JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Mike Orr on March 07, 2018, 03:56:16 AM
-
As per Motorcycle Policeman B. W. Hargis who was hit with blood and brain matter while on his cycle to the left rear of JFK's limo. Then he saw the Limo stop. Limo stopped , Limo stopped !!!! Hargis could not have driven his cycle through any blood or brain matter because he had been hit with blood and brain matter from the back of JFK's head being blasted out after a bullet hit him in the side of his head. Hargis was to the rear and left of the Limo when he was hit with brain matter and blood . When I watch the Zapruder film , the limo never stops . Now how can that be ? Is that another optical illusion that the Warren Commission came up with ?
-
As per Motorcycle Policeman B. W. Hargis who was hit with blood and brain matter while on his cycle to the left rear of JFK's limo. Then he saw the Limo stop. Limo stopped , Limo stopped !!!! Hargis could not have driven his cycle through any blood or brain matter because he had been hit with blood and brain matter from the back of JFK's head being blasted out after a bullet hit him in the side of his head. Hargis was to the rear and left of the Limo when he was hit with brain matter and blood . When I watch the Zapruder film , the limo never stops . Now how can that be ? Is that another optical illusion that the Warren Commission came up with ?
The limousine did not stop. The limousine did not stop. It did not stop. It did not stop. The Zapruder film proves this. From z265 to z305 is slowed from 13 mph to 8 mph. It did not stop. There, now I?ve topped you.
Hargis could have driven his motorcycle through blood and brain matter caused by a shot from the back. Because the motorcycle and the limousine were both moving at 8 mph. Both were heading directly into a head wind of 10 to 15 mph, relative to the ground. That means a wind relative to both vehicles of 18 to 23 mph.
The small droplets of blood, the small bits of brain, even the small bits of bone, initially flying forward, would be quickly stopped and carried right back into Hargis.
Try sending a spray of water from a hose into a 18 to 23 mph breeze and come back and tell me you did not get any water on you.
There is a reason why men are told not to piss into the wind.
-
You Tube 2:21 minutes long ------- Walter Cronkite - Bob Clark - Limo stop . Assassination of JFK
-
The limousine did not stop. The limousine did not stop. It did not stop. It did not stop. The Zapruder film proves this. From z265 to z305 is slowed from 13 mph to 8 mph. It did not stop. There, now I?ve topped you.
Hargis could have driven his motorcycle through blood and brain matter caused by a shot from the back. Because the motorcycle and the limousine were both moving at 8 mph. Both were heading directly into a head wind of 10 to 15 mph, relative to the ground. That means a wind relative to both vehicles of 18 to 23 mph.
The small droplets of blood, the small bits of brain, even the small bits of bone, initially flying forward, would be quickly stopped and carried right back into Hargis.
Try sending a spray of water from a hose into a 18 to 23 mph breeze and come back and tell me you did not get any water on you.
There is a reason why men are told not to piss into the wind.
If all that You are claiming is true, how did the face of Jackie manage to miss ALL of this Blood/Brain Matter? She was sitting to the Left of JFK. If this Blood/Brain Matter was "flying FORWARD", it should have been "carried right back into" Jackie's face, just as You are claiming happened to Officer Hargis. Jackie's face showed No trace of Blood/Brain Matter, due to this Matter having been Blown out of the Back of JFK's head. A frontal Kill Shot = a back of the head exit wound that was Documented by numerous Parkland Professionals. The Current Zapruder Film is an absolute Sham.
-
From chapter 5b at patspeer.com
Bobby W. Hargis rode to the right of Martin and to the left of Mrs. Kennedy. (Note: as so many use Hargis' words to support that the fatal bullet impacted on the front of Kennedy's head, or that the limo stopped on Elm Street, I have highlighted quotes touching upon these issues.) (11-22-63 article in the Dallas Times-Herald) ?About halfway down between Houston and the underpass I heard the first shot. It sounded like a real loud firecracker. When I heard the sound, the first thing I thought about was a gunshot. I looked around and about then Governor Connally turned around and looked at the President with a real surprised look on his face?The President bent over to hear what the Governor had to say. When he raised back up was when the President got shot?I felt blood hit me in the face and the Presidential car stopped almost immediately after that?I racked (parked) my motorcycle and jumped off. I ran to the North side of Elm to see if I could find where the bullets were coming from. I don?t think the President was hit with the first shot? I felt that the Governor was shot first." (Undated typescript of interview with Hargis found within the Dallas-Times-Herald's photograph collection, as reported by Richard Trask in Pictures of the Pain, 1994. This is almost certainly the basis for the 11-22 article) "I felt blood hit me in the face, and the presidential car stopped almost immediately after that and stayed stopped about half a second, then took off at a high rate of speed. I racked my cycle and jumped off. I ran to the north side of Elm Street to see if I could find where the bullets came from. I don't think the President got hit with the first shot, but I don't know for sure. When I heard the first shot, it looked like he bent over. I feel that the Governor was shot first. I could be wrong. Right after the first shot, I was trying to look and see if the President got shot. When I saw the look on Connally's face, I knew somebody was shooting at the car...The fatal bullet struck the President in the right side of the head. I noticed the people in the Texas School Book Depository were looking up to see the top. I didn't know if the President stopped under the triple underpass or not. I didn't know for sure if the shots had come from the Book Depository. I thought they might have come from the trestle." (11-23-63 UPI article found in the Fresno Bee) ?I saw flesh flying after the shot, and the president?s hair flew up,? Hargis said, ?I knew he was dead.? (11-23-63 article in the Houston Post) "A Dallas motorcycle officer who was riding two feet from the presidential car described to the Houston Post Friday what he saw when a sniper fired the shots that killed President Kennedy and wounded Gov. John B. Connally. 'When the first rifle bullet spewed into the open limousine,' said Patrolman J.H. Hargis, 'The President bent forward in the car.' Hargis, a nine-year veteran of the force, said the first shot hit the governor. 'Then immediately after that,' Hargis said, 'the second shot was fired, striking the President in the right side of the head.' The Secret Service man driving the car immediately picked up the phone inside the car and said "Let's go to the nearest hospital.' Hargis said he jumped off his motorcycle and began a search of the building from which the shots were fired. 'I knew it was high and from the right. I looked for any sign of activity in the windows, but I didn't see anybody.'" (11-24-63 article in the New York Sunday News) "We turned left onto Elm St. off Houston, about a half block from where it happened. I was right alongside the rear fender on the left side of the President's car, near Mrs. Kennedy. When I heard the first explosion, I knew it was a shot. I thought that Gov. Connally had been hit when I saw him turn toward the President with a real surprised look. The President then looked like he was bent over or that he was leaning toward the Governor, talking to him. As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned toward him, and that was when he got hit in the side of his head, spinning it around. I was splattered with blood. Then I felt something hit me. It could have been concrete or something, but I thought at first I might have been hit. Then I saw the limousine stop, and I parked my motorcycle at the side of the road, got off and drew my gun. Then this Secret Service agent (in the President's car) got his wits about him and they took off. The motorcycle officer on the right side of the car was Jim Chaney. He immediately went forward and announced to the chief that the President had been shot."
(4-3-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 6H293-296): ?I was next to Mrs. Kennedy when I heard the first shot, and at that time the President bent over, and Governor Connally turned around. He was sitting directly in front of him, and (had) a real shocked and surprised expression on his face?I thought Governor Connally had been shot first, but it looked like the President was bending over to hear what he had to say, and I thought to myself then that Governor Connally, the Governor had been hit, and then as the President raised back up like that the shot that killed him hit him.? (When asked about the blood) "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.'" (When asked about the source of the shots) "Well, at the time it sounded like the shots were right next to me. There wasn't any way in the world I could tell where they were coming from, but at the time there was something in my head that said that they probably could have been coming from the railroad overpass, because I thought since I had got splattered, with blood--I was Just a little back and left of--just a little bit back and left of Mrs. Kennedy, but I didn't know. I had a feeling that it might have been from the Texas Book Depository, and these two places was the primary place that could have been shot from." (8-7-68 interview with Tom Bethel and Al Oser, NARA #180-10096-10005) (When discussing how he could have been sprayed with blood, if the shot came from behind) "Well, that right there is what I've wondered about all along, but see there's ah -- you've got to take into consideration we were moving at the time, and when he got hit all that stuff went like this, and of course I run through it." (When discussing his interpretation of the direction of the shots) "Well, like I say, being that we know that the shot came from the School Book Depository, right then it was kind of hard to say what run through your mind. You know you pick up these little things. You don't know why you do it. You don't know why you do 'em, you just do 'em. It's just kind of instinct. But I had in my mind the shots you couldn't tell where they was coming, but it seemed like the motion of the President's head or his body and the splatter had hit me, it seemed like both the locations needed investigating, and that's why I investigated them. But you couldn't tell, there was -- it looked like a million windows on the Book Depository.You couldn't tell exactly if there was anyone in there with a gun." (When asked if the shots could have come from anywhere) "Uh huh. That's correct." (When asked if he saw the President's head jerk as a response to a bullet's impact) "Yes. Uh huh...To the left forward. Kind of that way...I couldn't see what part of it got hit...If he'd got hit in the rear, I'd have been able to see it. All I saw was just a splash come out on the other side." (a 1971 interview of Hargis by "Whitney," someone working for researcher Fred Newcomb, as presented by Larry Rivera and Jim Fetzer on the Veterans Today website, 4-3-14) (When asked how long the limo stopped) "Oh ? you mean after that first shot?...Only about uh, oh 3-4 seconds. Maybe about 5-6. That?s all...but you won?t find that in the Warren Commission report." (When asked if it said the limo stopped) "Ah no I don?t think it didn?t ? you?ve seen a rolling stop have you? It?s going less than one mile an hour?...Well that?s what he was doing he wasn?t completely stopped or dead still."
The next three reports were posted on the Education Forum by Chris Scally, 6-21-11. (Interview by HSCA investigators James Kelly and Harold Rose on 10-26-77, notes transcribed 11-16-77, JFK document #003300, RIF 180-10107-10243) ""When they turned left on Elm from Houston, he was watching the President's car. Shortly afterwards, he heard a shot. He saw President Kennedy slump forward and Governor Connally turn. He felt at the time that Connally might have been hit and the President was leaning forward to find out what happened. He said the first shot sounded to him like a firecracker. The second shot hit JFK in the head. The presidential car had slowed almost to a stop. After the second shot, the car accelerated rapidly and sped to Parkland Hospital. Hargis said he pulled over to the curb at the grassy knoll. He got off the bike and went up the hill on the grass. He didn't see anyone with a gun, so he went over to the Texas School Book Depository at 411 Elm Street and helped other police officers seal it off." (Interview by HSCA investigator Jack Moriarty dated 8-8-78, notes transcribed 8-23-78, JFK document #014362, RIF 180-10113-10272) "When the first report sounded, he was "about one-third of the way down Elm", having made the last turn from Houston. It sounded like a firecracker, but he was unable to tell where it came from. He looked to his right and saw Connally turning and the President appeared to be leaning forward as if he was trying to hear what the Governor was saying. He had seen JFK lean forward in like manner during the motorcade as he and Connally had been conversing. This time, though, the President had an expression of pain on his face. When the second shot was fired - no doubt gunfire this time as it hit the President's head - the limousine slowed so much it practically stopped and he had to put his feet down to maintain balance. Then the driver accelerated and several motormen started the escort. Hargis remained behind parking his bike where it stood in the left side of Elm now about one half way down the hill. He ran to the grassy knoll and continued until he had reached the top section of the underpass. Finding nothing significant, he returned to his bike - still on the stand with the radio on (and working) and the engine off. He started the bike and drove back up Elm and parked just west of the front door of the TSBD where he joined Brewer as they became part of the effort to seal off this building, although, he adds, at that time no-one was certain just where the shots had come from." (Interview by HSCA investigator Jack Moriarty, 12-29-78, JFK document # 014224, RIF 180-10109-10354). "Reached Mr. Hargis at his new residence... today and developed the following additional information. At the sound of the first shot, he was "in position" - some five to six feet from the left corner of the rear bumper of John F. Kennedy limousine. At the sound of the second shot, he was a bit closer (the limousine slowed and nearly stopped) - perhaps four feet. By the third shot (although he doesn't recall the actual, but saw John F. Kennedy's head explode), he was "almost even with Jackie - no more than two or three feet, if that."
(Interview with NBC broadcast on the 1988 program That Day In November) "It sounded like a firecracker to me and I thought 'Oh Lord, let it be a firecracker. And it looked like the President was bending over, forward. And then when he raised back up is when that second shot hit him in the head." (6-26-95 interview with Mark Oakes, posted on Youtube by Gil Jesus) "There was not three shots; there was only two. I only heard two...The facts was there was two shots--one that hit him in the back and one that hit him in the head. And the one that hit him in the head just busted his head wide open... (On William Greer, the driver of the limo) "That guy slowed down, maybe his orders was to slow down, slowed down almost to a stop." (11-23-95 Dallas Morning News article found in the Herald Journal) "'I'm the only one living who was beside the car,' said Detective Hargis, now 63. 'When he was shot in the head, it splashed up, and I ran into all that brain matter, and all that. It came up and down, all over my uniform." (November 1998 interview with Texas Monthly) ?About ten seconds after we made that left-hand turn, that first shot rang out?I remember Kennedy leaned forward to listen to what he had to say. And then when he raised back up, that second shot hit him in the head. But we figured out that he had got shot?that first bullet had gone through the upper part of his back, well through the seat, and hit Connally?s wrist and glanced off and went into his thigh.? (Interview within an 11-22-03 WBAP radio program found on Youtube) "Yeah I looked toward the President and I thought maybe John Connally was hit because he turned around to look at the President. He had a real surprised look on his face. Kennedy was bending over like he was listening to what Connally had to say. When he raised back up, that second shot hit him in the head. That's what killed him, There was only two shots fired." (11-22-03 article in the Dallas Morning News) ?Hargis differs with the Warren Commission and most eyewitnesses, insisting that only two shots were fired. With the first, ?a thousand million things went through my mind,? he says. After the last, ?there was a plume of blood and brains and plasma. It was just like a fog, and I ran right through it.? (Oral History interview performed for the Sixth Floor Museum, 9-24-10) (When asked if his observations suggested that the fatal shot came from in front of Kennedy) "No." (When asked if it bothered him that people use his statements to suggest there'd been a conspiracy) "Yeah, it does...There was no conspiracy, whatsoever. There was two shots fired, and both shots, we found the bullet." (On the possibility there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll) "To me it sounds ludicrous."
-
I'm so happy Mr. Hargis eventually got his mind right, and was able to erase his faulty memories from that fateful day, and see what really happened.
*sarcasm off*
-
For the umpteen millionth time, have a look at frame z313 of the Zapruder film.
(http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z313.jpg)
The cloud of blood and brain matter is mostly below the level of the top of the windshield, and was therefore shielded from the wind blowing head on at the limo.
The limo was travelling approximately 12 mph. From the still, everything coming from JFK's head was accelerating away from his head toward the front of the limo, and would be travelling at a velocity of 12 mph plus whatever its own velocity was. Wouldn't it have a tendency to land on Connally and his wife, instead of "hanging" in a cloud for Hargis to ride through?
-
If the limo stopped ( close to the time of JFK's head shot from the front ) then why does the Zapruder film not show this limo stopping or even slowing down ?
-
Links should be supplied when claims are made.
Apparently, Bobby Hargis did not testify before the Commission.
Nor was a deposition or any statement of his [officially] produced.
This claim goes back to Josiah Thompson's book Six Seconds in Dallas.
No one has ever produced any statement from Hargis saying he was hit with any "force," although he most certainly was "hit." Here is the article Thompson is quoting, from the Sunday News, New York, November 24, 1963, page 21 (courtesy of Steve Barber):
....
"Then I felt something hit me. It could have been concrete or something, but I thought at first I might have been hit."
"Then I saw the limousine stop, and I parked my motorcycle at the side of the road, got off and drew my gun."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hargis.htm
(1) Jean Hill (who stood to the immediate left of the limousine with her friend Mary Moorman during the assassination), in her Sheriff?s Dept. affidavit of 11/22/63, stated that the limousine stopped for an instant;
(2) Hugh Betzner (standing behind the limousine during the assassination), in his Sheriff?s Dept. affidavit of 11/22/63, said twice that the limousine stopped during the assassination;
(3) Roy Truly, Oswald?s boss at the TSBD, later stated that the limousine swerved to the left and stopped during the assassination;
(4) DPD officer Bobby W. Hargis?riding escort to the immediate left rear of the limousine?in an interview never published by a local newspaper, but whose text was later found and written about by Richard Trask in his book Pictures of the Pain, stated that the limousine stopped during the assassination; and
(5) In numerous interviews over many years, Bill Newman (standing to the immediate right of the limousine during the assassination with his wife and two children) has repeatedly and consistently recalled that there was a very brief, but definite car stop by the limousine during the assassination
http://jfkfacts.org/did-jfks-limousine-come-to-a-stop-amid-the-gunfire/
-
From chapter 5b at patspeer.com
After the last shot, ?there was a plume of blood and brains and plasma. It was just like a fog, and I ran right through it.?
Where did the plasma come from? An exploding bullet perhaps?
-
Rob , once again you cover so much material in your postings and this posting says a lot about the Motorcycle Policemen and what they went through that day. The quotes from Martin and Hargis about the spray of blood and matter that hit them says once again that the JFK headshot came from the front. Rob , thanks man . You bring so much to this forum. I appreciate you , Rob ! Mike
-
Pat S. Your posting on this subject covers a lot of ground which is very good. I went to your site and started to read as much as I could and will continue to do so. I'm sure it had to be traumatic for Hargis being that close to what happened to JFK & Connally in the Limo. when I read in your post that the Limo (as per Hargis in an interview by Whitney) might have been stopped for 3-4 seconds and maybe 5-6 seconds after the 1st shot, but you won't find that in the Warren Commission report.( When asked if it said the Limo stopped)" Ah no I don't think it didn't , you've seen a rolling stop have you ? It's going less than 1 mile an hour ?...Well that's what he was doing he wasn't completely stopped or dead still." Pat , are there more witnesses on maybe how long the limo was stopped or going through a rolling stop (very slow) ? It's good to have you on the forum.
-
Perhaps confirming the obvious but if the final shot came from the snipers nest it would have been close to 180 degrees and we would not have expected large amounts of material to go to the left of the limo?
