection. This is the back of the President's head here.
Mr. KNUDSEN - There again, I did not study it in detail. It seems to me that there was a little bit more of the piece of the skull hanging in one of the photographs. Here, this is it.
Mr. PURDY - Now we are referring to Photograph No. 37F, showing the top of the President's head. So it is your testimony here today that these photographs are not inconsistent with the ones that you saw?
Mr. KNUDSEN - No, not at all.
Dr. John Ebersole in charge of X-Rays at the autopsy says "back of the head was missing."https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/audio/HSCA_Ebersole_R1S1.mp3
Ebserole did not examine JFK's head and did not participate in the autopsy in any way.
Jenkins did both and in his interview gives a forensic analysis of the injuries he observed.
Who should we be listening to?
Ebersole's recollection of the procedure is almost non-existent, he has no recollection of the head being unwrapped, no recollection of Jenkins or O'Connor assisting and he remembers the neck wound as being sutured.
It must be remembered that Jenkins, who was intimately involved with the procedure, is no WC apologist. He is a CTer through-and-through. He believes the head was surgically altered before it's arrival at Bethesda and has zero reason to uphold the official narrative.
He reports that the whole side of JFK's head came away as they unwrapped it and that it was then put back again. Like the Parkland doctors, who also didn't examine the head wound, Ebersole saw the damage to the back of the head but was unaware the wound was far larger and that it accounted for most of the upper right portion of the skull.
Why does your hand drawn red line not extend beyond the right ear?
It's the orientation of the image.
If you were looking at JFK's head from directly above the red line would extend beyond the ear.
You're not reading my posts properly.
The autopsy pic is a view from above JFK's head,
The Z-film is a view of JFK's head in profile, a side view.
I get the impression you are being confused by these differing perspectives.
The massive head wound shown in the Z-film extends far behind the ear but it is on top of the head:
(https://i.postimg.cc/0NyPJtsw/Z337headshotredline.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
So when this injury is viewed from above it should correctly appear as if it is an injury that extends "behind the ear", as you put it.
Also, as John has already pointed out, gravity is dragging down JFK's hair and the matter escaping from his skull which gives a distorted perception of the injury which you don't seem to have taken into account.
Do me a favour Michael.
Rather than just blurting out your next irrelevant point, take a close look at the evidence being presented to you and take it from there.
-
Mr. PURDY - A photograph of the back of the President's head. Let me just ask you if that looks like one that you saw, or that matches your recollection. This is the back of the President's head here.
Mr. KNUDSEN - There again, I did not study it in detail. It seems to me that there was a little bit more of the piece of the skull hanging in one of the photographs. Here, this is it.
Mr. PURDY - Now we are referring to Photograph No. 37F, showing the top of the President's head. So it is your testimony here today that these photographs are not inconsistent with the ones that you saw?
Mr. KNUDSEN - No, not at all.
Ebserole did not examine JFK's head and did not participate in the autopsy in any way.
Jenkins did both and in his interview gives a forensic analysis of the injuries he observed.
Who should we be listening to?
Ebersole's recollection of the procedure is almost non-existent, he has no recollection of the head being unwrapped, no recollection of Jenkins or O'Connor assisting and he remembers the neck wound as being sutured.
It must be remembered that Jenkins, who was intimately involved with the procedure, is no WC apologist. He is a CTer through-and-through. He believes the head was surgically altered before it's arrival at Bethesda and has zero reason to uphold the official narrative.
He reports that the whole side of JFK's head came away as they unwrapped it and that it was then put back again. Like the Parkland doctors, who also didn't examine the head wound, Ebersole saw the damage to the back of the head but was unaware the wound was far larger and that it accounted for most of the upper right portion of the skull.
It's the orientation of the image.
If you were looking at JFK's head from directly above the red line would extend beyond the ear.
You're not reading my posts properly.
The autopsy pic is a view from above JFK's head,
The Z-film is a view of JFK's head in profile, a side view.
I get the impression you are being confused by these differing perspectives.
The massive head wound shown in the Z-film extends far behind the ear but it is on top of the head:
(https://i.postimg.cc/0NyPJtsw/Z337headshotredline.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
So when this injury is viewed from above it should correctly appear as if it is an injury that extends "behind the ear", as you put it.
Also, as John has already pointed out, gravity is dragging down JFK's hair and the matter escaping from his skull which gives a distorted perception of the injury which you don't seem to have taken into account.
Do me a favour Michael.
Rather than just blurting out your next irrelevant point, take a close look at the evidence being presented to you and take it from there.
Hi Dan, What are you talking about! Dr. Ebersole handled JFK's body "from the time the coffin came in until 3:00am the next morning." He did two complete x-rays of the president's skull; the chest and the trunk! He specifically said the back of the president's head was missing and messy!
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md60/html/Image04.htm
Sincerely yours, Michael
Explore Freedom » Hornberger's Blog » The Mystery of Robert Knudsen
The Mystery of Robert Knudsen
by Jacob G. Hornberger
July 6, 2018
EMAIL
On January 29, 1989, the Washington Post published an obituary of Robert Knudsen, which stated in part:
Robert LeRoy Knudsen, 61, a retired photographer with the White House staff, where he served for 28 years, died Jan. 27 at the Bethesda Naval Hospital after a heart attack. He lived in Annandale. Mr. Knudsen had provided photographic coverage of every president from Harry Truman to Richard M. Nixon, and his photographs chronicled most of the major events at the White House for nearly three decades. He photographed President Truman’s election in 1948 and the election of President Eisenhower in 1952. His pictures included Eisenhower’s meeting with Nikita Krushchev in 1959, the first steps of John F. Kennedy Jr., and President Kennedy’s autopsy. Mr. Knudsen photographed the weddings of Linda and Luci Johnson and Tricia Nixon’s White House wedding. He accompanied President Nixon on his historic trips to China and the Soviet Union in 1972, and photographed Nixon’s farewell in 1974.