-
Matt , I feel that you are right with that assumption. The Z-film seems to only show the blood spatter to be up and towards the front of JFK and that it only happens in Z 313. Dino Brugioni told Douglas Horne that when they made the 2 Briefing boards on Late Saturday night the 23rd of November 1963 from the original Zapruder film there were 12 to 15 prints on the 2 boards total . Brugioni and his crew left early Sunday morning the 24th an not known to them, another crew came in Sunday night and made up 4 briefing boards which are now in the archives today. Dino's 2 briefing boards must have shown something that was not supposed to be seen , so later Sunday night the new crew came in and made their set of 4 briefing boards which they finished early on Monday morning the 25th of November which was the day of JFK's funeral. Brugioni also said that blood spatter from the head shot was 3 to 4 feet in the air and was seen on several more frames after frame 313 . Brugioni believes that the Zapruder film that resides in CIA's Archives today is not the film he saw the day after the Assassination.
www.newnationalist.net/2017/11/21/zapruder-jfk-assassination-footage-altered-by-nefarious
-
As the limo came to a stop , this seemed to be the point that the fatal head shot on JFK was made .
-
At 20 seconds Hargis says the limo slowed. But the most interesting part is when he says "this is not for public viewing'. First he said the limo slowed but then says it "came to almost a complete stop".
-
The following link shows some evidence of some serious breaking or slowing around 313
-
It is really exasperating to read these comments from people saying that the fatal shot came from the front. I have yet to see anyone posting the proof that the shot came from the rear, when there is more proof of it than anything else!
The Harper fragment and the David Burris fragment were both found several yards AHEAD of where the limousine was located at the time of the fatal shot--not to mention the piece of skull Seymour Weitzman saw someone "lifting from the gutter on Elm street". The majority of the head matter landed on the Connally's, Greer, Kellerman, the hood, sun visors(both sides) windshield, interior of the car, the side rails--both sides of the car and trunk lid. All you have to do is read the testimony of Robert Frazier. The top of the president's head--not the rear or side--was blown off. Mrs. Kennedy's own words to Theodore White one week(7 days) after the assassination reveals this. As for the motorcycle officers, look closely and you can see the fine mist("cloud"/"plume") that Bobby Hargis describes that he drove into, and Martin said he didn't even see the fatal shot, nor did he feel anything land on him. He only described what he saw on his uniform, helmet and motorcycle, later, after directing traffic. The display of head matter in the Zapruder film shows the top of the head flying through the air towards the front. Someone (I believe it was Dr.Lattimer) estimated them traveling at around 80 MPH, and it's obvious that these are skull fragments. James Altgens stated during an interview--not to mention his WC testimony--that head matter flew in his direction. He stated during one interview (possibly in Richard Trask's Pictures Of the Pain ) that matter landed near his feet. Nowhere in the Zapruder film do we see skull fragments or large fragments of head matter flying to the rear of the limousine, and no skull fragments were found or seen flying to the rear. The majority of head matter flew forward, a mist captured in the wind wafts to rear and is what landed on Hargis and Martin.
-
It is really exasperating to read these comments from people saying that the fatal shot came from the front. I have yet to see anyone posting the proof that the shot came from the rear, when there is more proof of it than anything else!
The Harper fragment and the David Burris fragment were both found several yards AHEAD of where the limousine was located at the time of the fatal shot--not to mention the piece of skull Seymour Weitzman saw someone "lifting from the gutter on Elm street". The majority of the head matter landed on the Connally's, Greer, Kellerman, the hood, sun visors(both sides) windshield, interior of the car, the side rails--both sides of the car and trunk lid. All you have to do is read the testimony of Robert Frazier. The top of the president's head--not the rear or side--was blown off. Mrs. Kennedy's own words to Theodore White one week(7 days) after the assassination reveals this. As for the motorcycle officers, look closely and you can see the fine mist("cloud"/"plume") that Bobby Hargis describes that he drove into, and Martin said he didn't even see the fatal shot, nor did he feel anything land on him. He only described what he saw on his uniform, helmet and motorcycle, later, after directing traffic. The display of head matter in the Zapruder film shows the top of the head flying through the air towards the front. Someone (I believe it was Dr.Lattimer) estimated them traveling at around 80 MPH, and it's obvious that these are skull fragments. James Altgens stated during an interview--not to mention his WC testimony--that head matter flew in his direction. He stated during one interview (possibly in Richard Trask's Pictures Of the Pain ) that matter landed near his feet. Nowhere in the Zapruder film do we see skull fragments or large fragments of head matter flying to the rear of the limousine, and no skull fragments were found or seen flying to the rear. The majority of head matter flew forward, a mist captured in the wind wafts to rear and is what landed on Hargis and Martin.
Citations please!
-
Citations please!
So, you aren't familiar with ANY of what I said?
Robert Frazier Warren Commission testimony. Graphic description of the blood and head matter all over the car as well as bullet fragments and damage to the windshield. Look it up.
Mrs. Kennedy 's description of the head wound on top of the head: http://www.jfklancer.com/pdf/Camelot.pdf
Both John and Nellie Connally describe head matter landing on them, John Connally describing a "chunk of the President's brain as almost as my thumbnail" landed on his trousers. Read his Warren Commission testimony . It's in there.
Mrs. Connally described it merely as "matter all over the car and both of us". She stated that it felt like "spent buckshot" when it landed on her. Read her Warren Commission testimony. it's in there.
Roy Kellerman described the head matter as "moist sawdust" landing on him. Read his Warren Commission testimony. It's in there.
Bill Greer never mentioned feeling anything strike him, but the fact that the windshield directly in front of him was blood spattered/splattered as well as the windshield being struck on the inside by a fragment of the bullet to the head of the president, indicates he could never have escaped being splattered/spattered with blood, brain and possibly skull fragments.
You will have to do your own search on Billy Harper re: the "Harper Fragment"
B.J. Martin Warren commission testimony-available online Same with his testimony at the Clay Shaw trial, also available online.
Bobby Hargis Warren Commission testimony and Clay Shaw trial testimony (see above)
David Burris. I have two 8x10's taken of the area in Dealey Plaza which Burris himself highlighted where he found the skull fragments. I will post these photographs here on this forum.
Seymour Weitzman Warren Commission testimony. He mentions having found a fragment that was lying in the street 8-12 inches from the curb on the south side of Elm street. I made an error saying that Weitzman found it in the gutter. I mixed this up with the story about Weitzman in the book The Day Kennedy Was Shot by Jim Bishop.
I do not have access to any of my assassination books, they are packed away, so I cannot tell you (as I indicated) exactly where James Altgens mentioned head matter landing near his feet, but, his Warren Commission testimony does mention him saying that matter came in his direction. As i mentioned, I believe it may be in Richard Trask's Pictures Of the Pain.
(https://i.imgur.com/pTS6Cqt.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/iTVrzub.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/mG91qB1.jpg)
-
Sam Kinney was the driver of the backup car behind the JFK limo and he saw the back of the head wound as it was being blown out from JFK's head. Not only were the motorcycle patrolmen hit with brain matter and blood , Sam Kinney said the limo he was driving had brain matter on it as well as his left arm . Those people were hit hard with blood and brain matter . Jackie got on the trunk to possibly scoop up brain matter or maybe a piece of skull . Jackie did not remember going out on the trunk lid. Clint Hill said that Jackie was trying to retrieve a piece of JFK's skull. If the motorcycle policemen and Kinney were to drive thru a mist of JFK's head wound , it would not look like they had been blasted with the brains and blood matter of JFK . The limo was going very slow, if not a complete stop. There is a picture of the JFK's limo that shows the brake lights on . The Zapruder film never shows a slowing down or a stop . Hargis says he couldn't figure out why Greer slowed down almost to a stop. Hargis says maybe his (Greers) orders was to "Slow Down" !!!!!!!
-
Sam Kinney was the driver of the backup car behind the JFK limo and he saw the back of the head wound as it was being blown out from JFK's head. Not only were the motorcycle patrolmen hit with brain matter and blood , Sam Kinney said the limo he was driving had brain matter on it as well as his left arm . Those people were hit hard with blood and brain matter . Jackie got on the trunk to possibly scoop up brain matter or maybe a piece of skull . Jackie did not remember going out on the trunk lid. Clint Hill said that Jackie was trying to retrieve a piece of JFK's skull. If the motorcycle policemen and Kinney were to drive thru a mist of JFK's head wound , it would not look like they had been blasted with the brains and blood matter of JFK . The limo was going very slow, if not a complete stop. There is a picture of the JFK's limo that shows the brake lights on . The Zapruder film never shows a slowing down or a stop . Hargis says he couldn't figure out why Greer slowed down almost to a stop. Hargis says maybe his (Greers) orders was to "Slow Down" !!!!!!!
With all due respect, Sam Kinney couldn't have possibly had "brain matter" on his left arm. Kinney's arm is not resting on the car door and there is no way "brain matter" would have landed on his left arm alone without splatter/spatter landing all over him. Kinney could not have seen the back of the head erupt because the back of the head was not damaged. The proof of this lies within: A. The Zapruder film. B. The Mary Ann Moorman Krahmer photo, C. The Marie Muchmore film D. The statements and interviews by Bill and Gayle Newman, Abraham Zapruder, Marilyn Sitzman and Bobby Hargis. All of them mentioned the "side of the head" and three of them pointed to the location of the head wound, Zapruder, Mrs. NEwman and Mr. Newman. All captured on film.
No where do any of these people ever say anything about being "hit hard" by head matter. That was started by Josiah Thompson who took great liberty at making Hargis' description of the blood and brain" "hitting" him. It didn't "hit him" He drove into it as he indicated. And Martin didn't witness the head shot, nor did he even know head matter landed on him until much later while he was directing traffic . It's in his Warren Commission testimony.
No, Clint hill did not say that Mrs. Kennedy was trying to retrieve a piece of skull. Read his Warren Commission testimony, please.
Mrs. Kennedy did not exit the rear seat to possibly "retrieve" skull or brain. There is absolutely no proof of this, only rumor, and her actions in the Zapruder film rule this not to be the case. If you read what Hill said, he said he thought he "saw something come off the back of the car" but he couldn't be certain. He then mentioned that a piece of skull was turned over to them the next day, but his description of whom turned it in sounds like the Harper fragment because Hill thought it was turned in by a "medical student", which would be Billy Harper. The Harper fragment was found several yards ahead of where the limousine was located at the time of the fatal shot.
There is no proof of brake lights captured in the on position in any of the films or photos. That is just speculation. One frame of the Marie Muchmore film captured the right rear brake light at the moment of the fatal shot, but there is not enough there to prove that the brake light was on. Aside from, this, we already know that the car was slowing to 8 MPH from the 11/12 MPH it was traveling down Elm Street until just before the last shot when Greer turned to look to the rear. All films show the limousine slowing--including Zpruder.
-
With all due respect, Sam Kinney couldn't have possibly had "brain matter" on his left arm. Kinney's arm is not resting on the car door and there is no way "brain matter" would have landed on his left arm alone without splatter/spatter landing all over him. Kinney could not have seen the back of the head erupt because the back of the head was not damaged. The proof of this lies within: A. The Zapruder film. B. The Mary Ann Moorman Krahmer photo, C. The Marie Muchmore film D. The statements and interviews by Bill and Gayle Newman, Abraham Zapruder, Marilyn Sitzman and Bobby Hargis. All of them mentioned the "side of the head" and three of them pointed to the location of the head wound, Zapruder, Mrs. NEwman and Mr. Newman. All captured on film.
No where do any of these people ever say anything about being "hit hard" by head matter. That was started by Josiah Thompson who took great liberty at making Hargis' description of the blood and brain" "hitting" him. It didn't "hit him" He drove into it as he indicated. And Martin didn't witness the head shot, nor did he even know head matter landed on him until much later while he was directing traffic . It's in his Warren Commission testimony.
http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm
No, Clint hill did not say that Mrs. Kennedy was trying to retrieve a piece of skull. Read his Warren Commission testimony, please.
Mrs. Kennedy did not exit the rear seat to possibly "retrieve" skull or brain. There is absolutely no proof of this, only rumor, and her actions in the Zapruder film rule this not to be the case. If you read what Hill said, he said he thought he "saw something come off the back of the car" but he couldn't be certain. He then mentioned that a piece of skull was turned over to them the next day, but his description of whom turned it in sounds like the Harper fragment because Hill thought it was turned in by a "medical student", which would be Billy Harper. The Harper fragment was found several yards ahead of where the limousine was located at the time of the fatal shot.
There is no proof of brake lights captured in the on position in any of the films or photos. That is just speculation. One frame of the Marie Muchmore film captured the right rear brake light at the moment of the fatal shot, but there is not enough there to prove that the brake light was on. Aside from, this, we already know that the car was slowing to 8 MPH from the 11/12 MPH it was traveling down Elm Street until just before the last shot when Greer turned to look to the rear. All films show the limousine slowing--including Zpruder.
There is no way to compare how much material went behind than in front I guess you do not consider any of the people who saw Kennedy's wound before Bethesda is relevant A few said up to 1/2, I believe that was Clint Hill The Zapruder film is obviously altered not to show skull debris
The Harper Fragment was on the opposite side of Elm from the knoll
Here is a good link of all those who stated the hole in JFK'd head was large and in the right rear Do you know of one witness who claimed otherwise before Bethesda? Even the overwhelming majority of them said otherwise
http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm
With that evidence in hand we add that all the fragments were lost by the authorities including the brain, I have little idea what evidence you feel points otherwise? It is likely a head shot did come from behind as well, but there is no doubt the shot the blew out the back of his skull came from the front
-
Let's not use the word "proof" for anything re the Big Event. There is no proof that Oswald was a lone nut, nor is there any compelling evidence that he was. Not a single piece of evidence suggests Oswald was anything but a patsy.
As far as the limo stopping, I find it incriminating that the limo slowed down at all. That was the Turkey Shoot Point so 3 or more shots would sound like 1.
All you need to know is that the Z film was edited by the FBI then they returned a "copy" to Zapruder and Newsweek. Ask yourself where the original film is and why the FBI edited it before returning copies? The original film would tell all. So where is it?
-
Fifty-nine Witnesses: Delay on Elm Street By Vince Palamara
UPI's Four Days (1964), p. 17--- In the right hand picture [a frame from the Muchmore film], the driver slams on his brakes and the police escort pulls up.
Case Closed by Gerald Posner (1993),p. 234---"Incredibly, Greer, sensing that something was wrong in the back of the car, slowed the vehicle to almost a standstill." AND - Gerald Posner, with Dan Rather, on CBS' "Who Killed JFK: The Final Chapter?", 11/19/93---By turning around the second time and looking at JFK as the car slows down, Posner says that "What he [Greer] has done is inadvertently given Oswald the easiest of the three shots."
ABC Reporter Bob Clark(rode in the National Press Pool Car)---Reported on the air that the limousine stopped on Elm Street during the shooting [WFAA/ ABC, 11/22/63];
DPD James Chaney (one of the four Presidential motorcyclists)---stated that the Presidential limousine stopped momentarily after the first shot (according to the testimony of Mark Lane; corroborated by the testimony of fellow DPD motorcycle officer Marion Baker: Chaney told him that "...at the time, after the shooting, from the time the first shot rang out, the car stopped completely, pulled to the left and stopped...Now I have heard several of them say that, Mr. Truly was standing out there, he said it stopped. Several officers said it stopped completely." [2 H 44-45 (Lane)---referring to Chaney's statement as reported in the Houston Chronicle dated 11/24/63; 3 H 266 (Baker)];
I've only listed a few . You can go to mcadams.posc.mu.edu/59wit.htm
-
There is no way to compare how much material went behind than in front I guess you do not consider any of the people who saw Kennedy's wound before Bethesda is relevant A few said up to 1/2, I believe that was Clint Hill The Zapruder film is obviously altered not to show skull debris
The Harper Fragment was on the opposite side of Elm from the knoll
Here is a good link of all those who stated the hole in JFK'd head was large and in the right rear Do you know of one witness who claimed otherwise before Bethesda? Even the overwhelming majority of them said otherwise
http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm
With that evidence in hand we add that all the fragments were lost by the authorities including the brain, I have little idea what evidence you feel points otherwise? It is likely a head shot did come from behind as well, but there is no doubt the shot the blew out the back of his skull came from the front
So the Harper fragment was opposite the knoll. I've known this for years and years. The limousine was nowhere near where the fragment was found when the fatal shot was fired. It traveled through the air from the top of the head, not the rear of the head! The rear of the head is intact. Period. The Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films, all show the same thing: Head matter(skull fragments) flying off the top of the head towards the infield grass where they landed. And why do you call Bill and Gayle Newman, Abraham Zapruder, Marilyn Siztman, Mrs. Kennedy and Chuck Brehm liars? They were standing within feet of the limousine during the fatal shot. And the moment you are confronted with facts regarding skull material and how the Zapruder, Nix, and Muchmore films all reveal none flying behind the limousine, you render the film and or films "altered". Absurd. Absolutely absurd, and typical conspiracy nutter tripe. I am well aware of the list of people who say they saw the back of the head. Too bad they are wrong because none of them examined the head wound. Mrs. Kennedy is the first person to have seen the damage done to her husband's head, and what she tells Theodore White doesn't fit at all with your scenario. I suggest you read it. Clint Hill jumps all over the place when talking about where the hole was.
As far as your two shots to the head theory. Ludicrous. Had two shots been fired into the man's head, there would have been very little of his head left. You have absolutely no explanation for where the bullet went, and you have no explanation for how, if the shot "came from the front" blowing out the back of the head, where such a bullet came from, and how it didn't damage any of the left hemisphere of the brain or the right side of the skull. I suggest you read up on just how little brain tissue was missing from the brain. I'll give you a hint. It is nowhere near the amount you believe it its. Try reading Dr. Baden's report.
-
Fifty-nine Witnesses: Delay on Elm Street By Vince Palamara
UPI's Four Days (1964), p. 17--- In the right hand picture [a frame from the Muchmore film], the driver slams on his brakes and the police escort pulls up.
Case Closed by Gerald Posner (1993),p. 234---"Incredibly, Greer, sensing that something was wrong in the back of the car, slowed the vehicle to almost a standstill." AND - Gerald Posner, with Dan Rather, on CBS' "Who Killed JFK: The Final Chapter?", 11/19/93---By turning around the second time and looking at JFK as the car slows down, Posner says that "What he [Greer] has done is inadvertently given Oswald the easiest of the three shots.
ABC Reporter Bob Clark(rode in the National Press Pool Car)---Reported on the air that the limousine stopped on Elm Street during the shooting [WFAA/ ABC, 11/22/63];
DPD James Chaney (one of the four Presidential motorcyclists)---stated that the Presidential limousine stopped momentarily after the first shot (according to the testimony of Mark Lane; corroborated by the testimony of fellow DPD motorcycle officer Marion Baker: Chaney told him that "...at the time, after the shooting, from the time the first shot rang out, the car stopped completely, pulled to the left and stopped...Now I have heard several of them say that, Mr. Truly was standing out there, he said it stopped. Several officers said it stopped completely." [2 H 44-45 (Lane)---referring to Chaney's statement as reported in the Houston Chronicle dated 11/24/63; 3 H 266 (Baker)];
I've only listed a few . You can go to mcadams.posc.mu.edu/59wit.htm
UPI had not seen anything but the Marie Muchmore film, which they had in their possession. The films all show the limo slowing and the motorcycle's remaining at the same speed. Naturally, it looks like the "police escort pulls up" because they are still travelling at the 11 mph they were travelling before Greer took his foot off the gas.