Two days later, the New York Times published an obituary of Knudsen, which stated in part:
Mr. Knudsen worked on the White House photography staff in five administrations: Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon. Among his most celebrated photographs were the first pictures of John F. Kennedy’s son, John Jr., walking in the Oval Office at the age of 18 months in May 1962. He photographed the 1948 and 1952 elections of Harry S. Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower, the historic 1959 meeting between Eisenhower and Nikita Khrushchev, the autopsy of the slain President Kennedy in 1963, President Nixon’s 1972 trips to China and the Soviet Union, Mr. Nixon’s 1974 farewell in the wake of the Watergate scandal and the White House weddings of three daughters of Presidents, Lynda and Luci Johnson and Tricia Nixon.
The pertinent parts of those two obituaries, insofar as this article is concerned, are the following:
Washington Post: “He photographed … President Kennedy’s autopsy.”
New York Times: “He photographed … the autopsy of the slain President Kennedy in 1963.”
According to information provided to the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) in the 1990s by Knudsen’s wife and children, on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, the day President Kennedy was shot in Dallas, Knudsen received a telephone call summoning him to Andrews Air Force Base, where the president’s body was being delivered from Dallas on Air Force One.
His family said that Knudsen was gone for three days. When he returned home, he told his family that he had photographed the autopsy of President Kennedy. He also told them that he could not provide any further information because he had been sworn to secrecy. Mrs. Knudsen told the ARRB that her husband treated classified information just like the military does — that he would take it to the grave with him without ever revealing it to anyone.
In 1977, a national photography magazine, Popular Photography, published an interview with Knudsen in which he stated that he had photographed the president’s autopsy and that it was “the hardest assignment of my life.”
No one has ever questioned the integrity, veracity, or competence of Robert Knudsen. He was highly respected, both personally and professionally. It would difficult to find a more credible witness than Robert Knudsen.
There is one big problem, however: Knudsen did not photograph the president’s autopsy. The official autopsy photographer was John T. Stringer, a highly respected autopsy photographer for the U.S. Navy who taught photography at the Bethesda Naval Medical School. It is undisputed that Stringer photographed the president’s autopsy and that Knudsen wasn’t even at the autopsy.
What then are we to make of this? Why would Knudsen make up a story that could easily be exposed as false? Why would he take the chance of sullying the reputation for integrity that he had built up over the decades? Why would he risk a highly prestigious job as a White House photographer by lying about having been the official photographer for the Kennedy autopsy? Why would he give a false story to a national photography magazine knowing that it would be easy to expose the falsity of it? Why didn’t anyone in the U.S. military, which conducted the president’s autopsy, come forward and expose Knudsen’s story as false?
In the 1970s, Knudsen was summoned to testify before the House Select Committee on Assassinations, which was reinvestigating the Kennedy assassination. During his testimony, Knudsen was shown autopsy photographs that are in the official autopsy record.
According to his wife and children, Knudsen returned home and indicated to his family that autopsy photographs he had been shown during his testimony were fraudulent. He said that there were clearly some shenanigans going on and that if anything were ever to blow up, he wanted his family to know that he had had nothing to do with it. Protecting his integrity within his family was obviously extremely important to Robert Knudsen.
If Knudsen was telling the truth, and there is no reason to doubt that he was, then it is clear that on the weekend of the assassination, he photographed a procedure that he believed was the president’s autopsy and that he was made to believe was the president’s autopsy but actually wasn’t the president’s autopsy. It is also clear that whoever convinced Knudsen to believe that he was photographing the official autopsy also swore Knudsen to secrecy by telling him that the entire procedure he was photographing was classifed.
The mystery of Robert Knudsen is compounded by the testimony before the ARRB of Saundra Spencer. She was a U.S. Navy petty officer who worked in the U.S. Navy’s photography lab in Washington, D.C., in 1963. She had a top-secret security clearance and worked closely with the White House on top-secret, classified photographs. No one has ever questioned the integrity, professionalism, and competence of Saundra Spencer. As with Knudsen, it would be difficult to find a more credible witness than Saundra Spencer.
The reason that Spencer was summoned to testify before the ARRB in the 1990s is that the ARRB had learned that on the weekend of the assassination, she had been asked, on a top-secret basis, to develop autopsy photographs of President Kennedy’s body. Pursuant to the culture of secrecy and classified information in the military, Spencer kept her role in developing those autopsy photographs secret for some 30 years, until she was summoned to testify before the ARRB.
During her testimony, Spencer was shown the official autopsy photographs of the President’s body. After carefully examining them, she testified directly and unequivocally that the autopsy photographs in the official record were not the ones that she developed on the weekend of the assassination. She stated that the autopsy photographs she developed showed a large exit-sized wound in the back of President Kennedy’s head, which matched what treating physicians at Parkland Hospital had stated. The photographs in the official record show the back of Kennedy’s head to be fully intact. A large exit-sized wound in the back of the president’s head would, of course, imply a shot fired from the president’s front.
After Spencer’s testimony before the ARRB, no one came forward to challenge, question, or dispute the truthfulness and accuracy of her testimony.
What are we to make of Knudsen and Spencer?
There are two conclusions that can be reasonably drawn: First, the official autopsy of President Kennedy, which was carried out by the U.S. military, was fraudulent and, second, there is no conceivable innocent explanation for having carried out a fraudulent autopsy.
For more information, see my book The Kennedy Autopsy.
-
Hi Dan, What are you talking about! Dr. Ebersole handled JFK's body "from the time the coffin came in until 3:00am the next morning." He did two complete x-rays of the president's skull; the chest and the trunk! He specifically said the back of the president's head was missing and messy!
Ebersole did not participate in the autopsy and did not examine the head wound.
If you have different information I'd like to hear it.
He has virtually no recollection of the actual procedure.