Posner is correct. The limo slowing did make Oswald's final shot easy target. The limo, did not stop.
Bob Clark was not in a position to see the limousine during the assassination. He was several cars back and the vehicles in front of him would have blocked his view of the limousine completely.
Your citation re Chaney is ridiculous. We know that what he said did not happen. Out of all of the witnesses to the assassination, the majority of them never said anything about the limousine doing what Chaney, Truly and "Others" you say saw it stop completely. It didn't happen. The films--regardless of your belief that they are "altered"-- prove this, as well as the majority of witnesses who never saw the car do what Chaney said it did.
-
Too bad they are wrong because none of them examined the head wound. .
Try reading Dr. Baden's report.
Amusing Doctors do not examine wounds? Remind me how Hargis is covered with brain splatter and with enough force that he thought he might have been shot and none of it would appear on film There is no brain material going what would be considered forward in Zapruder two diagonal jets with completely insignificant amounts of material Thus the Zapruder film offers virtually nothing in offering where the tissue went
The fragments and brain being gone is immaterial apparently?
I assume you see the three pathologists are on the list, so who exactly are your expert examiners that actually dealt with the physical evidence? You highlighted "examined" as an operative term and that certainly does not apply to Baden
-
Amusing Doctors do not examine wounds?
Not when they have higher priority tasks.
** Continuing checking for breathing.
** Continuing checking for heartbeats.
** Hooking up patient for emergency blood transfusion.
** Hooking up patient and delivering medicine through a needle.
Could not use the usual methods of controlling bleeding like direct pressure or a tourniquet because most of the bleeding was from the brain. Taking time to ?examine? this wound won?t give them any insights on how to stop the bleeding, or keep the heart beating, or keep the breathing going.
All of which was over in about ten minutes.
Once a patient is stabilized, then, yes, the wounds should be carefully examined.
-
UPI had not seen anything but the Marie Muchmore film, which they had in their possession. The films all show the limo slowing and the motorcycle's remaining at the same speed. Naturally, it looks like the "police escort pulls up" because they are still travelling at the 11 mph they were travelling before Greer took his foot off the gas.
Posner is correct. The limo slowing did make Oswald's final shot easy target. The limo, did not stop.
Bob Clark was not in a position to see the limousine during the assassination. He was several cars back and the vehicles in front of him would have blocked his view of the limousine completely.
Your citation re Chaney is ridiculous. We know that what he said did not happen. Out of all of the witnesses to the assassination, the majority of them never said anything about the limousine doing what Chaney, Truly and "Others" you say saw it stop completely. It didn't happen. The films--regardless of your belief that they are "altered"-- prove this, as well as the majority of witnesses who never saw the car do what Chaney said it did.
Relative to the background there is no slowing of the limo
-
Not when they have higher priority tasks.
** Continuing checking for breathing.
** Continuing checking for heartbeats.
** Hooking up patient for emergency blood transfusion.
** Hooking up patient and delivering medicine through a needle.
Could not use the usual methods of controlling bleeding like direct pressure or a tourniquet because most of the bleeding was from the brain. Taking time to ?examine? this wound won?t give them any insights on how to stop the bleeding, or keep the heart beating, or keep the breathing going.
All of which was over in about ten minutes.
Once a patient is stabilized, then, yes, the wounds should be carefully examined.
Are you claiming that JFK was still alive when they brought him to Bethesda? The doctor never would have given him a tracheotomy if he was still alive. It would have killed him.
-
Not when they have higher priority tasks.
** Continuing checking for breathing.
** Continuing checking for heartbeats.
** Hooking up patient for emergency blood transfusion.
** Hooking up patient and delivering medicine through a needle.
Could not use the usual methods of controlling bleeding like direct pressure or a tourniquet because most of the bleeding was from the brain. Taking time to ?examine? this wound won?t give them any insights on how to stop the bleeding, or keep the heart beating, or keep the breathing going.
All of which was over in about ten minutes.
Once a patient is stabilized, then, yes, the wounds should be carefully examined.
False dichotomy If you are treating a patients wound you have to examine it to see what the problem is It may be that the missed some smaller wounds further up on the head, but that is not the point here
-
False dichotomy If you are treating a patients wound you have to examine it to see what the problem is It may be that the missed some smaller wounds further up on the head, but that is not the point here
About 25-30 years ago, I pestered any number of medical pros, from paramedics to physicians, about this. They were unanimous that trauma care is applied in strict "ABC" fashion. That is, Airway first, then Breathing, then Circulation. Anything else comes after those three, since there's no point in trying to fix anything else if the patient is neither able to breathe nor pumping blood. As one doctor I asked put it, "On the hierarchy of things medically wrong with JFK at that time, the hole in his head was well down on the list." It may seem strange, until you think about it.
BTW, of the medical people I've talked to, they thought that Carrico, would have had the most careful look at the wound since he was first physician on the scene, and was responsible for the initial examination/triage.
-
About 25-30 years ago, I pestered any number of medical pros, from paramedics to physicians, about this. They were unanimous that trauma care is applied in strict "ABC" fashion. That is, Airway first, then Breathing, then Circulation. Anything else comes after those three, since there's no point in trying to fix anything else if the patient is neither able to breathe nor pumping blood. As one doctor I asked put it, "On the hierarchy of things medically wrong with JFK at that time, the hole in his head was well down on the list." It may seem strange, until you think about it.
BTW, of the medical people I've talked to, they thought that Carrico, would have had the most careful look at the wound since he was first physician on the scene, and was responsible for the initial examination/triage.
Sorry if I find this whole consideration absurd We are not talking about some fine details of the nature of the wound, we are simply talking about the general location of a very large wound It is not a matter of an inch or two discrepancy it is a matter of wound halfway across his skull You actually used the 'E' word, I imagine Joe will object to that
-
The Harper fragment and the David Burris fragment were both found several yards AHEAD of where the limousine was located at the time of the fatal shot
Any idea how these ended on the South side of Elm if it was the right side of Kennedy's head that was blown out?
-
External cardiac massage was done on JFK at Parkland Hospital. With each depression of the chest, Blood & Matter fell out of the hole in the Back of his head and onto the gurney and then onto the floor. Whether someone is a Dr, a Nurse, or a Janitor, they would certainly notice a gaping hole in someone's head with blood and matter falling out of it.
-
Sorry if I find this whole consideration absurd We are not talking about some fine details of the nature of the wound, we are simply talking about the general location of a very large wound It is not a matter of an inch or two discrepancy it is a matter of wound halfway across his skull You actually used the 'E' word, I imagine Joe will object to that
Who was it who said:
"If you are treating a patients wound you have to examine it to see what the problem is It may be that the missed some smaller wounds further up on the head, but that is not the point here"
????
My point is that it's incorrect to think that anyone the Parkland staff would have spent effort on any examination of the head wound other than simply noting one was there. There were too many more needs with higher priority: the already-mentioned Airway, Breathing, Circulation drill. The exact nature of the wound, and whether it was part of something larger --ie, that there was an area of missing skull somewhere beneath seemingly intact scalp-- was beyond their efforts. And for good reason.
-
Who was it who said:
"If you are treating a patients wound you have to examine it to see what the problem is It may be that the missed some smaller wounds further up on the head, but that is not the point here"
????
My point is that it's incorrect to think that anyone the Parkland staff would have spent effort on any examination of the head wound other than simply noting one was there. There were too many more needs with higher priority: the already-mentioned Airway, Breathing, Circulation drill. The exact nature of the wound, and whether it was part of something larger --ie, that there was an area of missing skull somewhere beneath seemingly intact scalp-- was beyond their efforts. And for good reason.
Noted
-
Any idea how these ended on the South side of Elm if it was the right side of Kennedy's head that was blown out?
It was not the side of the head. The top of his head was blown off!
-
External cardiac massage was done on JFK at Parkland Hospital. With each depression of the chest, Blood & Matter fell out of the hole in the Back of his head and onto the gurney and then onto the floor. Whether someone is a Dr, a Nurse, or a Janitor, they would certainly notice a gaping hole in someone's head with blood and matter falling out of it.
Absurd. Haven't you looked closely at the top of the head photographs which show the middle of the top of his head gone and his brain hanging out of that hole on top draping down over the hair? This is exactly why the doctors and nurses thought the hole was in the back of the head, and its what happens when people don't examine wounds in a situation like that one. You see someones brain hanging out of their head, and the amount of hair president Kennedy had, its going to be a little hard to tell exactly where the wound was. Even Clint Hill said that!
-
It was not the side of the head. The top of his head was blown off!
Top right or top left?
-
Absurd. Haven't you looked closely at the top of the head photographs which show the middle of the top of his head gone and his brain hanging out of that hole on top draping down over the hair? This is exactly why the doctors and nurses thought the hole was in the back of the head, and its what happens when people don't examine wounds in a situation like that one.
Because doctors and nurses can't tell the difference between the top of a head and the back of a head.
Next you'll be telling us that doctors and nurses can't tell the cerebellum from the cerebrum...
-
So all of the Parkland Personnel were wrong about the gaping hole in the right rear of the head where cerebellum was falling out of the back of JFK's head . Where Clint Hill saw the hole blasted out of the back of JFK's head, as he said in his Warren Report Testimony . The Zapruder film shows no stopping of the Limo , but , we won't know except for those who witnessed the limo stopping and of course when the last shot blew out the back of JFK's head. All of those people who saw the Limo stopped must have all been wrong according to those who say the Limo did not stop !
-
Are all of you people who bring up the Parkland hospital doctors and nurses aware of the fact that none of the doctors or nurses at Parkland examined the head wound? Are you also aware of the fact that the doctors who saw the president all have differing opinions of where/what the wound was located? Why do you suppose that is? The answer is simple. None of them did an examination of the head wound. The only person who saw the head wound close up is Mrs. Kennedy who held her husbands head in her hands " holding the top of his head down trying to keep it [the brain] in". You also never explain how it is that lying on his back with the back of his his head lying on the gurney, the back of the president's head is exposed? How is it that Dr. McClleland is seeing what he says he saw--"cerebellum" as he "looked down into the wound as he stood over the president, when the back of the head isn't facing him, the top front and side are visible only. I do not believe a word that leaves the lips of McClleland nowadays because he has jumped onto the conspiracy nutter bandwagon, and that remark regarding the "cerebellum" is impossible. He said one thing after going to view the actual autopsy photos, then turned right around and later said something completely different. He isn't credible.
Why do you ignore the words of the one person who did see the wound up close during the 5 minute ride to Parkland hospital and during all the time she held him after the arrival at the hospital and wouldn't allow anyone to see the condition of her husband, until Clint Hill took off his coat and placed it over him? I know why, but I want you to tell me! I also want you to to state for the record, why the autopsy photos of the head show the top of the head blasted off? Coincidence that they just happen to confirm what Mrs. Kennedy described to Theodore white within 7 days of the assassination?
-
Are all of you people who bring up the Parkland hospital doctors and nurses aware of the fact that none of the doctors or nurses at Parkland examined the head wound? Are you also aware of the fact that the doctors who saw the president all have differing opinions of where/what the wound was located? Why do you suppose that is? The answer is simple. None of them did an examination of the head wound. The only person who saw the head wound close up is Mrs. Kennedy who held her husbands head in her hands " holding the top of his head down trying to keep it [the brain] in". You also never explain how it is that lying on his back with the back of his his head lying on the gurney, the back of the president's head is exposed? How is it that Dr. McClleland is seeing what he says he saw--"cerebellum" as he "looked down into the wound as he stood over the president, when the back of the head isn't facing him, the top front and side are visible only. I do not believe a word that leaves the lips of McClleland nowadays because he has jumped onto the conspiracy nutter bandwagon, and that remark regarding the "cerebellum" is impossible. He said one thing after going to view the actual autopsy photos, then turned right around and later said something completely different. He isn't credible.
Why do you ignore the words of the one person who did see the wound up close during the 5 minute ride to Parkland hospital and during all the time she held him after the arrival at the hospital and wouldn't allow anyone to see the condition of her husband, until Clint Hill took off his coat and placed it over him? I know why, but I want you to tell me! I also want you to to state for the record, why the autopsy photos of the head show the top of the head blasted off? Coincidence that they just happen to confirm what Mrs. Kennedy described to Theodore white within 7 days of the assassination?
If true, I guess 1 out of 47 is significant I thought it was your belief that all witnesses of JFK's skull immediately after the shooting were of no use
-
Top right or top left?
The TOP, John. Look at the photographs! Not left, not right, the top. The missing skull extends partly towards the back of the top of the head, as well as a little off center toward the right top of the head, but it is the top, not the right side or the back of the skull, the top of the skull.
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0128b.htm
-
If true, I guess 1 out of 47 is significant I thought it was your belief that all witnesses of JFK's skull immediately after the shooting were of no use
I do not know where you came up with that, but I have never, ever said anything like that.
-
Absurd. Haven't you looked closely at the top of the head photographs which show the middle of the top of his head gone and his brain hanging out of that hole on top draping down over the hair? This is exactly why the doctors and nurses thought the hole was in the back of the head, and its what happens when people don't examine wounds in a situation like that one. You see someones brain hanging out of their head, and the amount of hair president Kennedy had, its going to be a little hard to tell exactly where the wound was. Even Clint Hill said that!
You are referring to photographs which were illegally obtained. This means their bona fides would therefore be subject to question.
-
Because doctors and nurses can't tell the difference between the top of a head and the back of a head.
Next you'll be telling us that doctors and nurses can't tell the cerebellum from the cerebrum...
Heavily distracted witnesses make poor witnesses.
Are doctors good at telling the top of the head, or the right front of the head from the right rearward part of the head? Of telling the difference between the cerebellum and the cerebrum? Ordinarily, yes.
Are people good at spotting the ?gorilla? when they see a man in a gorilla suit walk across the frame and beat his chest? Ordinarily, yes.
But when witnesses are heavily distracted, it?s a different story. When it doesn?t matter if the large head wound is on the top of the head or the right front part of the head, or the right rear part of the head, when it doesn?t matter if they are seeing the cerebellum or the cerebrum. When they are concentrating on what they have been trained to concentrate on:
with a patient with a major head wound, with a very week heartbeat, with very weak breathing, they need to:
**** make an emergency transfusion of blood.
**** hook up an IV to introduce other critical medicine.
**** consult with his doctor (if available, which he was) to see if any special treatment was recommended for this particular patient
**** check, and check again, and again, and again, the heartbeat and breathing, so they can know, as soon as possible, if any disparate action needs to be done immediately, like opening up the chest.
And not get distracted making unimportant observations, which can wait until the most critical tasks are completed and the patient is, at least, somewhat stablished. Until then, they are no more likely to notice the type of brain matter showing than they are to notice that one of the nurses is wearing a gorilla mask.
-
Heavily distracted witnesses make poor witnesses.
Are doctors good at telling the top of the head, or the right front of the head from the right rearward part of the head? Of telling the difference between the cerebellum and the cerebrum? Ordinarily, yes.
Are people good at spotting the ?gorilla? when they see a man in a gorilla suit walk across the frame and beat his chest? Ordinarily, yes.
But when witnesses are heavily distracted, it?s a different story. When it doesn?t matter if the large head wound is on the top of the head or the right front part of the head, or the right rear part of the head, when it doesn?t matter if they are seeing the cerebellum or the cerebrum. When they are concentrating on what they have been trained to concentrate on:
with a patient with a major head wound, with a very week heartbeat, with very weak breathing, they need to:
**** make an emergency transfusion of blood.
**** hook up an IV to introduce other critical medicine.
**** consult with his doctor (if available, which he was) to see if any special treatment was recommended for this particular patient
**** check, and check again, and again, and again, the heartbeat and breathing, so they can know, as soon as possible, if any disparate action needs to be done immediately, like opening up the chest.
And not get distracted making unimportant observations, which can wait until the most critical tasks are completed and the patient is, at least, somewhat stablished. Until then, they are no more likely to notice the type of brain matter showing than they are to notice that one of the nurses is wearing a gorilla mask.
OK Joe now all you have to do is take on 17 Bethesda witnesses with your continued insights
-
Heavily distracted witnesses make poor witnesses.
Are doctors good at telling the top of the head, or the right front of the head from the right rearward part of the head? Of telling the difference between the cerebellum and the cerebrum? Ordinarily, yes.
Are people good at spotting the ?gorilla? when they see a man in a gorilla suit walk across the frame and beat his chest? Ordinarily, yes.
But when witnesses are heavily distracted, it?s a different story. When it doesn?t matter if the large head wound is on the top of the head or the right front part of the head, or the right rear part of the head, when it doesn?t matter if they are seeing the cerebellum or the cerebrum. When they are concentrating on what they have been trained to concentrate on:
with a patient with a major head wound, with a very week heartbeat, with very weak breathing, they need to:
**** make an emergency transfusion of blood.
**** hook up an IV to introduce other critical medicine.
**** consult with his doctor (if available, which he was) to see if any special treatment was recommended for this particular patient
**** check, and check again, and again, and again, the heartbeat and breathing, so they can know, as soon as possible, if any disparate action needs to be done immediately, like opening up the chest.
And not get distracted making unimportant observations, which can wait until the most critical tasks are completed and the patient is, at least, somewhat stablished. Until then, they are no more likely to notice the type of brain matter showing than they are to notice that one of the nurses is wearing a gorilla mask.
Dr Kemp Clark to WC
? I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed. There was considerable blood loss evident on the carriage, the floor, and the clothing of some of the people present. I would estimate 1,500 cc. of blood being present.
As I was examining the President's wound, I felt for a carotid pulse and felt none. Therefore, I began external cardiac massage and asked that a cardiotachioscope be connected. Because of my position it was difficult to administer cardiac massage. However, Dr. Jones stated that he felt a femoral pulse.?
Dr Clark
Mr. SPECTER - Would you state your full name for the record, please?
Dr. CLARK - William Kemp Clark.
Mr. SPECTER - Will you outline in a general way your educational background, please?
Dr. CLARK - Yes. I graduated from the University of Texas in Austin, 1944. I graduated from the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston in 1948. I interned at Indiana University Medical Center and was a resident in surgery there from 1948 to 1950. I spent 2 years in the Air Force and then took my residency in neurological surgery at Columbia Presbyterian Hospital in New York City. This was from 1953 to 1956, at which time I came to the University of Texas, Southwestern Medical School, as chairman of the division of neurological surgery.
Would you like the professional qualifications?
Mr. SPECTER - Yes; may I have the professional qualifications in summary form, if you will, please.
Dr. CLARK - I am board certified by the American Board of Neurological Surgery. I am a Fellow with the American College of Surgeons. I am a member of the Harvey Cushing Society.
Mr. SPECTER - What is the Harvey Cushing Society, by the way?
Dr. CLARK - It is the largest society of neurological surgeons in the world.
But Joe knows better.