What he does remember seems incorrect.
On the other hand we have the account of Jenkins, who did participate in the autopsy and who provides a forensic analysis of the head wound.
Knudsen was not present at Kennedy's autopsy. He would've mentioned it in his HSCA interview.
-
Ebersole did not participate in the autopsy and did not examine the head wound.
If you have different information I'd like to hear it.
He has virtually no recollection of the actual procedure.
What he does remember seems incorrect.
On the other hand we have the account of Jenkins, who did participate in the autopsy and who provides a forensic analysis of the head wound.
Knudsen was not present at Kennedy's autopsy. He would've mentioned it in his HSCA interview.
Depends what you mean by, "....participate in the Autopsy". Ebersole personally handled JFK's body several times, along with being the Head Honcho that night regarding the X-Rays.
-
Thanks John for confirming that you're still just a sad old Clown and your best effort of refutation is being reduced to maniacally laughing at every piece of rock solid evidence.
A series of unsubstantiated claims is not "rock solid evidence", or evidence at all. All it deserves is a LOL. There's nothing there to "refute". What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
-
Ebersole did not participate in the autopsy and did not examine the head wound.
If you have different information I'd like to hear it.
He has virtually no recollection of the actual procedure.
What he does remember seems incorrect.
On the other hand we have the account of Jenkins, who did participate in the autopsy and who provides a forensic analysis of the head wound.
Knudsen was not present at Kennedy's autopsy. He would've mentioned it in his HSCA interview.
Hi Dan, Again, what are you talking about!
John H. Ebersole
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › John_H._Ebersole
Ebersole was the radiologist responsible for the x-rays taken during the autopsy of John F. Kennedy on 22 November 1963 at Bethesda Naval Medical Center. After ...
Died: September 23, 1993 (aged 68); Lancaster, ...
Spouse(s): Marion E. Sherwood (1927 - 2004)
Biography · U.S. Navy career · NASA · John F. Kennedy autopsy
-
Hi Dan, What are you talking about! Dr. Ebersole handled JFK's body "from the time the coffin came in until 3:00am the next morning." He did two complete x-rays of the president's skull; the chest and the trunk! He specifically said the back of the president's head was missing and messy!
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md60/html/Image04.htm
Sincerely yours, Michael
Explore Freedom » Hornberger's Blog » The Mystery of Robert Knudsen
The Mystery of Robert Knudsen
by Jacob G. Hornberger
July 6, 2018
EMAIL
On January 29, 1989, the Washington Post published an obituary of Robert Knudsen, which stated in part:
Robert LeRoy Knudsen, 61, a retired photographer with the White House staff, where he served for 28 years, died Jan. 27 at the Bethesda Naval Hospital after a heart attack. He lived in Annandale. Mr. Knudsen had provided photographic coverage of every president from Harry Truman to Richard M. Nixon, and his photographs chronicled most of the major events at the White House for nearly three decades. He photographed President Truman’s election in 1948 and the election of President Eisenhower in 1952. His pictures included Eisenhower’s meeting with Nikita Krushchev in 1959, the first steps of John F. Kennedy Jr., and President Kennedy’s autopsy. Mr. Knudsen photographed the weddings of Linda and Luci Johnson and Tricia Nixon’s White House wedding. He accompanied President Nixon on his historic trips to China and the Soviet Union in 1972, and photographed Nixon’s farewell in 1974.
Two days later, the New York Times published an obituary of Knudsen, which stated in part:
Mr. Knudsen worked on the White House photography staff in five administrations: Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon. Among his most celebrated photographs were the first pictures of John F. Kennedy’s son, John Jr., walking in the Oval Office at the age of 18 months in May 1962. He photographed the 1948 and 1952 elections of Harry S. Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower, the historic 1959 meeting between Eisenhower and Nikita Khrushchev, the autopsy of the slain President Kennedy in 1963, President Nixon’s 1972 trips to China and the Soviet Union, Mr. Nixon’s 1974 farewell in the wake of the Watergate scandal and the White House weddings of three daughters of Presidents, Lynda and Luci Johnson and Tricia Nixon.
The pertinent parts of those two obituaries, insofar as this article is concerned, are the following:
Washington Post: “He photographed … President Kennedy’s autopsy.”
New York Times: “He photographed … the autopsy of the slain President Kennedy in 1963.”
According to information provided to the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) in the 1990s by Knudsen’s wife and children, on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, the day President Kennedy was shot in Dallas, Knudsen received a telephone call summoning him to Andrews Air Force Base, where the president’s body was being delivered from Dallas on Air Force One.
His family said that Knudsen was gone for three days. When he returned home, he told his family that he had photographed the autopsy of President Kennedy. He also told them that he could not provide any further information because he had been sworn to secrecy. Mrs. Knudsen told the ARRB that her husband treated classified information just like the military does — that he would take it to the grave with him without ever revealing it to anyone.
In 1977, a national photography magazine, Popular Photography, published an interview with Knudsen in which he stated that he had photographed the president’s autopsy and that it was “the hardest assignment of my life.”
No one has ever questioned the integrity, veracity, or competence of Robert Knudsen. He was highly respected, both personally and professionally. It would difficult to find a more credible witness than Robert Knudsen.
There is one big problem, however: Knudsen did not photograph the president’s autopsy. The official autopsy photographer was John T. Stringer, a highly respected autopsy photographer for the U.S. Navy who taught photography at the Bethesda Naval Medical School. It is undisputed that Stringer photographed the president’s autopsy and that Knudsen wasn’t even at the autopsy.
What then are we to make of this? Why would Knudsen make up a story that could easily be exposed as false? Why would he take the chance of sullying the reputation for integrity that he had built up over the decades? Why would he risk a highly prestigious job as a White House photographer by lying about having been the official photographer for the Kennedy autopsy? Why would he give a false story to a national photography magazine knowing that it would be easy to expose the falsity of it? Why didn’t anyone in the U.S. military, which conducted the president’s autopsy, come forward and expose Knudsen’s story as false?
In the 1970s, Knudsen was summoned to testify before the House Select Committee on Assassinations, which was reinvestigating the Kennedy assassination. During his testimony, Knudsen was shown autopsy photographs that are in the official autopsy record.
According to his wife and children, Knudsen returned home and indicated to his family that autopsy photographs he had been shown during his testimony were fraudulent. He said that there were clearly some shenanigans going on and that if anything were ever to blow up, he wanted his family to know that he had had nothing to do with it. Protecting his integrity within his family was obviously extremely important to Robert Knudsen.
If Knudsen was telling the truth, and there is no reason to doubt that he was, then it is clear that on the weekend of the assassination, he photographed a procedure that he believed was the president’s autopsy and that he was made to believe was the president’s autopsy but actually wasn’t the president’s autopsy. It is also clear that whoever convinced Knudsen to believe that he was photographing the official autopsy also swore Knudsen to secrecy by telling him that the entire procedure he was photographing was classifed.
The mystery of Robert Knudsen is compounded by the testimony before the ARRB of Saundra Spencer. She was a U.S. Navy petty officer who worked in the U.S. Navy’s photography lab in Washington, D.C., in 1963. She had a top-secret security clearance and worked closely with the White House on top-secret, classified photographs. No one has ever questioned the integrity, professionalism, and competence of Saundra Spencer. As with Knudsen, it would be difficult to find a more credible witness than Saundra Spencer.
The reason that Spencer was summoned to testify before the ARRB in the 1990s is that the ARRB had learned that on the weekend of the assassination, she had been asked, on a top-secret basis, to develop autopsy photographs of President Kennedy’s body. Pursuant to the culture of secrecy and classified information in the military, Spencer kept her role in developing those autopsy photographs secret for some 30 years, until she was summoned to testify before the ARRB.
During her testimony, Spencer was shown the official autopsy photographs of the President’s body. After carefully examining them, she testified directly and unequivocally that the autopsy photographs in the official record were not the ones that she developed on the weekend of the assassination. She stated that the autopsy photographs she developed showed a large exit-sized wound in the back of President Kennedy’s head, which matched what treating physicians at Parkland Hospital had stated. The photographs in the official record show the back of Kennedy’s head to be fully intact. A large exit-sized wound in the back of the president’s head would, of course, imply a shot fired from the president’s front.
After Spencer’s testimony before the ARRB, no one came forward to challenge, question, or dispute the truthfulness and accuracy of her testimony.
What are we to make of Knudsen and Spencer?
There are two conclusions that can be reasonably drawn: First, the official autopsy of President Kennedy, which was carried out by the U.S. military, was fraudulent and, second, there is no conceivable innocent explanation for having carried out a fraudulent autopsy.
For more information, see my book The Kennedy Autopsy.
Knudsen privately told a number of people, including his family, that he'd taken the autopsy photos. However, his name does not appear in the Sibert/O'Neil report as being present in the Bethesda morgue that night. Nor have any known participants placed Knudsen at the autopsy. When Knudsen was asked to put his story on the record, for the HSCA, he failed to claim that the took the photos or attended the autopsy. He only claimed to have been involved in the development of the autopsy photos at Anacostia later that weekend. This strongly suggests that someone was pulling someone else's leg, to say the least.
-
Knudsen privately told a number of people, including his family, that he'd taken the autopsy photos. However, his name does not appear in the Sibert/O'Neil report as being present in the Bethesda morgue that night. Nor have any known participants placed Knudsen at the autopsy. When Knudsen was asked to put his story on the record, for the HSCA, he failed to claim that the took the photos or attended the autopsy. He only claimed to have been involved in the development of the autopsy photos at Anacostia later that weekend. This strongly suggests that someone was pulling someone else's leg, to say the least.
You are radically underestimating the role Knudsen played in the developing of the autopsy photos when you say, "INVOLVED in the development of the autopsy photos". Knudsen and SA Kellerman picked up the photos that morning and transported them for development. At that point, Knudsen was in charge of the photos being developed. Knudsen held a high security clearance. I believe the confusion over whether Knudsen attended an autopsy stemmed from his having done an interview for some kind of half baked photography mag. The Knudsen article in that mag is why the HSCA subpoena'd Knudsen to appear. The real question is WHY was Knudsen's Testimony SEALED? This also raises the question of how many other WC AND HSCA Testimonies might still remain sealed?
-
Hi Dan, Again, what are you talking about!
John H. Ebersole
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › John_H._Ebersole
Ebersole was the radiologist responsible for the x-rays taken during the autopsy of John F. Kennedy on 22 November 1963 at Bethesda Naval Medical Center. After ...
Died: September 23, 1993 (aged 68); Lancaster, ...
Spouse(s): Marion E. Sherwood (1927 - 2004)
Biography · U.S. Navy career · NASA · John F. Kennedy autopsy
It's pretty clear what I'm talking about.
What are you talking about?
Did Ebersole examine the head wound?
And what were you talking about with Knudsen?
-
As we have seen in the interview I posted, Jenkins describes a massive head wound that involves the whole upper right side of JFK's skull from just behind the hairline to the back of his head. It is the same wound we see in the Z-film.
Also assisting with the autopsy that night was Paul O' Connor. In his ARRB interview he describes the wound as follows:
"O‘Connor described the defect as being in the region from the "...Occiptal around the temporal and parietal regions." He
said there was a "...massive hole, no little hole." O'Connor believes the bullet came in from the front right and blew out
the top."
(https://i.postimg.cc/Y0GLj4J6/Z337headshotredline2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
The Z-film shows a massive head wound in which a large portion of JFK's skull has been blown upwards. Various pieces of his skull were found after the assassination, as these were blown away from his head they ripped the scalp and a large piece of scalp was blown over to the right hand side of his head. This is the wound Jenkins describes in great detail - it is a large piece of scalp that has bone still attached to it and can be put back in place because where it is still attached to the head acts as a kind of 'hinge.