-
The missing skull extends partly towards the back of the top of the head, as well as a little off center toward the right top of the head
Ok, so I'll ask again: how did fragments from this missing skull end up on the South (left) side of Elm street?
-
Heavily distracted witnesses make poor witnesses.
So, basically what you're saying is that not one, not two, but twenty "distracted" medical professionals all independently confused the top of a patient's head with the back of his head.
-
Ok, so I'll ask again: how did fragments from this missing skull end up on the South (left) side of Elm street?
Can anyone predict exactly where the fragments of an object that explodes are going to land when struck by a high velocity bullet? The answer is no.
How about looking at the trajectory of a bullet being fired from the 6th floor window to where the limousine and JFK were located( to scale) by using a ruler and a spatial chart or map of Dealey Plaza? When you draw a straight line from the southwestern most window, 6th floor, straight through the limousine to the south side of Elm Street, look where the fragments land following the trajectory of the bullet. Right in line with where the Harper and Burris fragments were found.
Spatial chart: (https://i.imgur.com/ybTPmps.gif)
-
Except wouldn't a glancing shot on the right side of the midline have displaced the skull pieces to the right (and perhaps up), but not forward and to the left?
(https://kennedykilledhimself.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/idadox.jpg)
-
Except wouldn't a glancing shot on the right side of the midline have displaced the skull pieces to the right (and perhaps up), but not forward and to the left?
(https://kennedykilledhimself.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/idadox.jpg)
Do you remember James Altgens testifying that the head matter came in his direction? He also mentioned during one of his interviews later on that some matter landed near his feet.
I look at it this way. The car was traveling on an "S" curve, but, was in a direct line with Oswald's rifle. The bullet entered the head which was tilted forward and turned to the left, and exited at the top of the skull sending skull fragments into the air along with particulate matter ( which is much lighter in weight compared to skull fragments) in all directions forward which splattered all over the inside of the car, outside of the car on the hood, the windshield, the sun visors (both sides) on the "side rails", the Connally's, Greer and Kellerman, Hargis, Martin and Chaney and of course Mrs. Kennedy. As I pointed out, the skull fragments flew in the direction the bullet was traveling and straight ahead was the south side of Elm Street where they landed. it's that simple.
-
"I'm the only one living who was beside the car, said Detective Hargis, now 63. When he was shot in the head, it splashed up, and I ran into all that brain matter, and all that. It came up and down, all over my uniform." After the head shot, ?there was a plume of blood and brains and plasma. It was just like a fog, and I ran right through it.?
Since when does a full metal jacketed bullet explode in your head and generate a plume of plasma? Ans: never.
-
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/hutton2.jpg)
-
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/hutton2.jpg)
She couldn't have possibly seen the President's head before Clint Hill's suit coat was covering it before he was even removed from the vehicle and placed onto the gurney.
Again, the top of the head, not the back, was blown off.
-
She couldn't have possibly seen the President's head before Clint Hill's suit coat was covering it before he was even removed from the vehicle and placed onto the gurney.
Again, the top of the head, not the back, was blown off.
Let us have your witnesses to a "top of the head" wound, Steve.
-
Since when does a full metal jacketed bullet explode in your head and generate a plume of plasma? Ans: never.
Hargis could very well have meant plasma membrane.
-
Let us have your witnesses to a "top of the head" wound, Steve.
Where have you been, Ray? I already have. The witness just happens to be the closest witness to the head of JFK when he was shot. She held her husbands head in her hands saying that she was trying to " trying to hold the top of his head down trying to keep it(the brain) in". Read her interview with Theodore White within 7 days of the assassination, Ray. On top of this, just what is it that you think we see flying into the air in the Zapruder film? Those are the skull fragments that landed several yards ahead of where the limousine was located--two of which were discovered by people and turned over to the authorities. That is the top of the head. Not the rear, not the side. The top. The autopsy photographs as well as the Zapruder film, Nix film and Muchmore film all show the top of the head blown off, as does the Moorman photograph. Chuck Brehm is another one who said he saw the top of his head shot off.
-
She couldn't have possibly seen the President's head before Clint Hill's suit coat was covering it before he was even removed from the vehicle and placed onto the gurney.
And you know this how?
-
And you know this how?
Think about it, Ray, it is a known fact that Mrs. Kennedy is hiding the head wound from everyone and until Clint Hill placed his jacket over the head, and that then and only then did she let go of her husband.
-
Think about it, Ray, it is a known fact that Mrs. Kennedy is hiding the head wound from everyone and until Clint Hill placed his jacket over the head, and that then and only then did she let go of her husband.
"Think about it" don't fit, Steve. You said "she couldn't possibly have seen the back of the head before Clint Hill's suit coat was covering it...."
I believe that is called supposition. However, you are welcome to it.
-
Where have you been, Ray? I already have. The witness just happens to be the closest witness to the head of JFK when he was shot. She held her husbands head in her hands saying that she was trying to " trying to hold the top of his head down trying to keep it(the brain) in". Read her interview with Theodore White within 7 days of the assassination, Ray. On top of this, just what is it that you think we see flying into the air in the Zapruder film? Those are the skull fragments that landed several yards ahead of where the limousine was located--two of which were discovered by people and turned over to the authorities. That is the top of the head. Not the rear, not the side. The top. The autopsy photographs as well as the Zapruder film, Nix film and Muchmore film all show the top of the head blown off, as does the Moorman photograph. Chuck Brehm is another one who said he saw the top of his head shot off.
If JFK's head was in her lap, then she would certainly think that she was holding the top of his head on.
You think that all the witness at Parkland were stupid, lying, or just plain wrong?>
-
She couldn't have possibly seen the President's head before Clint Hill's suit coat was covering it before he was even removed from the vehicle and placed onto the gurney.
Again, the top of the head, not the back, was blown off.
STEVE - You need to Thoroughly read the above Hutton account of what went on. It clearly states, "As soon as WE REACHED THE ROOM...". There is No Way the Dr's and Hutton were administering medical aid to JFK inside Trauma Room 1 while he had Hill's jacket draped over his head. Hutton relates being asked by a Dr to apply a "pressure dressing on the head wound....". She documents seeing "... the massive opening on the BACK OF THE HEAD". Case Closed as to what Hutton saw, "...on the BACK OF THE HEAD", INSIDE Trauma Room 1.
-
"Think about it" don't fit, Steve. You said "she couldn't possibly have seen the back of the head before Clint Hill's suit coat was covering it...."
I believe that is called supposition. However, you are welcome to it.
"Supposition" is what you conspiracy nutters thrive on!
-
If JFK's head was in her lap, then she would certainly think that she was holding the top of his head on.
You think that all the witness at Parkland were stupid, lying, or just plain wrong?>
Congratulations, Mitcham. You have just won the "Stupid Comment Of The Day" award! I didn't say his head was in her "lap" and clearly, it wasn't in her lap or she would have been saturated with blood on the front of her dress which she isn't. Since you rely so much on the Parkland doctors, then why don't red up on how much blood was all over them and the floor. It came from the head wound. Her gloves were "caked" with blood which means that she was holding his head in her hands. Trying to keep the top of his dead down means trying to keep the top of his head and trying to "keep it in" means trying to keep the brain inside the wound. You people come up with some real crap.
-
STEVE - You need to Thoroughly read the above Hutton account of what went on. It clearly states, "As soon as WE REACHED THE ROOM...". There is No Way the Dr's and Hutton were administering medical aid to JFK inside Trauma Room 1 while he had Hill's jacket draped over his head. Hutton relates being asked by a Dr to apply a "pressure dressing on the head wound....". She documents seeing "... the massive opening on the BACK OF THE HEAD". Case Closed as to what Hutton saw, "...on the BACK OF THE HEAD", INSIDE Trauma Room 1.
I did read it, Royell. I didn't say that they were administering medical id to the president while the coat was over his head. How could she have seen a "massive head wound" when he is lying face up on the gurney? The one and any way anyone could have seen the back of the head was to lift his head. Period. We can argue about where the head wound was until the world ends, but nothing can change A. The words spoken to Theodore White by Mrs. Kennedy within 7 days of her husbands murder, where she gives a graphic description of where the head wound was and how she was trying to hold the TOP of his head down, and "maybe I could keep it in"--meaning the brain. If she would have been trying to hold the back of his head on, she would have said "I was trying to keep the back of his head on", but she didn't. And B. One witness, Chuck Brehm said he saw the top of the head "come off". The autopsy photos of the top of the head reveal a large hole in top of the head. The Zapruder film also reveals a large hole on top of the head and a large flap of skull turned inside out hanging in front of the ear, and this flap connects to the top of the skull, not the rear. You film alterationists insist the film is fake, but that's your problem. You also call Zapruder, Sitzman, the Newman's and Bobby Hargis either liars or mistaken in their description of what they saw when seeing the effects of the fatal shot to the head. which happened right in front of them.
-
How could she have seen a "massive head wound" when he is lying face up on the gurney?
Wen the brain plops out the back of the head onto the gurney it is very helpful in identifying a wound in the rear of the brainI assume your theory that doctors do not generally check out for rear head injuries, since less face it they are generally dealing with bodies on their backs, must be a significant problem for medicine in general Perhaps something like a rotisserie bar that turns the patients around might be a way around this
-
Do you remember James Altgens testifying that the head matter came in his direction?
He said "flesh particles", not large pieces of skull.
I look at it this way. The car was traveling on an "S" curve, but, was in a direct line with Oswald's rifle.
"Oswald's rifle". LOL.
The bullet entered the head which was tilted forward and turned to the left, and exited at the top of the skull sending skull fragments into the air along with particulate matter ( which is much lighter in weight compared to skull fragments) in all directions forward which splattered all over the inside of the car, outside of the car on the hood, the windshield, the sun visors (both sides) on the "side rails", the Connally's, Greer and Kellerman, Hargis, Martin and Chaney and of course Mrs. Kennedy. As I pointed out, the skull fragments flew in the direction the bullet was traveling and straight ahead was the south side of Elm Street where they landed. it's that simple.
So, basically what you're saying is that skull fragments landed over there because they landed over there. That's not an explanation, that's just a tautology. Look at the Dox drawing again. Unless the skull pieces were carried across the street by relatively tiny bullet fragments or by much lighter blood and brain matter (no significant amount of which was found ahead and across the street), the skull pieces would have been displaced towards the right.
-
The one and any way anyone could have seen the back of the head was to lift his head. Period.
Let's consider the McClelland sketch:
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/head2.gif)
Are you saying that such a wound would not be at all visible with the person lying on his back?
Besides that, nurse Bowron did turn JFK's body over.
-
Wen the brain plops out the back of the head onto the gurney it is very helpful in identifying a wound in the rear of the brainI assume your theory that doctors do not generally check out for rear head injuries, since less face it they are generally dealing with bodies on their backs, must be a significant problem for medicine in general Perhaps something like a rotisserie bar that turns the patients around might be a way around this
Oh, I get it. According to you, we should:
A. Disregard what Mrs. Kennedy said just 7 days after she held her husbands head in her hands, saying "I'd tried to hold the top of his head down, maybe I could keep it in...I knew he was dead."
B. Disregard the Zapruder film which shows no such wound in the back of the head, but DOES show the top of the president's head gone, with brain exposed and and a huge piece of skull hanging by a thread of scalp in front of the right ear--which is the same huge piece of skull that we see very vividly in some of the autopsy photos.
C. Disregard the autopsy photographs which show the top of the skull missing, brain exposed and hanging/draping out of the hole on the top of the head and over the rear-top of of the skull.
D.Disregard the fact that skull fragments were found in the grass, several yards ahead of where the limousine was located at the time the fatal shot was fired and turned in to the Secret Service.
E Disregard the fact that the heavier matter flew forward, all over the occupants in the car to the front of where the president was seated, and all over the hood of the car, windshield, sun visors (both sides) the interior, the side rails, car doors etc.
Nowhere did I say that "doctors do not generally check out for rear head injuries". Stop putting words into my mouth.
-
He said "flesh particles", not large pieces of skull.
"Oswald's rifle". LOL.
So, basically what you're saying is that skull fragments landed over there because they landed over there. That's not an explanation, that's just a tautology. Look at the Dox drawing again. Unless the skull pieces were carried across the street by relatively tiny bullet fragments or by much lighter blood and brain matter (no significant amount of which was found ahead and across the street), the skull pieces would have been displaced towards the right.
A. I didn't say he specified large pieces of skull, did I? No. I said head matter.
B. Yeah. Oswald's rifle. I am allowed to believe that Oswald killed President Kennedy.
C. Get real, John. where do you think those fragments that we see flying out of frame in the Zapruder , which were estimated to be traveling around 80 MPH into the air, went to? The president is leaning "noticeably to his left" , his head is slightly turned to his left, and, straight ahead, in a straight line with the trajectory of the bullet is the grassy area where two skull fragments were discovered by two different people. Obviously, the skull fragments did not travel to the right, because they were discovered straight ahead of where the limousine was located at the time of the fatal shot. You need to do a study of the shape of Dealey Plaza! There is no left or right involved. It's straight ahead. You might also study up on ballistics, too.
How about you study the Dox drawing? How about you study the Z film, the autopsy pictures, read what Mrs. Kennedy said and so forth, and stop it with the B.S.? STRAIGHT AHEAD, John! Not LEFT OR RIGHT!
-
Let's consider the McClelland sketch:
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/head2.gif)
Are you saying that such a wound would not be at all visible with the person lying on his back?
Besides that, nurse Bowron did turn JFK's body over.
No, let's not consider the McClelland sketch. It is impossible, it is erroneous and it a worthless description of the head wound.
-
Oh, I get it. According to you, we should:
A. Disregard what Mrs. Kennedy said just 7 days after she held her husbands head in her hands, saying "I'd tried to hold the top of his head down, maybe I could keep it in...I knew he was dead."
B. Disregard the Zapruder film which shows no such wound in the back of the head, but DOES show the top of the president's head gone, with brain exposed and and a huge piece of skull hanging by a thread of scalp in front of the right ear--which is the same huge piece of skull that we see very vividly in some of the autopsy photos.
C. Disregard the autopsy photographs which show the top of the skull missing, brain exposed and hanging/draping out of the hole on the top of the head and over the rear-top of of the skull.
D.Disregard the fact that skull fragments were found in the grass, several yards ahead of where the limousine was located at the time the fatal shot was fired and turned in to the Secret Service.
E Disregard the fact that the heavier matter flew forward, all over the occupants in the car to the front of where the president was seated, and all over the hood of the car, windshield, sun visors (both sides) the interior, the side rails, car doors etc.
Nowhere did I say that "doctors do not generally check out for rear head injuries". Stop putting words into my mouth.
Never once have ?I even hinted at disregarding what you claim Jackie said
For B and C heck no i would not disregard them, I would look at them as some mighty fine evidence of a cover up
On D no the fragments are quite important too bad their gone for starters of course There locations on where they were found is debatable and trivial at the same time The fact that the Harper Fragment was identified as an occipital bone is the significant point The FPP was hamstrung since they had to believe the autopsy and therefore had to make the photographs of those fragments, fit into the wound that was hoisted upon them by traitors to this country
-
Oh, I get it. According to you, we should:
Nowhere did I say that "doctors do not generally check out for rear head injuries". Stop putting words into my mouth.
OK then what was the significance of this statement by you
How could she have seen a "massive head wound" when he is lying face up on the gurney?
-
No, let's not consider the McClelland sketch. It is impossible, it is erroneous and it a worthless description of the head wound.
Not to mention the supposed exit wound depicted in the McClelland sketch would require an entrance wound right in JFK's face.
-
Not to mention the supposed exit wound depicted in the McClelland sketch would require an entrance wound right in JFK's face.
Exactly. And believe it or not, one conspiracy nutter claimed that Governor Connally had a gun strapped to his ankle and fired the fatal shot, blowing out the back of JFK's head.
As enormous as some of these people describe the wound as being, which is "the whole back of his head blown off", there is no way a shot from the knoll could do that without blowing part of the left hemisphere of the brain out, damaging it as severely--or worse--than the right hemisphere was damaged. Ignore what Mrs. Kennedy said, ignore what Bobby Hargis said about the explosion on the head being on the right side, Bill and Gayle Newman, Abraham Zapruder, Marilyn Sitzman, Chuck Brehm said, but believe what people standing up the street further away say when they say they saw the back of the head blown off.
-
Ignore what Mrs. Kennedy said,
Since you didn't answer the last post, I doubt you will this But who has denied or ignored this?
-
Exactly. And believe it or not, one conspiracy nutter claimed that Governor Connally had a gun strapped to his ankle and fired the fatal shot, blowing out the back of JFK's head.
As enormous as some of these people describe the wound as being, which is "the whole back of his head blown off", there is no way a shot from the knoll could do that without blowing part of the left hemisphere of the brain out,
Especially when your friends draw diagrams of the shot coming in front of where the fence of the knoll even begins. There is always the sewer drain as well
-
If the top of JFK's head was blown off , then why didn't Parkland see that wound ? They would not have even started a Tracheostomy . We have been duped for way to long ! Nothing gets done because 1/2 of the people believe one thing and half of the people believe something different. Whoever "THEY" are ,love the fact that we are split , because as long as nobody can agree on anything then "THEY" are safe. I think there are "Players" still living that could fill in the blanks and I think that's the reason that the last of the JFK files and Documents won't be released for another 3 1/2 years until those that aren't dead yet , will maybe be gone by then. Those old "National Security" reasons have gotten real old.....
-
If the top of JFK's head was blown off , then why didn't Parkland see that wound ? They would not have even started a Tracheostomy . We have been duped for way to long ! Nothing gets done because 1/2 of the people believe one thing and half of the people believe something different. Whoever "THEY" are ,love the fact that we are split , because as long as nobody can agree on anything then "THEY" are safe. I think there are "Players" still living that could fill in the blanks and I think that's the reason that the last of the JFK files and Documents won't be released for another 3 1/2 years until those that aren't dead yet , will maybe be gone by then. Those old "National Security" reasons have gotten real old.....
Have you seen the autopsy photographs? People believe that because the brain is draped over the back of the head that that is where the head wound is. It isn't. Look closely at the top of the head photos and note how much of his head is blasted off on top. Its not there, and you cannot deny it.
-
Since you didn't answer the last post, I doubt you will this But who has denied or ignored this?
Few people even know about the interview with White that she did. So many times when I have posted the link or quote her, the attacks begin. Look at what RayMitcham said earlier in this thread. They try to twist it like a pretzel into something it isn't. Don't expect me to give you a list of names of people who have ignored it.
-
Exactly. And believe it or not, one conspiracy nutter claimed that Governor Connally had a gun strapped to his ankle and fired the fatal shot, blowing out the back of JFK's head.
As enormous as some of these people describe the wound as being, which is "the whole back of his head blown off", there is no way a shot from the knoll could do that without blowing part of the left hemisphere of the brain out,
Especially when your friends draw diagrams of the shot coming in front of where the fence of the knoll even begins. There is always the sewer drain as well
Oh please. The sewer drain theory is ludicrous and so is the knoll shot.