In the pic above we can see the very large piece of bone still attached to the inside of the scalp which has been blown over to the right hand side of his head.
Floyd Reibe was assisting Stringer with the photography during the autopsy. During his ARRB interview he describes what he saw as follows:
Q: Did you see any other—in addition to that injury that you just described, did you see any other injuries to the head?
A: Yes, there was a flap of bone over on the side above the temporal area.
Jerrol Custer, Ebersole's assistant, was asked to comment on the head injury in detail. This is from "An Analysis of the ARRB Testimony of Jerrol Custer":
“The head was so unstable due to the -the fractures. The fractures were extremely numerous. It was like somebody took a hard-boiled egg, and just rolled it in her hand. And that’s exactly what the head was like… The only thing that held it together was the skin. And even that was loose...This is where all the trauma was (on the right side), right here… Right anatomical side again".
He describes a “large gaping hole” in the right parietal area (in the side, above the ear), which he believed was the exit to a frontal wound that entered into Kennedy’s right eye socket. Custer was asked to analyze Exhibit 206, a lateral side view X-ray of the skull to compare to his observations during the autopsy. He described a large “kidney-shaped” area that was missing from the parietal/temporal (the side of the skull above the jaw). He explains that the hole would have been large enough for him to put both of his hands , clasped together, into the skull cavity. To verify this, he explains that in the right lateral X-ray the cella Turcica is visible. This feature, known as the “Turk’s Chair”, is the portion of the skull that holds the pituitary gland within the interior of the skull. According to Custer, the only way that this feature would be visible in an X-ray was if the side of the skull was missing. In regard to the absent portion of the skull, he states, “The anatomical right side, this is all blackened in (on the X-ray exposure) – which shows there is no tissue, no bone, no nothing.” He stated that none of the bullet damage went into the occipital (back to side of head, above the neck), but that those portions were fractured. His description of the location of this damage is as follows: “The larger wound would have to be further back. This one isn’t as bad, towards the temporal region. It was open. But the more you went further back, the more destruction you had… Most of the destruction was towards the occipital area… You still had the orbital ridge (bone under the eyebrow). The frontal forehead was still here. But the further back you got, the worse the destruction became. And the more gaping the hole became.” Custer states that, in his opinion, a large piece of the temporal bone was missing, and the occipital region had significant damage, but pieces of the skull were still present."
Compare this to Ebersole's "analysis" of the head wound. Compare the forensic detail given by Jenkins to Ebersole's "analysis" of the head wound.
The take away from this is description is that the massive gaping wound to the upper right portion of JFK's skull was "large enough for him to put both of his hands, clasped together, into the skull cavity." It is a truly massive wound. Humes measures it at 13cm long at it's widest.
It is the same wound shown in the Z-film and in the autopsy pictures.
As Jenkins reveals - the whole upper right side of JFK's head could be opened up and then closed. Those who witnessed JFK while the massive portion of the wound was closed were only aware of the gaping wound toward the rear of his head.
There is no mystery here.
No need for any film alteration [something that was virtually impossible to do anyway as it would have required alteration of Muchmore, Nix and Bronson in such a way that all films perfectly agreed with each other]
There was massive damage to the rear part of JFK's skull but it was only part of a much larger wound that encompassed virtually the whole upper right side of his head.
The Z-film shows a massive crater in the top of JFK's head as a result of the head shot, it shows pieces of skull/brain matter being blown into the air, it shows the massive flap of scalp blown to the right side of his head with bone still attached to it.
Jenkins, Custer, O' Connor, Riebe, Humes, Boswell and Finck all describe a truly massive head wound, mainly to the top of the skull, extending front to back.
The Z-film shows this wound.
The autopsy pictures show this wound.
-
As we have seen in the interview I posted, Jenkins describes a massive head wound that involves the whole upper right side of JFK's skull from just behind the hairline to the back of his head. It is the same wound we see in the Z-film.
Also assisting with the autopsy that night was Paul O' Connor. In his ARRB interview he describes the wound as follows:
"O‘Connor described the defect as being in the region from the "...Occiptal around the temporal and parietal regions." He
said there was a "...massive hole, no little hole." O'Connor believes the bullet came in from the front right and blew out
the top."
(https://i.postimg.cc/Y0GLj4J6/Z337headshotredline2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
The Z-film shows a massive head wound in which a large portion of JFK's skull has been blown upwards. Various pieces of his skull were found after the assassination, as these were blown away from his head they ripped the scalp and a large piece of scalp was blown over to the right hand side of his head. This is the wound Jenkins describes in great detail - it is a large piece of scalp that has bone still attached to it and can be put back in place because where it is still attached to the head acts as a kind of 'hinge.
In the pic above we can see the very large piece of bone still attached to the inside of the scalp which has been blown over to the right hand side of his head.
Floyd Reibe was assisting Stringer with the photography during the autopsy. During his ARRB interview he describes what he saw as follows:
Q: Did you see any other—in addition to that injury that you just described, did you see any other injuries to the head?
A: Yes, there was a flap of bone over on the side above the temporal area.
Jerrol Custer, Ebersole's assistant, was asked to comment on the head injury in detail. This is from "An Analysis of the ARRB Testimony of Jerrol Custer":
“The head was so unstable due to the -the fractures. The fractures were extremely numerous. It was like somebody took a hard-boiled egg, and just rolled it in her hand. And that’s exactly what the head was like… The only thing that held it together was the skin. And even that was loose...This is where all the trauma was (on the right side), right here… Right anatomical side again".
He describes a “large gaping hole” in the right parietal area (in the side, above the ear), which he believed was the exit to a frontal wound that entered into Kennedy’s right eye socket. Custer was asked to analyze Exhibit 206, a lateral side view X-ray of the skull to compare to his observations during the autopsy. He described a large “kidney-shaped” area that was missing from the parietal/temporal (the side of the skull above the jaw). He explains that the hole would have been large enough for him to put both of his hands , clasped together, into the skull cavity. To verify this, he explains that in the right lateral X-ray the cella Turcica is visible. This feature, known as the “Turk’s Chair”, is the portion of the skull that holds the pituitary gland within the interior of the skull. According to Custer, the only way that this feature would be visible in an X-ray was if the side of the skull was missing. In regard to the absent portion of the skull, he states, “The anatomical right side, this is all blackened in (on the X-ray exposure) – which shows there is no tissue, no bone, no nothing.” He stated that none of the bullet damage went into the occipital (back to side of head, above the neck), but that those portions were fractured. His description of the location of this damage is as follows: “The larger wound would have to be further back. This one isn’t as bad, towards the temporal region. It was open. But the more you went further back, the more destruction you had… Most of the destruction was towards the occipital area… You still had the orbital ridge (bone under the eyebrow). The frontal forehead was still here. But the further back you got, the worse the destruction became. And the more gaping the hole became.” Custer states that, in his opinion, a large piece of the temporal bone was missing, and the occipital region had significant damage, but pieces of the skull were still present."
Compare this to Ebersole's "analysis" of the head wound. Compare the forensic detail given by Jenkins to Ebersole's "analysis" of the head wound.
The take away from this is description is that the massive gaping wound to the upper right portion of JFK's skull was "large enough for him to put both of his hands, clasped together, into the skull cavity." It is a truly massive wound. Humes measures it at 13cm long at it's widest.
It is the same wound shown in the Z-film and in the autopsy pictures.
As Jenkins reveals - the whole upper right side of JFK's head could be opened up and then closed. Those who witnessed JFK while the massive portion of the wound was closed were only aware of the gaping wound toward the rear of his head.
There is no mystery here.
No need for any film alteration [something that was virtually impossible to do anyway as it would have required alteration of Muchmore, Nix and Bronson in such a way that all films perfectly agreed with each other]
There was massive damage to the rear part of JFK's skull but it was only part of a much larger wound that encompassed virtually the whole upper right side of his head.
The Z-film shows a massive crater in the top of JFK's head as a result of the head shot, it shows pieces of skull/brain matter being blown into the air, it shows the massive flap of scalp blown to the right side of his head with bone still attached to it.
Jenkins, Custer, O' Connor, Riebe, Humes, Boswell and Finck all describe a truly massive head wound, mainly to the top of the skull, extending front to back.
The Z-film shows this wound.
The autopsy pictures show this wound.
Hi Dan, Dr. Ebersole, who is in charge of the autopsy x-rays took two sets of x-rays of the skull, the chest and the trunk. He noticed a neatly sewn incision on the president's neck just as described by the Parkland doctors. He noticed the messy head wound in the back of the president's head, just like the Parkland doctors. Dr. Ebersole handled and x-rayed the occipital bone from the back of the president's head from Dallas. Robert Knudsen's HSCA testimony cannot be authenticated by his audio testimony which is a woman reading a transcript and then a man talking about tax information. According to the Knudsens, who are his wife and son and daughter, Robert Knudsen was gone for three days; he filmed the autopsy and anytime you see a picture like this, it is fake! Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/JFK_posterior_head_wound.jpg/800px-JFK_posterior_head_wound.jpg)
-
As we have seen in the interview I posted, Jenkins describes a massive head wound that involves the whole upper right side of JFK's skull from just behind the hairline to the back of his head. It is the same wound we see in the Z-film.
Also assisting with the autopsy that night was Paul O' Connor. In his ARRB interview he describes the wound as follows:
"O‘Connor described the defect as being in the region from the "...Occiptal around the temporal and parietal regions." He
said there was a "...massive hole, no little hole." O'Connor believes the bullet came in from the front right and blew out
the top."
(https://i.postimg.cc/Y0GLj4J6/Z337headshotredline2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
The Z-film shows a massive head wound in which a large portion of JFK's skull has been blown upwards. Various pieces of his skull were found after the assassination, as these were blown away from his head they ripped the scalp and a large piece of scalp was blown over to the right hand side of his head. This is the wound Jenkins describes in great detail - it is a large piece of scalp that has bone still attached to it and can be put back in place because where it is still attached to the head acts as a kind of 'hinge.
In the pic above we can see the very large piece of bone still attached to the inside of the scalp which has been blown over to the right hand side of his head.
Floyd Reibe was assisting Stringer with the photography during the autopsy. During his ARRB interview he describes what he saw as follows:
Q: Did you see any other—in addition to that injury that you just described, did you see any other injuries to the head?
A: Yes, there was a flap of bone over on the side above the temporal area.
Jerrol Custer, Ebersole's assistant, was asked to comment on the head injury in detail. This is from "An Analysis of the ARRB Testimony of Jerrol Custer":
“The head was so unstable due to the -the fractures. The fractures were extremely numerous. It was like somebody took a hard-boiled egg, and just rolled it in her hand. And that’s exactly what the head was like… The only thing that held it together was the skin. And even that was loose...This is where all the trauma was (on the right side), right here… Right anatomical side again".