-
Few people even know about the interview with White that she did. So many times when I have posted the link or quote her, the attacks begin. Look at what RayMitcham said earlier in this thread. They try to twist it like a pretzel into something it isn't. Don't expect me to give you a list of names of people who have ignored it.
No need to quote people correctly Carry on
-
Congratulations, Mitcham. You have just won the "Stupid Comment Of The Day" award! I didn't say his head was in her "lap"
Where did I say you did, Barber?
and clearly, it wasn't in her lap or she would have been saturated with blood on the front of her dress which she isn't. Since you rely so much on the Parkland doctors, then why don't red up on how much blood was all over them and the floor. It came from the head wound. Her gloves were "caked" with blood which means that she was holding his head in her hands. Trying to keep the top of his dead down means trying to keep the top of his head and trying to "keep it in" means trying to keep the brain inside the wound. You people come up with some real crap.
Quote by Barber.
"and clearly, it wasn't in her lap or she would have been saturated with blood on the front of her dress which she isn't"
Jackie Kennedy to the W.C."
"And then he sort of did this [indicating], put his hand to his forehead and fell in my lap.
And then I just remember falling on him and saying, "Oh, no, no, no," I mean, "Oh, my God, they have shot my husband." And "I love you, Jack," I remember I was shouting. And just being down in the car with his head in my lap. And it just seemed an eternity."
-
I did read it, Royell. I didn't say that they were administering medical id to the president while the coat was over his head. How could she have seen a "massive head wound" when he is lying face up on the gurney? The one and any way anyone could have seen the back of the head was to lift his head. Period. We can argue about where the head wound was until the world ends, but nothing can change A. The words spoken to Theodore White by Mrs. Kennedy within 7 days of her husbands murder, where she gives a graphic description of where the head wound was and how she was trying to hold the TOP of his head down, and "maybe I could keep it in"--meaning the brain. If she would have been trying to hold the back of his head on, she would have said "I was trying to keep the back of his head on", but she didn't. And B. One witness, Chuck Brehm said he saw the top of the head "come off". The autopsy photos of the top of the head reveal a large hole in top of the head. The Zapruder film also reveals a large hole on top of the head and a large flap of skull turned inside out hanging in front of the ear, and this flap connects to the top of the skull, not the rear. You film alterationists insist the film is fake, but that's your problem. You also call Zapruder, Sitzman, the Newman's and Bobby Hargis either liars or mistaken in their description of what they saw when seeing the effects of the fatal shot to the head. which happened right in front of them.
Your electing to use the eyewitness accounts of both Sitzman and Mr & Mrs Newman defeats your purpose. BOTH Sitzman and The Newman's claim that they saw JFK "Hit" with a shot between "The eye and the ear". Their eyewitness accounts corroborate a Frontal/Side shot = Conspiracy by definition.
-
Your electing to use the eyewitness accounts of both Ms. Sitzman and Mr & Mrs Newman defeats your purpose. BOTH Sitzman and The Newman's claim that they saw JFK "Hit" with a shot between "The eye and the ear". Their eyewitness accounts corroborate a Frontal/Side shot = Conspiracy by definition.
Yes, but how could Sitzman and Mr. and Mr. Newman tell of the wound between ?the eye and the ear? was an entrance wound (which they assumed it was) or an exit wound or an ?explosive wound? (which is what it really was)?
And, of course, it should be noted that what Ms. Sitzman, Mr. Newman and Mrs. Newman?s memory supports the Warren Commissions? conclusions, the HSCA conclusions, the autopsy doctor?s memories, the X-rays, the autopsy photographs and the dozens and dozens of frames of the Zapruder film show, a large wound on the right side of the head, extending well forward of the head, and fairly far back, and pretty high up.
But not covering ?the back of the head? as the CTers allege that all the Parkland witnesses remember.
-
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=625#relPageId=4&tab=page
ARRB MD 44 - Sibert and O'Neill Report on the Autopsy (11/26/63)--"Gemberling Version"
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/headsurgery1.jpg)
-
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=625#relPageId=4&tab=page
ARRB MD 44 - Sibert and O'Neill Report on the Autopsy (11/26/63)--"Gemberling Version"
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/headsurgery1.jpg)
If one clicks on the following link, one can find out that:
https://books.google.com/books?id=q1VJAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA1059&lpg=PA1059&dq=%22as+well+as+surgery+of+the+head+area%22&source=bl&ots=6BO6V1SCsi&sig=Uvckv2QCY2XIxtwH687MCMqorDc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiYzvyCtJLbAhVJ6WMKHYwNAOYQ6AEINzAE#v=onepage&q=%22as%20well%20as%20surgery%20of%20the%20head%20area%22&f=false
The ?surgery of the head area? was just the autopsy doctors initial impression. They saw that a good part of the brain was missing. A body generally would not have a good part of the brain missing unless surgery had been performed to remove it. Autopsy of people shot through the head with a rifle bullet are not real common, so it is natural for this to be the initial impression and the FBI agent wrote down the doctor?s impressions as they examined the body.
It soon became apparent that there were no other signs of surgery to the head region. Just the missing portion of the brain. It appears the doctors did not make this clear to the FBI agent who was taking notes.
A portion of the brain was removed by the explosive wound within the initial 10 milliseconds of the wound. One can see this in frame z313. This is not a typical wound and usually does not happen, so it?s natural for the doctors to initially conclude that surgery had been performed as soon as they perceived that some of the brain was missing.
-
Is it just me or does the most comprehensive view of the top of the skull at autopsy look very much like straight edges. on the left edge of the wound as well as the one running perpendicular to that, just like a saw . who a couple of witnesses to the illicit autopsy have stated seeing used by Humes, would make?
-
The ?surgery of the head area? was just the autopsy doctors initial impression. They saw that a good part of the brain was missing. A body generally would not have a good part of the brain missing unless surgery had been performed to remove it. Autopsy of people shot through the head with a rifle bullet are not real common, so it is natural for this to be the initial impression and the FBI agent wrote down the doctor?s impressions as they examined the body.
It soon became apparent that there were no other signs of surgery to the head region. Just the missing portion of the brain. It appears the doctors did not make this clear to the FBI agent who was taking notes.
Wow, you certainly are a dancer for the cause. Are you telling us that the following head anomaly was not the product of postmortem surgery?
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/postsurgery.jpg)
A portion of the brain was removed by the explosive wound within the initial 10 milliseconds of the wound. One can see this in frame z313. This is not a typical wound and usually does not happen, so it?s natural for the doctors to initially conclude that surgery had been performed as soon as they perceived that some of the brain was missing.
There is no other explanation for an explosive wound than an explosion. A FMJ bullet cannot explode. Just ask the MB. The "Jet Effect" is BS. It always follows the trajectory of the bullet. We should expect to see a blow out where the postmortem surgery was performed. Did the Jet Effect cause all this damage?
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/323.png)
And lastly, why do you assume that an edited copy of the Z film is authentic? Where is the original film and why has the FBI withheld it for 50+ years? Edited copies on their own are worthless. Especially if conspirators release them.
-
I can't find the quote right now, but I believe either Steve or Joe, at one point claimed the the scalp flap that only appears on Zapruder and at Bethesda, actually covered the rear exit wound?
-
Wow, you certainly are a dancer for the cause. Are you telling us that the following head anomaly was not the product of postmortem surgery?
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/postsurgery.jpg)
Well, based on my experience with performing surgeries, I don?t think the incisions would have been made nearly so crudely. As least, not by me. Actually, my experience with surgeries is limited to bandaging cut fingers.
I have no idea what differences between a hole in the skull made by surgery cut compared with one made by an explosive wound.
Question:
Can you name a single doctor who thinks that this looks like the result of surgery and not an explosive wound?
There is no other explanation for an explosive wound than an explosion. A FMJ bullet cannot explode. Just ask the MB. The "Jet Effect" is BS. It always follows the trajectory of the bullet. We should expect to see a blow out where the postmortem surgery was performed. Did the Jet Effect cause all this damage?
The WCC/MC bullet did not explode. It fragmented. While called a non-frangible bullet, the WCC/MC was fragmentation resistant, not fragmentation proof. The bullet can and will fragment if he strikes bone at close to it?s muzzle velocity, which is what the bullet at z312 did, and the bullet at z222 did not.
While the bullet did not explode, or even fragment, it did cause an explosive wound. The bullet does not have to explode to cause an explosive wound in the head.
Question:
Can you a name a single ballistic expert who does not thing that this would could have been caused by a WCC/MC bullet? Or who disagrees with the points I have made, which I got from Larry Strudivan?s ?The JFK Myths??
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/323.png)
And lastly, why do you assume that an edited copy of the Z film is authentic? Where is the original film and why has the FBI withheld it for 50+ years? Edited copies on their own are worthless. Especially if conspirators release them.
Logic. What good would modifying these frames do, when they have no idea what other films and photographs were also taken and need modifying. Unless there was a Large, Secret and Enduring Conspiracy that would be confident of intercepting all such photographs, because they process all photographs and film.
Was it even possible, in 1963, to modify these films and autopsy photographs, without failing various tests, like by 3-D images. CTers see no need to do the same. Break open a melon, film and photograph it and modify all the films and photographs that can fool the experts. Who would fail to tell which set of photographs were real and which set were modified. All that is needed is to suggest that this was possible and to assume that it was done, and that is good enough.
-
Well, based on my experience with performing surgeries, I don?t think the incisions would have been made nearly so crudely. As least, not by me. Actually, my experience with surgeries is limited to bandaging cut fingers.
Like the bogus throat hole tracheotomy, the postmortem surgery on the head shot was intended to make it an exit wound, hence the crudeness of the surgery. But not nearly crude enough.
I have no idea what differences between a hole in the skull made by surgery cut compared with one made by an explosive wound.
The Parkland physicians seemed to know the difference, and commented on it.
Question:
Can you name a single doctor who thinks that this looks like the result of surgery and not an explosive wound?
Only the entrance wound was subjected to postmortem surgery, not the head explosion. The funeral home did what they could to cover up the head wounds (which failed) and the autopsy guys did what they could to make the fake autopsy photos convincing.
The WCC/MC bullet did not explode. It fragmented. While called a non-frangible bullet, the WCC/MC was fragmentation resistant, not fragmentation proof. The bullet can and will fragment if he strikes bone at close to it?s muzzle velocity, which is what the bullet at z312 did, and the bullet at z222 did not.
A fragmenting bullet caused JFK's head to explode? Doubt it.
While the bullet did not explode, or even fragment, it did cause an explosive wound. The bullet does not have to explode to cause an explosive wound in the head.
Sez you. Describe the physics behind your claim.
Question:
Can you a name a single ballistic expert who does not thing that this would could have been caused by a WCC/MC bullet? Or who disagrees with the points I have made, which I got from Larry Strudivan?s ?The JFK Myths??
Logic. What good would modifying these frames do, when they have no idea what other films and photographs were also taken and need modifying. Unless there was a Large, Secret and Enduring Conspiracy that would be confident of intercepting all such photographs, because they process all photographs and film.
Modifying these frames support the LN narrative, of course.
Was it even possible, in 1963, to modify these films and autopsy photographs, without failing various tests, like by 3-D images. CTers see no need to do the same. Break open a melon, film and photograph it and modify all the films and photographs that can fool the experts. Who would fail to tell which set of photographs were real and which set were modified. All that is needed is to suggest that this was possible and to assume that it was done, and that is good enough.
Absolutely, this was possible in 1963. How do you think they got you to believe the Wizard of Oz was real? They used an optical printer for all the FX, which is still in use today. Surely the FBI recruited a movie pro to edit the Z film, but not necessarily. They only needed to edit the Z film at the Turkey Shoot Point, otherwise, the Orville-Nix film was the only other film that needed to match the Z film, and only to address the limo nearly stopping.
I'm a photogrammetrist so I know this to be true. It was easy to edit the Z film to paint any kind of narrative they wanted. I haven't decided whether Zapruder was recruited to film the scene. The only question at this point is where the original Z film is? All we got was edited copies from the FBI. The original film would tell all. Why would the FBI withhold the original film when it would exonerate them from any link to a conspiracy if they released it?
-
Is it just me or does the most comprehensive view of the top of the skull at autopsy look very much like straight edges. on the left edge of the wound as well as the one running perpendicular to that, just like a saw . who a couple of witnesses to the illicit autopsy have stated seeing used by Humes, would make?
Tom Robinson went on record as to seeing Humes use a bone saw on the head of JFK. Humes himself admitted that he slit the scalp of JFK . The autopsy photos all of us have looked at were Stolen. This renders them unworthy of serious consideration.
-
And lastly, why do you assume that an edited copy of the Z film is authentic? Where is the original film and why has the FBI withheld it for 50+ years?
The FBI has never withheld it.
Where is the Zapruder Film? Can I get a copy of it?
The original Zapruder film is part of the Kennedy Collection and is in the custody of the Motion Picture Sound and Video staff, at the National Archives at College Park. NARA may make a single fair-use copy of the film and sell it to any researcher. However, the copyright for the film is owned by the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas Texas. If a researcher chooses to publish the film in any way, he or she will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders.
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/faqs#film
====================================================
Zapruder Film Timeline
https://www.jfk.org/the-collections/abraham-zapruder-film/abraham-zapruder-film-timeline/
==========================================================
-
A fragmenting bullet caused JFK's head to explode? Doubt it.
Can you name a single ballistic expert who also doubts it?
Sez you. Describe the physics behind your claim.
Read the ?The JFK Myths? by Larry Sturdivan. Or, if there is another book on the JFK assassination by a ballistic expert, let?s here about it. This book covers a good deal of science about ballistics.
Absolutely, this was possible in 1963. How do you think they got you to believe the Wizard of Oz was real? They used an optical printer for all the FX, which is still in use today. Surely the FBI recruited a movie pro to edit the Z film, but not necessarily. They only needed to edit the Z film at the Turkey Shoot Point, otherwise, the Orville-Nix film was the only other film that needed to match the Z film, and only to address the limo nearly stopping.
The movie ?The Wizard of Oz? took an object, and modified in all the frames, so that even a 3-D look at two different frames would not reveal the modification?
How would they know they only need to modify the Zapruder film and the Orville-Nix film. How would this all-knowing conspiracy know about all the films and photographs that may have been taken?
-
The FBI has never withheld it.
Where is the Zapruder Film? Can I get a copy of it?
The original Zapruder film is part of the Kennedy Collection and is in the custody of the Motion Picture Sound and Video staff, at the National Archives at College Park. NARA may make a single fair-use copy of the film and sell it to any researcher. However, the copyright for the film is owned by the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas Texas. If a researcher chooses to publish the film in any way, he or she will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders.
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/faqs#film
====================================================
Zapruder Film Timeline
https://www.jfk.org/the-collections/abraham-zapruder-film/abraham-zapruder-film-timeline/
==========================================================
Horsesh*t. This guy examined a copy, like everyone else. How do they explain the blatant splice over frames 154 to 158? Did the Magic Bullet edit the film? Why didn't this "expert" mention that the film had been edited? There is another splice in the film as well. Splice=Edit. Allow me to examine the original Z film and I'll either prove this was a conspiracy or I'll go away.
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/154_158.gif)
-
Horsesh*t. This guy examined a copy, like everyone else. How do they explain the blatant splice over frames 154 to 158? Did the Magic Bullet edit the film? Why didn't this "expert" mention that the film had been edited? There is another splice in the film as well. Splice=Edit. Allow me to examine the original Z film and I'll either prove this was a conspiracy or I'll go away.
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/154_158.gif)
Did you fall out of the stupid tree or what? He examined the original film as well as two first generation copies.
http://www.jfk-info.com/zreport.htm
-
Did you fall out of the stupid tree or what? He examined the original film as well as two first generation copies.
http://www.jfk-info.com/zreport.htm
How gullible are you anyway? He did NOT examine the original film or he would have noted the splices, which he didn't. Nice try tho.
-
Can you name a single ballistic expert who also doubts it?
I can't name any ballistic expert that has commented on it. WTF do they know that we don't?
Read the ?The JFK Myths? by Larry Sturdivan. Or, if there is another book on the JFK assassination by a ballistic expert, let?s here about it. This book covers a good deal of science about ballistics.
Is Larry a ballistics expert?
The movie ?The Wizard of Oz? took an object, and modified in all the frames, so that even a 3-D look at two different frames would not reveal the modification?
Correct. Back in 63 you could not tell which frames had been edited with an optical printer because you were examining a copy. Dark room editing back then was even more imperceptible than digital editing is now.
How would they know they only need to modify the Zapruder film and the Orville-Nix film. How would this all-knowing conspiracy know about all the films and photographs that may have been taken?
Who knows what other films/photos they confiscated? That was the whole purpose of the FBI in the coup. They were the "cleaners".
-
That was the whole purpose of the FBI in the coup. They were the "cleaners".
They still are.
Offhand, I see nothing sinister or egregious even if the limo driver did hit the brakes.
If I was driving into what I thought was an ambush, I would probably be inclined to not proceed any further into the onslaught... it's simply a natural reaction.
If the film was doctored...it was [of course] to cover their backsides.
-
I can't name any ballistic expert that has commented on it. WTF do they know that we don't?
What the (blank) would they know that you don?t know? And how would they know this?
They know because they do real world experiments, firing rifles into various targets, embedded in ballistic gel so they can recover the bullets/fragments to see the effects various targets have on various types of bullets. They can see the track of bullet/fragments through ballistic gel to see what effect the target has on this track. Does the bullet/fragments continue on a straight line or curve. If it curve, how much can it curve. Collect data on the velocity reduction on bullets caused by various targets. These tests are conducted in a systematic scientific basis.
There is no other way to tell what happens to targets, what happens to bullets, any other way. Your way, to assume such and such would happen, without conducting any real world experiments, doesn?t work.
If Larry Sturdivan, Luke Haag and Michael Haag reports are wrong, some ballistic expert elsewhere in American, or Canada, or Europe, or Japan, or India, or somewhere in the world, would report that they are wrong. And could point out that they were wrong, not based on their best guesses, but based on real world experiments that they could site.
After over 50 years, no such ballistic expert has been found by the CTers.
Is Larry a ballistics expert?
Yes.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/hscastur.htm (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/hscastur.htm)
Mr. MATHEWS - And where are you employed, Mr. Sturdivan?
Mr. STURDIVAN - At the Chemical Systems Laboratory, the Edgewood area of Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md.
Mr. MATHEWS - What is Aberdeen Proving Grounds? That is, what is its function and purpose?
Mr. STURDIVAN - Located at APG are a collection of a great number of U.S. Army agencies who conduct research development test and evaluation of weapons, vehicles, and other equipment for the Army and for other DOD agencies, and other Government agencies.
Mr. MATHEWS - Within the Edgewood Laboratories of Aberdeen Proving Ground, what specifically are you involved in?