He describes a “large gaping hole” in the right parietal area (in the side, above the ear), which he believed was the exit to a frontal wound that entered into Kennedy’s right eye socket. Custer was asked to analyze Exhibit 206, a lateral side view X-ray of the skull to compare to his observations during the autopsy. He described a large “kidney-shaped” area that was missing from the parietal/temporal (the side of the skull above the jaw). He explains that the hole would have been large enough for him to put both of his hands , clasped together, into the skull cavity. To verify this, he explains that in the right lateral X-ray the cella Turcica is visible. This feature, known as the “Turk’s Chair”, is the portion of the skull that holds the pituitary gland within the interior of the skull. According to Custer, the only way that this feature would be visible in an X-ray was if the side of the skull was missing. In regard to the absent portion of the skull, he states, “The anatomical right side, this is all blackened in (on the X-ray exposure) – which shows there is no tissue, no bone, no nothing.” He stated that none of the bullet damage went into the occipital (back to side of head, above the neck), but that those portions were fractured. His description of the location of this damage is as follows: “The larger wound would have to be further back. This one isn’t as bad, towards the temporal region. It was open. But the more you went further back, the more destruction you had… Most of the destruction was towards the occipital area… You still had the orbital ridge (bone under the eyebrow). The frontal forehead was still here. But the further back you got, the worse the destruction became. And the more gaping the hole became.” Custer states that, in his opinion, a large piece of the temporal bone was missing, and the occipital region had significant damage, but pieces of the skull were still present."
Compare this to Ebersole's "analysis" of the head wound. Compare the forensic detail given by Jenkins to Ebersole's "analysis" of the head wound.
The take away from this is description is that the massive gaping wound to the upper right portion of JFK's skull was "large enough for him to put both of his hands, clasped together, into the skull cavity." It is a truly massive wound. Humes measures it at 13cm long at it's widest.
It is the same wound shown in the Z-film and in the autopsy pictures.
As Jenkins reveals - the whole upper right side of JFK's head could be opened up and then closed. Those who witnessed JFK while the massive portion of the wound was closed were only aware of the gaping wound toward the rear of his head.
There is no mystery here.
No need for any film alteration [something that was virtually impossible to do anyway as it would have required alteration of Muchmore, Nix and Bronson in such a way that all films perfectly agreed with each other]
There was massive damage to the rear part of JFK's skull but it was only part of a much larger wound that encompassed virtually the whole upper right side of his head.
The Z-film shows a massive crater in the top of JFK's head as a result of the head shot, it shows pieces of skull/brain matter being blown into the air, it shows the massive flap of scalp blown to the right side of his head with bone still attached to it.
Jenkins, Custer, O' Connor, Riebe, Humes, Boswell and Finck all describe a truly massive head wound, mainly to the top of the skull, extending front to back.
The Z-film shows this wound.
The autopsy pictures show this wound.
So are you saying: (1) Z Film is legit, (2) JFK was shot from the Front Right? If you trot out O'Connor, this is what you get, Grasshopper.
-
So are you saying: (1) Z Film is legit, (2) JFK was shot from the Front Right? If you trot out O'Connor, this is what you get, Grasshopper.
::)
Why do you bother posting anything.
You never have anything of interest or relevance to say.
I admire your consistency and tenacity but I don't get the point of it.
Look back at what I posted, the various testimonies, the graphics, the arguments I'm putting forward and the evidence supporting these arguments.
Look at the depth and the effort I'm going to and all you can come up with is "If you trot out O'Connor, this is what you get, Grasshopper."
Do you see how stupid that looks?
Do you see how irrelevant that is?
-
I forgot to include the ARRB testimony of John Stringer, the man who took the autopsy photos:
Q: Was there a wound in the occipital region of the President -
Stringer: Yes. the entry.
Q: By “the entry", you mean what?
Stringer: Where the bullet went.
Q: And how big was the entry wound?
Stringer: About the size of a bullet, from what you could see. On the inside where the bone was, I guess it was different.
Q: Could you describe what the skull looked like as best you can now recall?
Stringer: Well...the side of the head, the bone was gone. But there was a flap, where you could lay it back. But the back...It was a complete head of hair
Stringer goes on to stress that it was the right side of JFK's skull that was "gone". He also notes that, apart from the bullet hole, the scalp at the back of the head was intact. It was only when the scalp was reflected that the bone damage to the occipital area became apparent.
This is the same injury Jenkins describes - the bone on the side of the head was gone but there was a flap of scalp that could be laid back in position.
-
::)
Why do you bother posting anything.
You never have anything of interest or relevance to say.
I admire your consistency and tenacity but I don't get the point of it.
Look back at what I posted, the various testimonies, the graphics, the arguments I'm putting forward and the evidence supporting these arguments.
Look at the depth and the effort I'm going to and all you can come up with is "If you trot out O'Connor, this is what you get, Grasshopper."
Do you see how stupid that looks?
Do you see how irrelevant that is?
This is what you get when you use O'Connor to "support?" your position. O'Connor clearly states, "FRONT RIGHT". I understand your frustration, but he is Your witness. Think it through, Grasshopper.
-
This is what you get when you use O'Connor to "support?" your position. O'Connor clearly states, "FRONT RIGHT". I understand your frustration, but he is Your witness. Think it through, Grasshopper.
You don't even realise what sh^t you're talking, do you Royell?
You really don't know.
It isn't my fault that the testimonies of Jenkins, O' Connor, Riebe, Humes, Boswell and Stringer all support the massive head injury shown in the Z-film and the autopsy pics.
I'm just recording the testimonies of the people who actually saw the full extent of JFK's head wound.
That the head wound was massive, that bone was blown away from the top of his head, that the injury covered almost all of the upper right hand side of JFK's skull and that a massive piece of scalp that had bone still attached to it was blown down the right side of his head. And that this massive flap of scalp could be put back in place, covering the full extent of the wound.
You don't accept any of this corroborating evidence because you're a Tinfoil Nutter.
But the thing you really need to realise is this - just because somebody provides a piece of evidence it doesn't mean we have to accept that person's interpretation of the evidence.
Do you understand this concept Royell?
O' Conner describes a massive wound that extended from the "...Occiptal around the temporal and parietal regions"..."a massive hole" and that the shot "blew out the top" of JFK's skull. That is descriptive evidence of what O' Connor saw.
That O' Connor thought it resulted from a frontal shot is just his opinion!
It's just his opinion, Royell.