Mr. STURDIVAN - Well, we do work in the general areas of wound ballistics and application of mathematics to chemistry. In wound ballistics, we do studies on human vulnerability and protective devices, which includes trauma from ballistic projectiles. For example, bullets from handguns, hunting rifles or military rifles, fragments from exploding munitions, such as grenades and artillery; blunt trauma from debris from explosions, for example, or riot control devices, combat simulation devices which have fallen short among troops; blunt trauma behind body armor, that is, bulletproof vests and flakjackets which have stopped the bullets and fragments and other debris.
Mr. MATHEWS - What specifically, Mr. Sturdivan, are your exact duties within your laboratory?
Mr. STURDIVAN - Generally, I'm in the business of producing predictive models of effectiveness of weapons, studying the behavior of bullets inside tissue and tissue simulant and exterior ballistics, of course.
Mr. MATHEWS - Would it be safe to say you study the characteristics of bullets in flight, you study the characteristics of bullets as they penetrate solid masses and you also study the characteristics of bullets once they enter the human body and the effect of those bullets on the human body?
Mr. STURDIVAN - Well, yes.
Mr. MATHEWS - Would you describe that as the wound ballistics field?
Mr. STURDIVAN - Yes, generally, the wound ballistics field is a little broader, and perhaps more descriptive in the thoughts of some. At our laboratory, we try to concentrate on the predictive models of behavior of bullets, particularly the full-jacketed military bullets that we are used to dealing with, their behavior in gelatin tissue simulant. In fact, one of the things I have recently been working on is a predictive model of what the behavior of the bullet would be in gelatin as a function of its physical characteristics, such as mass, velocity, location of the center of gravity and several other esoteric characteristics.
Mr. MATHEWS - But my previous statement would be more or less correct, you are involved in those type of studies; that is, characteristics of bullets?
Mr. STURDIVAN - Right.
Mr. MATHEWS - Are you considered an expert in the wound ballistics field?
Mr. STURDIVAN - I would think so; yes.
I'm a photogrammetrist so I know this to be true. It was easy to edit the Z film to paint any kind of narrative they wanted. I haven't decided whether Zapruder was recruited to film the scene. The only question at this point is where the original Z film is? All we got was edited copies from the FBI. The original film would tell all. Why would the FBI withhold the original film when it would exonerate them from any link to a conspiracy if they released it?
Correct. Back in 63 you could not tell which frames had been edited with an optical printer because you were examining a copy. Dark room editing back then was even more imperceptible than digital editing is now.
Who knows what other films/photos they confiscated? That was the whole purpose of the FBI in the coup. They were the "cleaners".
Well, since you?re a photogrammetrist, it should be easy for you to modify the frames of the Zapruder film, so it does not show the wound to the side of the head, but a back of the head wound.
And modify the autopsy photographs to show the same thing.
And have your modified autopsy photographs pass a 3-D test when both of your modified autopsy pictures are viewed through a stereoscope and show a valid 3-D image.
Question:
Can you do this?
If you provide some excuse as to why you can?t, can you point me to someone else who has does so? Who were able to modify the autopsy photographs to show a back on the head wound and have the fake photographs pass a stereoscope viewing? Showing what you claim to be true is actually possible.
-
Mr. MATHEWS - And where are you employed, Mr. Sturdivan?
Mr. STURDIVAN - At the Chemical Systems Laboratory, the Edgewood area of Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md.
Mr. MATHEWS - What is Aberdeen Proving Grounds? That is, what is its function and purpose?
Mr. STURDIVAN - Located at APG are a collection of a great number of U.S. Army agencies who conduct research development test and evaluation of weapons, vehicles, and other equipment for the Army and for other DOD agencies, and other Government agencies.
Mr. MATHEWS - Within the Edgewood Laboratories of Aberdeen Proving Ground, what specifically are you involved in?
Mr. STURDIVAN - Well, we do work in the general areas of wound ballistics and application of mathematics to chemistry. In wound ballistics, we do studies on human vulnerability and protective devices, which includes trauma from ballistic projectiles. For example, bullets from handguns, hunting rifles or military rifles, fragments from exploding munitions, such as grenades and artillery; blunt trauma from debris from explosions, for example, or riot control devices, combat simulation devices which have fallen short among troops; blunt trauma behind body armor, that is, bulletproof vests and flakjackets which have stopped the bullets and fragments and other debris.
Mr. MATHEWS - What specifically, Mr. Sturdivan, are your exact duties within your laboratory?
Mr. STURDIVAN - Generally, I'm in the business of producing predictive models of effectiveness of weapons, studying the behavior of bullets inside tissue and tissue simulant and exterior ballistics, of course.
Mr. MATHEWS - Would it be safe to say you study the characteristics of bullets in flight, you study the characteristics of bullets as they penetrate solid masses and you also study the characteristics of bullets once they enter the human body and the effect of those bullets on the human body?
Mr. STURDIVAN - Well, yes.
Mr. MATHEWS - Would you describe that as the wound ballistics field?
Mr. STURDIVAN - Yes, generally, the wound ballistics field is a little broader, and perhaps more descriptive in the thoughts of some. At our laboratory, we try to concentrate on the predictive models of behavior of bullets, particularly the full-jacketed military bullets that we are used to dealing with, their behavior in gelatin tissue simulant. In fact, one of the things I have recently been working on is a predictive model of what the behavior of the bullet would be in gelatin as a function of its physical characteristics, such as mass, velocity, location of the center of gravity and several other esoteric characteristics.
Mr. MATHEWS - But my previous statement would be more or less correct, you are involved in those type of studies; that is, characteristics of bullets?
Mr. STURDIVAN - Right.
Mr. MATHEWS - Are you considered an expert in the wound ballistics field?
Mr. STURDIVAN - I would think so; yes.
What part does he discuss how FMJ bullets explode in one's head? Maybe you can post all those real world experimental results that led Mr. Sturdivan to conclude that a FMJ bullet blew JFK's head off.
Well, since you?re a photogrammetrist, it should be easy for you to modify the frames of the Zapruder film, so it does not show the wound to the side of the head, but a back of the head wound.
Sure, and not with Photoshop.
And modify the autopsy photographs to show the same thing.
Piece of cake, as long as I have a surrogate to take JFK's place.
And have your modified autopsy photographs pass a 3-D test when both of your modified autopsy pictures are viewed through a stereoscope and show a valid 3-D image.
Pass a 3D test? Are you talking about Mytton's GIF? :D
Question:
Can you do this?
If you provide some excuse as to why you can?t, can you point me to someone else who has does so? Who were able to modify the autopsy photographs to show a back on the head wound and have the fake photographs pass a stereoscope viewing? Showing what you claim to be true is actually possible.
You don't need any dark room magic if you use a surrogate or parts of one. Haven't you wondered who gave JFK a haircut on the back of his head before taking the autopsy photos?
-
They still are.
Offhand, I see nothing sinister or egregious even if the limo driver did hit the brakes.
If I was driving into what I thought was an ambush, I would probably be inclined to not proceed any further into the onslaught... it's simply a natural reaction.
If the film was doctored...it was [of course] to cover their backsides.
Greer slowed for the kill shot. Looked back and stared at JFK twice and finally accelerated after the head shot Then lied about in at the WC Also the shots were coming from behind why would you slow down Is that what they teach agents at Secret Service school?
-
Can you name a single ballistic expert who also doubts it?
Ballistics experts depend on ballistic evidence You have none Forensic pathologists are much more germane given the wounds. yet you did not ballistic experts running the autopsy did you? Either type of expert will be dependent on the evidence given to them unless they were at Parkland and maybe Bethesda
-
Horsesh*t. This guy examined a copy, like everyone else. How do they explain the blatant splice over frames 154 to 158? Did the Magic Bullet edit the film? Why didn't this "expert" mention that the film had been edited? There is another splice in the film as well. Splice=Edit. Allow me to examine the original Z film and I'll either prove this was a conspiracy or I'll go away.
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/154_158.gif)
You are obviously unaware that there are INTACT prints of the film available. The Secret Service copy that Zapruder had made that day! Also, the original film-- including the splice-- still exists and was used to make the DVD of the original film released by MPI. Zavada didn't examine "a copy" he examined the original.
FYI. The film was never "edited". It was damaged by an employee at Life magazine! I thought everyone already knew this, but apparently not you.
-
You are obviously unaware that there are INTACT prints of the film available. The Secret Service copies that Zapruder had made that day!
FYI. The film was never "edited". It was damaged by an employee at Life magazine! I thought everyone already knew this, but apparently not you.
The Very 1st Qualified Individual that Examined the Zapruder Film was NPIC/CIA Image Expert Dino Brugioni on the night of 11/23/63. Brugioni went on Record regarding the Zapruder Film he EXAMINED on 11/23/63 Vs. the Current Zapruder Film = NOT being the same film. Simple as that.
-
And his boss failed to tell him they had some other people, less qualified than Brugioni, work on it the next day This is how compartmentalization can work
-
The Very 1st Qualified Individual that Examined the Zapruder Film was NPIC/CIA Image Expert Dino Brugioni on the night of 11/23/63. Brugioni went on Record regarding the Zapruder Film he EXAMINED on 11/23/63 Vs. the Current Zapruder Film = NOT being the same film. Simple as that.
When and where did Brugioni go on record saying that the Zapruder film he examined on 11/23/63 is not the same as the Zapruder film that currently resides in the National Archives or the three first generation copies?
-
What part does he discuss how FMJ bullets explode in one's head? Maybe you can post all those real world experimental results that led Mr. Sturdivan to conclude that a FMJ bullet blew JFK's head off.
Larry Sturdivan describes this in his book ?The JFK Myths?, Chapter Two, pages 28-29:
?The skull simulations were conducted by firing bullets at a range of 270 feet, within five feet of the distance, estimated by the WC, between the sixth-floor corner window of the Depository and the president at the time of the fatal shot. The striking velocities for these shots were not determined. Independent test firings averaged about 1,860 feet per second at that distance. The targets were fried human skulls, obtained from a medical supply house, rehydrated by soaking in water overnight, filled with gelatin, coated on the outside with a layer of gelatin, and covered with a piece of fresh goat skin to approximate the thickness of a human scalp and the subcutaneous tissue at the entry site. The simulated targets were positioned so that the entry and exit of the bullet would be approximately in the locations indicated in WC drawings of the path of the bullet.
In each case, the bullets deformed extensively on impact with the skulls. As the bullets penetrated the contents, the jackets were torn open, exposing the lead cores. Some were torn completely in two. All left numerous small fragments along the bullet?s path through the gelatin inside the skull. High-speed movies were made of the shots that show the skulls to shatter in a manner very similar to the damage observed in the president?s skull. More fragments of skull were separated from the experiment skulls than from the President?s, as the tough scalp and connective tissue were missing.
Page 163 shows a series of high speed photograms showing a human skull shattering from the impact of a bullet fired from Oswald?s rifle. It shows the skull exploding even though the bullet was a non-explosive bullet.
On page 171, Chapter 8, he explains:
The bullet entered the back of the skull and exited in a small spray at the front of the space of one frame of the high-speed movie. Only after the bullet was far down-range did the internal pressure generated by its passage split open the skull and relieve the pressure inside by spewing the contents through the cracks.
On a side note, I have seen video made by Dr. Lattimer of a human skull, stuffed with animal brains, sitting on a ladder, which explodes after being hit with a WCC/MC bullet.
Question:
Are your conclusions that a WCC/MC could not cause the head to explode based on your readings by a ballistic expert? Are they based on your arm chair analysis, not on any real-world experiments but on how you image the effects of a non-explosive bullet would have?
If based on real world experiments, provide a quote of this expert.
If based on your armchair analysis state that it is based on your armchair analysis.
Silence on this question will be interpreted as your opinion is based on your armchair analysis.
Sure, and not with Photoshop.
Piece of cake, as long as I have a surrogate to take JFK's place.
If the Zapruder film was faked, it could be faked again. All you have to do is remove the evidence of a massive wound to the side of the head and add a massive wound to the back of the head.
Question:
Can you, a self-described expert, do this?
Can you show a link to a website where this has been done?
If the Zapruder film was faked on 1963 to remove the massive rear head wound and replace it with a massive side head wound, then it should be possible to modify the fake Zapruder film.
If the Zapruder film could have been faked, this claim would have been substantiated by now.
Pass a 3D test? Are you talking about Mytton's GIF? :D
The autopsy photographs passed a stereoscopic analysis, where two photographs of the head, taken from slightly different positions are viewed through a stereoscope.
Question:
Can you do the same thing?
Can you modify the ?altered? autopsy photographs to show a large rear wound and have these photographs pass a stereoscopic analysis?
Has this already been done?
-
When and where did Brugioni go on record saying that the Zapruder film he examined on 11/23/63 is not the same as the Zapruder film that currently resides in the National Archives or the three first generation copies?
Tim Peter Janney first contacts Brugioni in February of 2009
Mr. Brugioni was contacted again in 2011, and the information that he had previously provided in 2009 was reconfirmed by Peter Janney in an MP3-recorded interview at Mr. Brugioni?s home on April 28, 2011; as well as in a four-hour-long HD video interview conducted by me on July 9, 2011
On another note for the general topic
http://assassinationofjfk.net/walter-cronkite-mentioned-the-jfk-limo-stopping/
-
When and where did Brugioni go on record saying that the Zapruder film he examined on 11/23/63 is not the same as the Zapruder film that currently resides in the National Archives or the three first generation copies?
Doug Horne did an extensive interview with Dino Brugioni. There is a lengthy portion of this interview on the "Killing Oswald" DVD. I am not sure as to how much of this interview might be posted on You Tube.
-
the shots were coming from behind why would you slow down
I believe there was a shot immediately from behind the Grassy Knoll fence that struck Kennedy in the throat.
-
Doug Horne did an extensive interview with Dino Brugioni. There is a lengthy portion of this interview on the "Killing Oswald" DVD. I am not sure as to how much of this interview might be posted on You Tube.
Thanks Royell the author in my last post was Horne, but I failed to note it There is definitely a You Tube video of Brugioni somewhere
-
I believe there was a shot immediately from behind the Grassy Knoll fence that struck Kennedy in the throat.
Good! Sorry if I am bit agitated by your rationalizing of Greer's braking I suppose we all have the right to theorize how people will behave in a given situation
-
Greer slowed for the kill shot. Looked back and stared at JFK twice and finally accelerated after the head shot Then lied about in at the WC Also the shots were coming from behind why would you slow down Is that what they teach agents at Secret Service school?
More manure from the manure spreader. Are you for real?
-
Doug Horne & Dino Brugioni You Tube video 85 minutes long Dino starts at the 25:01 mark but the whole video is very good .--------
" The Zapruder Film Mystery Doug Horne interviews Legendary NPIC interpreter Dino Brugioni "
www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pZIJRtSqHk
-
You are obviously unaware that there are INTACT prints of the film available. The Secret Service copy that Zapruder had made that day! Also, the original film-- including the splice-- still exists and was used to make the DVD of the original film released by MPI. Zavada didn't examine "a copy" he examined the original.
Intact prints of the original? Sure. I agree that they damaged the film so they had to add a splice to the copy. But all anyone has ever seen has been a copy. How would Zavada have known he was examining the original?
FYI. The film was never "edited". It was damaged by an employee at Life magazine! I thought everyone already knew this, but apparently not you.
So a Life employee damaged the entire turn onto Elm? Right. Zapruder said he never took his finger off the camera trigger once he started filming, so what happened to that footage? BTW, there is another splice in the film that the Life employee must have created too. I thought everyone already knew this, but apparently not you.
-
Larry Sturdivan describes this in his book ?The JFK Myths?, Chapter Two, pages 28-29:
In each case, the bullets deformed extensively on impact with the skulls. As the bullets penetrated the contents, the jackets were torn open, exposing the lead cores. Some were torn completely in two. All left numerous small fragments along the bullet?s path through the gelatin inside the skull. High-speed movies were made of the shots that show the skulls to shatter in a manner very similar to the damage observed in the president?s skull. More fragments of skull were separated from the experiment skulls than from the President?s, as the tough scalp and connective tissue were missing.
JFK's head did not just shatter, it exploded. You can see the fireball in his head during the right temple blow-out. It created a plume of head material that Sturdivan does not describe. Otherwise, let's see the footage and we all can judge. I doubt he replicated JFK's exploding head. Did he replicate the same damage as Z323?
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/323.png)
Didn't think so.
Page 163 shows a series of high speed photograms showing a human skull shattering from the impact of a bullet fired from Oswald?s rifle. It shows the skull exploding even though the bullet was a non-explosive bullet.
Not saying I don't believe it, but show us the photos. I believe that a FMJ bullet can cause a blow-out along its trajectory, but not the way JFK's head exploded. No way.
On a side note, I have seen video made by Dr. Lattimer of a human skull, stuffed with animal brains, sitting on a ladder, which explodes after being hit with a WCC/MC bullet.
Bully for you. Show us how it equates to the head shot.
Question:
Are your conclusions that a WCC/MC could not cause the head to explode based on your readings by a ballistic expert? Are they based on your arm chair analysis, not on any real-world experiments but on how you image the effects of a non-explosive bullet would have?
Like you, I base my conclusions on the opinions of experts. But for me, it's the lack of a replication of the head shot explosion that makes me dubious. A head shot blow-out always follows the trajectory of the bullet. So what gives with the right temple blow out?
If based on real world experiments, provide a quote of this expert.
You can't prove a negative. If I can't duplicate the head shot, then that doesn't mean that it was impossible. It is up to you to show that it was possible. By default it is ambiguous at best.
If based on your armchair analysis state that it is based on your armchair analysis.
Huh?
Silence on this question will be interpreted as your opinion is based on your armchair analysis.
What was the question?
If the Zapruder film was faked, it could be faked again. All you have to do is remove the evidence of a massive wound to the side of the head and add a massive wound to the back of the head.
Question:
Can you, a self-described expert, do this?
Sure. Anyone can with today's digital editing tools.
Can you show a link to a website where this has been done?
Probably, if I bothered to.
If the Zapruder film was faked on 1963 to remove the massive rear head wound and replace it with a massive side head wound, then it should be possible to modify the fake Zapruder film.
If the Zapruder film could have been faked, this claim would have been substantiated by now.
Of course the Z film could have been faked. Why would it have been substantiated by now?
The autopsy photographs passed a stereoscopic analysis, where two photographs of the head, taken from slightly different positions are viewed through a stereoscope.
I use stereoscopy for my work all the time to ortho-rectify aerial photographs. What you see with a stereoscope is called an anaglyph. Post the anaglyph of the autopsy photos and I'll analyze it for you. But what does that tell you? The fakery wasn't conducted in the dark room, the autopsy photos are of a JFK surrogate who didn't have a blow-out in the back of his head. Tippit perhaps? Whatever happened to his body anyway?
Question:
Can you do the same thing?
Can you modify the ?altered? autopsy photographs to show a large rear wound and have these photographs pass a stereoscopic analysis?
Has this already been done? [/b]
Sure, easy peasy. If you start with 2 stereo pairs then anything you do to them will pass a stereoscopic analysis if you are the least bit competent in the darkroom. I'm confident that the FBI could find a film editor that could have done anything they wanted.
-
Intact prints of the original? Sure. I agree that they damaged the film so they had to add a splice to the copy. But all anyone has ever seen has been a copy. How would Zavada have known he was examining the original?
Why don't you contact him and ask him? You are a conspiracy nutter. You believe that everything that doesn't fit your way of thinking and believing is faked, altered, switched--whatever.
So a Life employee damaged the entire turn onto Elm? Right. Zapruder said he never took his finger off the camera trigger once he started filming, so what happened to that footage? BTW, there is another splice in the film that the Life employee must have created too. I thought everyone already knew this, but apparently not you.
Zapruder thought the president's car was was coming when he saw the motorcycles turning onto Elm street. He shut his camera off when he discovered that it wasn't right there it was farther back than he thought. I have known this since the first time I saw the Zapruder film that the reason he stopped filming was to save film. He had already shot an enormous amount of family footage of his grandchildren and so forth, plus he had shot film in his office. Are you aware of this???? Why do you people turn everything into something it isn't? You aren't searching for the "truth", you are searching for ways to perpetuate the thing!
If you have questions about Zavada, write him!
-
Tim Peter Janney first contacts Brugioni in February of 2009
Mr. Brugioni was contacted again in 2011, and the information that he had previously provided in 2009 was reconfirmed by Peter Janney in an MP3-recorded interview at Mr. Brugioni?s home on April 28, 2011; as well as in a four-hour-long HD video interview conducted by me on July 9, 2011
On another note for the general topic
http://assassinationofjfk.net/walter-cronkite-mentioned-the-jfk-limo-stopping/
Matt, I'm aware of the Janney and Horne interviews of Brugioni. I've watched the much edited YouTube video of Horne's interview of him. Nowhere in that video did Brugioni go on record saying that the Zapruder film he examined on 11/23/63 is not the same as the Zapruder film that currently resides in the National Archives or any of the three first generation copies. So my question remains unanswered.
-
Doug Horne did an extensive interview with Dino Brugioni. There is a lengthy portion of this interview on the "Killing Oswald" DVD. I am not sure as to how much of this interview might be posted on You Tube.
When did Brugioni visit the National Archives to examine the original Zapruder film in order to be able to make any determination regarding its authenticity? When did he view any of the three first generation copies that would have allowed him to make any determination regarding their authenticity?
-
Good! Sorry if I am bit agitated by your rationalizing of Greer's braking I suppose we all have the right to theorize how people will behave in a given situation
Greer never braked.
-
Matt, I'm aware of the Janney and Horne interviews of Brugioni. I've watched the much edited YouTube video of Horne's interview of him. Nowhere in that video did Brugioni go on record saying that the Zapruder film he examined on 11/23/63 is not the same as the Zapruder film that currently resides in the National Archives or any of the three first generation copies. So my question remains unanswered.
You obviously have Not seen the complete Doug Horne interview of NPIC/CIA Image Expert Dino Brugioni. During that interview Brugioni describes the differences in the Z Film he Examined on 11/23/63 vs the Current Z Film.
-
Greer never braked.
Sure as hell did. Otherwise, how did the limo slow down on a 5% downgrade?
-
You obviously have Not seen the complete Doug Horne interview of NPIC/CIA Image Expert Dino Brugioni. During that interview Brugioni describes the differences in the Z Film he Examined on 11/23/63 vs the Current Z Film.
So, what are they?
-
At 42:31 Dino Brugioni of CIA calls the assassination "A Big Event". Is he confirming the scenario laid out by CIA's Howard Hunt on his deathbed? I think so. Either way, Brugioni confirms CIA and SS hanky-panky with the Zapruder film.
-
Sure as hell did. Otherwise, how did the limo slow down on a 5% downgrade?
So Daffy,
IIRC you stated that you are a Psychiatrist or is it a Proctologist or was it a Physicist? Whatever, put your lasers down and try this. Put your arse behind the wheel of a big early 1960ish American made sedan. Now cruise along around , let's say about 14mph, in first gear. Now take your foot off the accelerator . Get back to us with your results.
-
Greer never braked.
Maybe, maybe not How about slowed to a near stop?
-
Matt, I'm aware of the Janney and Horne interviews of Brugioni. I've watched the much edited YouTube video of Horne's interview of him. Nowhere in that video did Brugioni go on record saying that the Zapruder film he examined on 11/23/63 is not the same as the Zapruder film that currently resides in the National Archives or any of the three first generation copies. So my question remains unanswered.
Maybe we can save me the effort of going back and getting direct quotes He did say, roughly, what we see on the present copies, was not the same as what he saw on his copy at the time around 313?
-
So Daffy,
IIRC you stated that you are a Psychiatrist or is it a Proctologist or was it a Physicist? Whatever, put your lasers down and try this. Put your arse behind the wheel of a big early 1960ish American made sedan. Now cruise along around , let's say about 14mph, in first gear. Now take your foot off the accelerator . Get back to us with your results.
You want me to be your proctologist? Are you coming on to me? Sorry, homey don't play that. Re cruising along in 1st gear and letting your foot off the accelerator, isn't that just another form of braking? Greer knew taking his foot off the accelerator in 1st gear would slow down the limo and eventually stall it. Had he pushed in the clutch then the limo would not have slowed down like it did. Nice try tho dufus.
So why did Greer slow down the limo to a near stop at the Turkey Shoot Point, then turn around to watch JFK's head blow up? Where in the SS handbook does it say to slow down at the 1st sign of trouble?
-
Just my guess, but I believe the Film that Brugioni examined on 11/23/63 was a Copy of the already Altered Original Z Film. The altering having been conducted at the Top Secret "Hawk Eye Works", and then quickly SS transported to NPIC for the Brugioni examination and his ensuing Bogus Briefing Board assignment. The Intel Heads wanted to see if the "Hawk Eye Works" Original Z Film alterations could get by the eye of their own Top Image Expert/Dino Brugioni. The briefing board assignment given to Brugioni was a ruse to orchestrate running that Altered Z Film Copy by him. Once the Altered Z Film Copy was unknowingly approved by Brugioni, "Hawk Eye Works" could then make further alterations to the Original Z Film if deemed necessary, and then produce Altered Copies. My guess is additional alteration(s) were then made to the Original Z Film. This explains the need for the 2nd Briefing Board Session due to there being contrasting still shots/photos between Brugioni's Briefing Board Session 1 and Briefing Board Session 2 the following night. This explains: (1) 2 different briefing board sessions on back-to-back nights, (2) entirely different personnel being used at both briefing board sessions, (3) Brugioni examining an 8MM Z Film, and (4) a 16MM Z Film being examined/worked on at Briefing Board Session 2
Good point Also is there any evidence who from Life Magazine had control of the film and who from their organization caused the damage to it? My impression is the Secret Service was not going to allow anyone from a private company to get near it
-
Dino Brugioni said he thought they were dealing with the original Zapruder film . At frame 313 (the head shot ) the blowback from the frontal head shot went up very high and Brugioni said the blowback was of course on several of the next frames . The blowback would not have just been on one frame. When the 2 briefing boards were looked at by the powers that be , they apparently did not like what they saw so the next crew on Sunday evening were brought in to do their 4 briefing boards which are the briefing boards that are on display now at the Archives. I'm assuming we will never see the original Zapruder or Nix films. I don't know why , but I feel that there is a possibility of seeing those two original films in the future ! When they set up the number of years (50 or ever how many ) before JFK files would be seen , I always felt like they were thinking that most folks would be dead , who cared about the real story of what took place in Dallas . I remember Allen Dulles saying he thought there would only be a handful of "Academicians " who would actually delve into the Warren Commission's "26" volumes . Maybe Allen Dulles thought that the majority of people of the world were not smart enough or had the longevity of time to go through 26 volumes of the WC . When Cyril Wecht starts to talk about the 26 Volumes of the Warren Commission Report , his voice rises as he lets everyone know that there is no "INDEX" in the 26 volumes of The Warren Commission Report !!!!!!!!!
-
I believe Brugioni believed he was examining the Original Zapruder Film due to the SS delivering, hovering over, and departing with the Film in their possession. During the interview Brugioni did with Horne, he did Not sight anything technical as the basis for his believing he was examining the Original Z Film. The closest he came to anything of an even somewhat technical nature was his referring to how clear & bright the film he was working with was. With regard to the general impression that Brugioni expressed regarding the Z Film he was examining, we need to remember that Brugioni's heralded expertise was in the area of Spy Plane Photos taken from an extremely elevated position. In the areas of clarity/brightness, those spy plane photos bear no resemblance to a ground positioned color movie.
-
You obviously have Not seen the complete Doug Horne interview of NPIC/CIA Image Expert Dino Brugioni. During that interview Brugioni describes the differences in the Z Film he Examined on 11/23/63 vs the Current Z Film.
So, what are they?
I'm not sure that anyone responded to my question, so, to the best of my knowledge....
In the Janney interview, Janney gives Dino a copy of Zapruder frame 313 to look at. Brugioni says that he remembered the "scatter" extending up higher in the film, 3-4 feet high. Janney then tells Brugioni that 313 is the only frame showing a cloud of blood and CSF. Brugioni responds by saying that he remembered that cloud on the film for a few frames, not just one. There is no point in either interview that I can find where he says that he thought the film was altered, only that the one frame he was shown wasn't how he remembered it.
That being said, there are a few things to consider:
If you do the photogrammetry, the streak that erupts from JFK's head in 313 and moves upwards at about 1:30 extends about 40" above the top of the head. Of course, that fits with Brugioni's description of the "scatter's" vertical extent.
For that matter, if they made enlargements to show what was going on in the limousine, then they likely cropped a lot of the background out. That would have resulted in an image where the "scatter" took up a much larger piece of real estate in the picture.
Janney was wrong when he told Brugioni that the cloud of matter only appears in frame 313. Any decent copy of the film shows it expanding and dissipating for a few frames after the shot. The cloud gets fainter with each frame, but that would be expected as the material exploding from the impact continuously spreads out over a larger and larger volume of space.
The 900lb gorilla in the room: Dino was 90 years old in 2011, and he was being asked about something that he worked on one night 50 years before. How well do you really expect him to remember it?
-
So, what are they?
I'm not sure that anyone responded to my question, so, to the best of my knowledge....
In the Janney interview, Janney gives Dino a copy of Zapruder frame 313 to look at. Brugioni says that he remembered the "scatter" extending up higher in the film, 3-4 feet high. Janney then tells Brugioni that 313 is the only frame showing a cloud of blood and CSF. Brugioni responds by saying that he remembered that cloud on the film for a few frames, not just one. There is no point in either interview that I can find where he says that he thought the film was altered, only that the one frame he was shown wasn't how he remembered it.
That being said, there are a few things to consider:
If you do the photogrammetry, the streak that erupts from JFK's head in 313 and moves upwards at about 1:30 extends about 40" above the top of the head. Of course, that fits with Brugioni's description of the "scatter's" vertical extent.
For that matter, if they made enlargements to show what was going on in the limousine, then they likely cropped a lot of the background out. That would have resulted in an image where the "scatter" took up a much larger piece of real estate in the picture.
Janney was wrong when he told Brugioni that the cloud of matter only appears in frame 313. Any decent copy of the film shows it expanding and dissipating for a few frames after the shot. The cloud gets fainter with each frame, but that would be expected as the material exploding from the impact continuously spreads out over a larger and larger volume of space.
The 900lb gorilla in the room: Dino was 90 years old in 2011, and he was being asked about something that he worked on one night 50 years before. How well do you really expect him to remember it?
"Dino was 90 years old in 2011, and he was being asked about something that he worked on one night 50 years before. How well do you really expect him to remember it?"
When you consider the subject matter and it's history, "How could he have forgot?"
-
Where did the plasma come from? An exploding bullet perhaps?
Mr. Hargis obviously confused plasma with plasma membrane. Look it up.
-
You Tube 2:21 minutes long ------- Walter Cronkite - Bob Clark - Limo stop . Assassination of JFK
Bob Clark was wrong. The limousine did not stop. The Zapruder, Nix, Muchmore films all prove it!
-
You want me to be your proctologist? Are you coming on to me? Sorry, homey don't play that. Re cruising along in 1st gear and letting your foot off the accelerator, isn't that just another form of braking? Greer knew taking his foot off the accelerator in 1st gear would slow down the limo and eventually stall it. Had he pushed in the clutch then the limo would not have slowed down like it did. Nice try tho dufus.
So why did Greer slow down the limo to a near stop at the Turkey Shoot Point, then turn around to watch JFK's head blow up? Where in the SS handbook does it say to slow down at the 1st sign of trouble?
:D You are such a goof Dr. Daffy. You're making this stuff up aren't you? Turkey shoot :D. Congrats on finding that new document that proves that Greer was a murderer. Along with the other hundreds of participants you goofs think/believe/dream up took part in this vast conspiracy. BS: Great work :D :D
-
"Dino was 90 years old in 2011, and he was being asked about something that he worked on one night 50 years before. How well do you really expect him to remember it?"
When you consider the subject matter and it's history, "How could he have forgot?"
Whenever a JFK Assassination Eyewitness provides information that is contrary to the Deep State narrative that has been maintained for 54+ years, we always hear the "memory" baloney. With a case that is now 54+ years old, we are lucky to have anyone still around that was front-and-center in Dealey Plaza that day, or had Hands On regarding critical evidence. My 2 cents = SA Clint Hill Witnessed far more than he has thus far revealed.
-
I'm not sure that anyone responded to my question, so, to the best of my knowledge....
In the Janney interview, Janney gives Dino a copy of Zapruder frame 313 to look at. Brugioni says that he remembered the "scatter" extending up higher in the film, 3-4 feet high. Janney then tells Brugioni that 313 is the only frame showing a cloud of blood and CSF. Brugioni responds by saying that he remembered that cloud on the film for a few frames, not just one. There is no point in either interview that I can find where he says that he thought the film was altered, only that the one frame he was shown wasn't how he remembered it.
I am not sure what your question is Apparently when someone describes serious discrepancies in the film they saw originally and the one we see now the implication is film has not been altered?
-
Whenever a JFK Assassination Eyewitness provides information that is contrary to the Deep State narrative that has been maintained for 54+ years, we always hear the "memory" baloney. With a case that is now 54+ years old, we are lucky to have anyone still around that was front-and-center in Dealey Plaza that day, or had Hands On regarding critical evidence. My 2 cents = SA Clint Hill Witnessed far more than he has thus far revealed.
Just so you know: using "deep state" as a magical incantation doesn't work.
Eyewitness memory, and human memory in general, gets a bad rap. The problem is, the bad rap is pretty well studied and well deserved.
for example:
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/11/how-many-of-your-memories-are-fake/281558/
and
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/911-memory-accuracy/
-
I am not sure what your question is Apparently when someone describes serious discrepancies in the film they saw originally and the one we see now the implication is film has not been altered?
It only really implies that the image Dino was being shown didn't quite look the way he remembered it did when he last set eyes on it 50 years before. Could that mean it was altered? Possibly, but you need something stronger that "hey, I don't remember it this way." Especially when one of those "I don't remember that" things resulted from Janney telling Brugioni something that simply isn't true.
Now for a kind of thought experiment:
When you think of frame 313, what image comes up in your minds eye?
I'll bet your brain is now full of the terrible picture of John Kennedy's head enveloped in a horrific halo of bloody mist. Maybe the image includes Mrs Kennedy's puzzled face obscured by said halo. And maybe some of the limo. Extra credit if you saw Greer still looking around behind him.
I'll bet you aren't thinking that the top 80% of the frame is an image of the grassy lawn between Elm and Main, or that Toni Foster and her coat appears mid-stride left of center, walking across it. Some people well-versed in the film remember seeing Clint Hill about to catch up to the bumper, but he doesn't appear until about frame 330.
I'll also bet Brugioni is just as liable to the same self-selection process that blots out Toni and the lawn to concentrate on the limousine proper, and the awful deed being played out there.
For that matter, they made enlargements of the Zap film for the briefing boards. I'd suspect that they cropped out a lot of the image to concentrate on JFK and the limousine. That image of 313 would definitely put the "scatter" well up in the resulting image.
-
It only really implies that the image Dino was being shown didn't quite look the way he remembered it did when he last set eyes on it 50 years before. Could that mean it was altered? Possibly, but you need something stronger that "hey, I don't remember it this way." Especially when one of those "I don't remember that" things resulted from Janney telling Brugioni something that simply isn't true.
Now for a kind of thought experiment:
When you think of frame 313, what image comes up in your minds eye?
I'll bet your brain is now full of the terrible picture of John Kennedy's head enveloped in a horrific halo of bloody mist. Maybe the image includes Mrs Kennedy's puzzled face obscured by said halo. And maybe some of the limo. Extra credit if you saw Greer still looking around behind him.
I'll bet you aren't thinking that the top 80% of the frame is an image of the grassy lawn between Elm and Main, or that Toni Foster and her coat appears mid-stride left of center, walking across it. Some people well-versed in the film remember seeing Clint Hill about to catch up to the bumper, but he doesn't appear until about frame 330.
I'll also bet Brugioni is just as liable to the same self-selection process that blots out Toni and the lawn to concentrate on the limousine proper, and the awful deed being played out there.
For that matter, they made enlargements of the Zap film for the briefing boards. I'd suspect that they cropped out a lot of the image to concentrate on JFK and the limousine. That image of 313 would definitely put the "scatter" well up in the resulting image.
Why not get yourself up-to-speed on Brugioni/2 briefing board sessions, THEN express your opinion? 1st off, why was Brugioni examining an 8MM Z Film from which still frames were used for briefing boards , vs. the following night a 16MM Z Film was examined from which still frames were used for briefing boards?
-
B. Yeah. Oswald's rifle. I am allowed to believe that Oswald killed President Kennedy.
Sure you are. It's your stating your beliefs as fact that I have a problem with.
C. Get real, John. where do you think those fragments that we see flying out of frame in the Zapruder , which were estimated to be traveling around 80 MPH into the air, went to?
Is there any good reason to believe that the "head matter" that you see rising up in the Z film includes the Harper and Burris fragments? And even if so, it's going up in the air, not in a straight line from above and to the rear.
Obviously, the skull fragments did not travel to the right, because they were discovered straight ahead of where the limousine was located at the time of the fatal shot.
There you go again. They must have landed there because they landed there.
-
No, let's not consider the McClelland sketch. It is impossible, it is erroneous and it a worthless description of the head wound.
So your "evidence" that the medical staff couldn't have seen a back of the head wound with him lying on his back is that you don't believe he had a back of the head wound.
How circular.
-
FYI. The film was never "edited". It was damaged by an employee at Life magazine! I thought everyone already knew this, but apparently not you.
LOL. It wasn't edited, it was "damaged". And then edited. That's totally different.