Don't you understand the difference between the two things?
Don't you understand that, just because O' Connors' description of the wound is consistent with all the other testimony, the Z-film and the autopsy pictures, it doesn't mean I have to accept his interpretation of how that injury occurred.
You must surely be able to see the difference between the two things and you must surely see what a fool you've made of yourself pursuing this point.
-
Out of interest and just to get back to the topic.
If there are any other Tinfoil Nutjobs who believe a limo stop was deleted from the Z-film, how do you propose this was done?
-
And here's something else to contemplate -
3 large sections of JFK's skull were found after the assassination.
Is it the Nutjob's belief that all 3 of these skull pieces were blown out of the back of JFK's head?
-
Back to the stop.
The NIX film shows a limo stop... watch John Ready or Jack Ready, the Secret Service agent who is riding on the passenger side running board (opposite from Clint Hill) jolt forward in Nix N-40 to N-56. I think he is the one seen riding in Halfback who can be seen responding to a braking maneuver. He was closer to JFK than Hill, and was much more passive until after the shooting.
Of course, the Nix film does not show a complete stop of either car. But as I have said previously, I have determined the speed of the JFK limo shown in the Z-film and it is low, jerky, and indicative of several brake pumps leading up to the assassination. Nix captures the braking of several motorcycles and the follow-up car. There are several studies that have shown that the JFK limo decelerates. Officer Martin is shown in Nix to essentially stop.
Jack Ready says that he jumped off and ran toward the JFK limo, but at what point, I cannot tell. If he did that, he waited until "Dazzle" was essentially on the bumper step to do so. I am wondering if the follow-up car stopped to let Ready back on. Ready claims that he got off, ran toward the limo, and was called back by Emory Roberts "as the cars increased their speeds."
Here is my thought: several braking vehicles are all over the place in all of the films. Considering Nix, both cars and all 4 motorcycles appear to be shown with some kind of deceleration ... or being left in the dust by the accelerating JFK limo which may make it seem like the trailing vehicle was left standing still. I have studied it somewhat and I couldn't tell you off the top of my head who in the main part of the motorcade stopped completely.
But the reality is that the limo may not have stopped, but it sure was getting close to it. I think that it was almost slow enough to be akin to a "rolling stop" that people do at stop signs. Brakes squealing, the car behind has to adjust its following distance... I think the most logical conclusion is that the limo was slow, but Halfback had to go slower to respond to Greer's driving and brake-checking. The motorcade ended up looking like modern Stemmons Freeway in rush hour traffic. I wouldn't be too surprised to find that Halfback literally stopped at some point, but it was likely going just a few mph at its lowest speed.
-
Back to the stop.
The NIX film shows a limo stop... watch John Ready or Jack Ready, the Secret Service agent who is riding on the passenger side running board (opposite from Clint Hill) jolt forward in Nix N-40 to N-56. I think he is the one seen riding in Halfback who can be seen responding to a braking maneuver. He was closer to JFK than Hill, and was much more passive until after the shooting.
Of course, the Nix film does not show a complete stop of either car. But as I have said previously, I have determined the speed of the JFK limo shown in the Z-film and it is low, jerky, and indicative of several brake pumps leading up to the assassination. Nix captures the braking of several motorcycles and the follow-up car. There are several studies that have shown that the JFK limo decelerates. Officer Martin is shown in Nix to essentially stop.
Jack Ready says that he jumped off and ran toward the JFK limo, but at what point, I cannot tell. If he did that, he waited until "Dazzle" was essentially on the bumper step to do so. I am wondering if the follow-up car stopped to let Ready back on. Ready claims that he got off, ran toward the limo, and was called back by Emory Roberts "as the cars increased their speeds."
Here is my thought: several braking vehicles are all over the place in all of the films. Considering Nix, both cars and all 4 motorcycles appear to be shown with some kind of deceleration ... or being left in the dust by the accelerating JFK limo which may make it seem like the trailing vehicle was left standing still. I have studied it somewhat and I couldn't tell you off the top of my head who in the main part of the motorcade stopped completely.
But the reality is that the limo may not have stopped, but it sure was getting close to it. I think that it was almost slow enough to be akin to a "rolling stop" that people do at stop signs. Brakes squealing, the car behind has to adjust its following distance... I think the most logical conclusion is that the limo was slow, but Halfback had to go slower to respond to Greer's driving and brake-checking. The motorcade ended up looking like modern Stemmons Freeway in rush hour traffic. I wouldn't be too surprised to find that Halfback literally stopped at some point, but it was likely going just a few mph at its lowest speed.
The NIX film shows a limo stop.
Of course, the Nix film does not show a complete stop of either car.
Errrmmm...slightly mixed messages here buddy.
What you're actually saying is "the Nix film does not show a limo stop".
Yes, it shows the limo slowing down radically, almost to a walking pace, as you point out, and to some witnesses it appeared as though the limo had momentarily stopped.
It is these witness accounts that are put forward as "proof" that the Z-film was altered.
There are insurmountable problems with this child-like logic.
1) Any time removed from the Z-film in order to remove the limo stop must be reflected in the movement of the occupants of the car, any objects in motion and the spectators at the side of the road. What this basically means is that for the limo stop to be removed, all the occupants, spectators and objects must all 'freeze' at exactly the same moment, hold that position for the period of time being removed from the Z-film and then they must all begin to move again at exactly the same moment.
Only the truly deluded can believe such a thing.
2) There is more than one film of the assassination, therefore all these films must be altered in such a way that they are in perfect harmony with the Z-film. And in each film, any people or moving objects must do the 'freeze' for the exact time being removed from each film.
Unfortunately, I do not possess the fantastical imagination required to 'rationalise' these insurmountable problems.
I think a few witnesses made a trivial mistake, the limo radically decelerated to an almost walking pace and some people thought it had stopped for the briefest moment.
Big deal.