-
Page 163 shows a series of high speed photograms showing a human skull shattering from the impact of a bullet fired from Oswald?s rifle. It shows the skull exploding even though the bullet was a non-explosive bullet.
Where did Sturdivan get Oswald's rifle?
-
Zapruder thought the president's car was was coming when he saw the motorcycles turning onto Elm street. He shut his camera off when he discovered that it wasn't right there it was farther back than he thought. I have known this since the first time I saw the Zapruder film that the reason he stopped filming was to save film.
You mean to say that you know what Zapruder did better than Zapruder himself? That's some arrogance.
-
Why not get yourself up-to-speed on Brugioni/2 briefing board sessions, THEN express your opinion? 1st off, why was Brugioni examining an 8MM Z Film from which still frames were used for briefing boards , vs. the following night a 16MM Z Film was examined from which still frames were used for briefing boards?
I did, years ago. The best thing you can say about the briefing boards is that they may have made two sets. Attempts to read something else into that possibility are nothing more than that: an attempt to read external meaning in. Either way, there is nothing in the Brugioni story that proves fakery.
-
You mean to say that you know what Zapruder did better than Zapruder himself? That's some arrogance.
Zap ruder.
"Mr. ZAPRUDER - That's correct. I started shooting--when the motorcade started coming in, I believe I started and wanted to get it coming in from Houston Street."
If Zapruder wanted to get "it coming in from Houston Street", why would he stop filming?
-
Zap ruder.
"Mr. ZAPRUDER - That's correct. I started shooting--when the motorcade started coming in, I believe I started and wanted to get it coming in from Houston Street."
If Zapruder wanted to get "it coming in from Houston Street", why would he stop filming?
The background images that were revealed as the JFK Limo turned onto Elm and began traveling down the street is why this scene mandated being CUT from the film. The Dal Tex Bld was included in this Z Film segment, as was the Tall, Wide, Bright Orange Stripped, Cleaning Truck which was sitting at the curb just outside the front door of the Dal Tex Bld. And don't forget eyewitnesses seeing the JFK Limo coming close to bumping/jumping the curb as it turned onto Elm St. Zapruder would have needed a wide Pan Left of his camera in order to follow the exaggerated JFK Limo left turn. By the time action resumes in the Current Zapruder Film, the JFK Limo has straightened out, is centered inside the center lane of traffic, and is approaching the Stemmons Sign.
-
Zap ruder.
"Mr. ZAPRUDER - That's correct. I started shooting--when the motorcade started coming in, I believe I started and wanted to get it coming in from Houston Street."
If Zapruder wanted to get "it coming in from Houston Street", why would he stop filming?
Funny how that "damage" to the film happened exactly when Zapruder supposedly stopped the camera. The film would have shown the limo slowing down to a near stop and curbing out as it navigated the turn onto Elm, a mere 40 feet from Oswald who couldn't believe JFK was being served up to him like a sitting duck on a silver platter. Even his wonky scope couldn't miss. But he was so mesmerized that he waited another 8 seconds before taking the 1st shot.
Whatever actually happened during the turn onto Elm has been scrubbed from the Z film.
-
It only really implies that the image Dino was being shown didn't quite look the way he remembered it did when he last set eyes on it 50 years before. Could that mean it was altered? Possibly, but you need something stronger that "hey, I don't remember it this way." Especially when one of those "I don't remember that" things resulted from Janney telling Brugioni something that simply isn't true.
Now for a kind of thought experiment:
When you think of frame 313, what image comes up in your minds eye?
I'll bet your brain is now full of the terrible picture of John Kennedy's head enveloped in a horrific halo of bloody mist. Maybe the image includes Mrs Kennedy's puzzled face obscured by said halo. And maybe some of the limo. Extra credit if you saw Greer still looking around behind him.
I'll bet you aren't thinking that the top 80% of the frame is an image of the grassy lawn between Elm and Main, or that Toni Foster and her coat appears mid-stride left of center, walking across it. Some people well-versed in the film remember seeing Clint Hill about to catch up to the bumper, but he doesn't appear until about frame 330.
I'll also bet Brugioni is just as liable to the same self-selection process that blots out Toni and the lawn to concentrate on the limousine proper, and the awful deed being played out there.
For that matter, they made enlargements of the Zap film for the briefing boards. I'd suspect that they cropped out a lot of the image to concentrate on JFK and the limousine. That image of 313 would definitely put the "scatter" well up in the resulting image.
When experts have a recollection of a significant event those statements stand as a facts in the same objective manner as everyone else with equal credibility as a witness So when you said the Z film Brugioni saw was not the film we see later you are either caught up in a semantic fallacy or simply positing that witness accounts are open for your personal contextualization
-
When experts have a recollection of a significant event those statements stand as a facts in the same objective manner as everyone else with equal credibility as a witness So when you said the Z film Brugioni saw was not the film we see later you are either caught up in a semantic fallacy or simply positing that witness accounts are open for your personal contextualization
You seem to be confused. I never said that "the Z film Brugioni saw was not the film we see later" in any way, shape, or form.
What I am trying to get across is that Brugioni didn't say that he thought the Zapruder film had been altered. That asserrtion is a projection (pun intended, just so you know) generated by the hopefully faithful z-film alterationistas. All he said was that the explosion in frame 313 didn't extend as high up into the frame as he remembered. He was about 90 years old at the time of the interview, and he was trying to recall something that he saw on day 50 years before, so his recall isn't the best evidence for anything. I have pointed out here that, if you do the photogrammetry, the "scatter" (as he called it) in the existent frame reaches a good 40" above the top of JFK's head, which places it in the 3'-4' range that Dino remembered. I also advanced, for the sake of argument, two entirely reasonable explanations that would explain why he remembered that particular image a certain way without needing to rely on alteration. They seem to be reasonable enough that nobody has objected to them. To me, it's significant that he doesn't seem to have an issue with what is in the image rather than where it is.
You are correct that Bruglioni's statement is itself a fact. I mean, Janney recorded it! But that's not the point here. The point is whether his memory would be sharp enough for it to be considered a significant factor 50 years after the fact. Some might want to believe that it would be so, but I wouldn't count on it.
-
You seem to be confused. I never said that "the Z film Brugioni saw was not the film we see later" in any way, shape, or form.
What I am trying to get across is that Brugioni didn't say that he thought the Zapruder film had been altered. That asserrtion is a projection (pun intended, just so you know) generated by the hopefully faithful z-film alterationistas. All he said was that the explosion in frame 313 didn't extend as high up into the frame as he remembered. He was about 90 years old at the time of the interview, and he was trying to recall something that he saw on day 50 years before, so his recall isn't the best evidence for anything. I have pointed out here that, if you do the photogrammetry, the "scatter" (as he called it) in the existent frame reaches a good 40" above the top of JFK's head, which places it in the 3'-4' range that Dino remembered. I also advanced, for the sake of argument, two entirely reasonable explanations that would explain why he remembered that particular image a certain way without needing to rely on alteration. They seem to be reasonable enough that nobody has objected to them. To me, it's significant that he doesn't seem to have an issue with what is in the image rather than where it is.
You are correct that Bruglioni's statement is itself a fact. I mean, Janney recorded it! But that's not the point here. The point is whether his memory would be sharp enough for it to be considered a significant factor 50 years after the fact. Some might want to believe that it would be so, but I wouldn't count on it.
It seems to me obvious that the key point in his observation is that the explosion he saw was NOT to the rear of the end head but the top right of head. Just as we see in the films today.
Whether that explosion was, as he remembered it, higher or lower in the Z-film is a, at best, ancillary matter.
If he said the explosion was to the rear of the head and not the top/right then the alterationists would have something to grab onto.
-
It seems to me obvious that the key point in his observation is that the explosion he saw was NOT to the rear of the end but the top right of head. Just as we see in the films today.
Whether that explosion was, as he remember it, higher or lower in the Z-film is a, at best, ancillary matter.
If he said the explosion was to the rear of the head and not the top/right then the alterationists would have something to grab onto.
Quite the astute observation!
-
You seem to be confused. I never said that "the Z film Brugioni saw was not the film we see later" in any way, shape, or form.
What I am trying to get across is that Brugioni didn't say that he thought the Zapruder film had been altered. That asserrtion is a projection (pun intended, just so you know) generated by the hopefully faithful z-film alterationistas. All he said was that the explosion in frame 313 didn't extend as high up into the frame as he remembered. He was about 90 years old at the time of the interview, and he was trying to recall something that he saw on day 50 years before, so his recall isn't the best evidence for anything. I have pointed out here that, if you do the photogrammetry, the "scatter" (as he called it) in the existent frame reaches a good 40" above the top of JFK's head, which places it in the 3'-4' range that Dino remembered. I also advanced, for the sake of argument, two entirely reasonable explanations that would explain why he remembered that particular image a certain way without needing to rely on alteration. They seem to be reasonable enough that nobody has objected to them. To me, it's significant that he doesn't seem to have an issue with what is in the image rather than where it is.
You are correct that Bruglioni's statement is itself a fact. I mean, Janney recorded it! But that's not the point here. The point is whether his memory would be sharp enough for it to be considered a significant factor 50 years after the fact. Some might want to believe that it would be so, but I wouldn't count on it.
So are you saying that Brugioni didn't have a clue whether he was looking at the original Z film or a copy? That's all I need to know else name 1 other person that has allegedly analyzed the original film. And isn't that strange that there is so little provenance for the most crucial piece of evidence documenting the crime of the century?
-
So are you saying that Brugioni didn't have a clue whether he was looking at the original Z film or a copy? That's all I need to know else name 1 other person that has allegedly analyzed the original film. And isn't that strange that there is so little provenance for the most crucial piece of evidence documenting the crime of the century?
I haven't said anything either way about whether Brugioni or McMahon or whoever else at NPIC saw the original or a copy. It really has nothing to do with what Dino said remembered seeing.
-
You seem to be confused. I never said that "the Z film Brugioni saw was not the film we see later" in any way, shape, or form.
What I am trying to get across is that Brugioni didn't say that he thought the Zapruder film had been altered. That asserrtion is a projection (pun intended, just so you know) generated by the hopefully faithful z-film alterationistas. All he said was that the explosion in frame 313 didn't extend as high up into the frame as he remembered. He was about 90 years old at the time of the interview, and he was trying to recall something that he saw on day 50 years before, so his recall isn't the best evidence for anything. I have pointed out here that, if you do the photogrammetry, the "scatter" (as he called it) in the existent frame reaches a good 40" above the top of JFK's head, which places it in the 3'-4' range that Dino remembered. I also advanced, for the sake of argument, two entirely reasonable explanations that would explain why he remembered that particular image a certain way without needing to rely on alteration. They seem to be reasonable enough that nobody has objected to them. To me, it's significant that he doesn't seem to have an issue with what is in the image rather than where it is.
You are correct that Bruglioni's statement is itself a fact. I mean, Janney recorded it! But that's not the point here. The point is whether his memory would be sharp enough for it to be considered a significant factor 50 years after the fact. Some might want to believe that it would be so, but I wouldn't count on it.
Being old is no proof of a faulty memory for everyone You also seem to be wandering in some kind of no mans land claiming first that the fact Brugioni said he saw something different in the film isn't equivalent to it being an altered film, or maybe that was just Tim and Steve And now you simply ad his memory does not count At least the latter point has some internal logic, regardless of the blatant subjectivity of such a claim He hardly comes across as parson who has forgotten the details of the event, but maybe everything he seems to remember so clearly is just a sign of an even more advanced state of dementia Pretending to remember so many details that a person of his age can be eliminated an a priori assumption that age means no significant memories are valid
Also worthy of note is that Brugioni felt the head moved forward for more frames than are shown which corroborates Dan Rather and the two bullet scenario Regardless of what it all means in the end there are at least two people who saw a different film among the very few who saw the early copies
-
Being old is no proof of a faulty memory for everyone You also seem to be wandering in some kind of no mans land claiming first that the fact Brugioni said he saw something different in the film isn't equivalent to it being an altered film, or maybe that was just Tim and Steve And now you simply ad his memory does not count At least the latter point has some internal logic, regardless of the blatant subjectivity of such a claim He hardly comes across as parson who has forgotten the details of the event, but maybe everything he seems to remember so clearly is just a sign of an even more advanced state of dementia Pretending to remember so many details that a person of his age can be eliminated an a priori assumption that age means no significant memories are valid
Also worthy of note is that Brugioni felt the head moved forward for more frames than are shown which corroborates Dan Rather and the two bullet scenario Regardless of what it all means in the end there are at least two people who saw a different film among the very few who saw the early copies
You're trying to shift the burden. That load falls upon those who claim the the film is altered and Brugioni's statement is the proof. Why should we take so literally something a 90 year old man remembered about a film he'd seen one day 50 years before? And speaking of old men, what about Abe Zapruder? He was shown a copy of the extant film during the Shaw trial, and said that it was a proper copy of the film he took. How do you square what Zap said six years after the fact with what you seem to want to believe Brugioni said 50 years after?
-
You're trying to shift the burden. That load falls upon those who claim the the film is altered and Brugioni's statement is the proof. Why should we take so literally something a 90 year old man remembered about a film he'd seen one day 50 years before? And speaking of old men, what about Abe Zapruder? He was shown a copy of the extant film during the Shaw trial, and said that it was a proper copy of the film he took. How do you square what Zap said six years after the fact with what you seem to want to believe Brugioni said 50 years after?
Don't ignore Rather Your comparison is apples and oranges A person who gets to watch the film frame by frame has an extraordinary advantage over someone seeing it only in real time, and one time only Not to mention Zapruder does say the early frames are missing
-
You're trying to shift the burden. That load falls upon those who claim the the film is altered and Brugioni's statement is the proof. Why should we take so literally something a 90 year old man remembered about a film he'd seen one day 50 years before? And speaking of old men, what about Abe Zapruder? He was shown a copy of the extant film during the Shaw trial, and said that it was a proper copy of the film he took. How do you square what Zap said six years after the fact with what you seem to want to believe Brugioni said 50 years after?
Brugioni was an Image Expert and Examined the Z Film on 11/23/63 for several hours employing the finest equipment available at that time. Zapruder Eyeballed a fractured flicker from the witness stand amidst a packed courthouse reminiscent of a scene out of "To Kill A Mockingbird". On top of that, Zapruder had a contract with Time/Life for $150,000 for the Z Film being displayed before him. If Zapruder were to discredit that film in Any manner, to Any degree, he would have been putting His $150,000 in severe jeopardy.
-
Don't ignore Rather Your comparison is apples and oranges A person who gets to watch the film frame by frame has an extraordinary advantage over someone seeing it only in real time, and one time only Not to mention Zapruder does say the early frames are missing
Yeah, Rather. The guy who saw the film then got it spectacularly wrong 20 minutes later. Zapruder, by the way, saw the actual event, plus seeing the film in 1963. If anyone would have noted significant discrepancies, it would be he.
Now, as to Zapruder thinking there were frames missing, is that something he said, or something someone said he said?
-
Now, as to Zapruder thinking there were frames missing, is that something he said, or something someone said he said?
Yes when someone says something quote worthy you generally need someone to hear it
-
Yes when someone says something quote worthy you generally need someone to hear it
...Yet, people seem to be unable to quote it. Or is this one of those coy acts where the underlying meaning is "I don't really know?"
-
...Yet, people seem to be unable to quote it. Or is this one of those coy acts where the underlying meaning is "I don't really know?"
I guess your changing your tune It is OK now if he said it to someone else I just need to find it
You seem to imply some kind that I have an agenda or some character problem by the fact I quote a claim that is commonly refereed to Pardon me if I have not run down all these stories in advance. Apparently this provides you fodder for personal attack
so yes a quick look turns up nothing Not an issue I am especially concerned with anyway
Zapruders observations and recollections are of no more significance that anyone else that observed the assassination He of course has some pretty interesting connections.
-
I guess your changing your tune It is OK now if he said it to someone else I just need to find it
You seem to imply some kind that I have an agenda or some character problem by the fact I quote a claim that is commonly refereed to Pardon me if I have not run down all these stories in advance. Apparently this provides you fodder for personal attack
so yes a quick look turns up nothing Not an issue I am especially concerned with anyway
I wondered if you didn't really know whether Zapruder really said that frames were missing from his film (as opposed to someone else saying he said it), and were playing coy about admitting it. At least you came out and admitted it the second time.
Zapruders observations and recollections are of no more significance that anyone else that observed the assassination He of course has some pretty interesting connections.
So, it's down to six degrees of Abraham Zapruder then?
-
?Motorcade Cop Tells How It Happened,? Sunday News (New York), 24 November 1963, p.25:
Dallas, Nov. 23 (Special) - B. W. Hargis, 31, Dallas motorcycle patrolman who was riding
in President Kennedy?s motorcade, gave this account today of the assassination:
?We turned left onto Elm St. off Houston, about half a block from where it happened. I was
right alongside the rear fender on the left hand side of the President?s car, near Mrs. Kennedy.
When I heard the first explosion, I knew it was a shot. I thought that Gov. Connally had been
hit when I saw him turn toward the President with a real surprised look.
The President then looked like he was bent over or that he was leaning toward the Governor, talking to him.
As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned toward him, and that was when he got hit in the side of his head, spinning it around.
I was splattered with blood.
Then I felt something hit me. It could have been concrete or something, but I thought at first I might have been hit.
Then I saw the limousine stop, and I parked my motorcycle at the side of the road, got off and drew my gun.
Then this Secret Service agent (in the President?s car) got his wits about him and they took off. The
motorcycle officer on the right side of the car was Jim Chaney. He immediately went forward and announced to the chief that the President had been shot.?
-
?Motorcade Cop Tells How It Happened,? Sunday News (New York), 24 November 1963, p.25:
Dallas, Nov. 23 (Special) - B. W. Hargis, 31, Dallas motorcycle patrolman who was riding
in President Kennedy?s motorcade, gave this account today of the assassination:
?We turned left onto Elm St. off Houston, about half a block from where it happened. I was
right alongside the rear fender on the left hand side of the President?s car, near Mrs. Kennedy.
When I heard the first explosion, I knew it was a shot. I thought that Gov. Connally had been
hit when I saw him turn toward the President with a real surprised look.
The President then looked like he was bent over or that he was leaning toward the Governor, talking to him.
As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned toward him, and that was when he got hit in the side of his head, spinning it around.
I was splattered with blood.
Then I felt something hit me. It could have been concrete or something, but I thought at first I might have been hit.
Then I saw the limousine stop, and I parked my motorcycle at the side of the road, got off and drew my gun.
Then this Secret Service agent (in the President?s car) got his wits about him and they took off. The
motorcycle officer on the right side of the car was Jim Chaney. He immediately went forward and announced to the chief that the President had been shot.?
Alvarez first noted the sudden deceleration of the limousine a long long time ago. As early as the mid-'60's in fact. You can see it in the panoramic Zapruder remix that someone did and put on youtube a while back.
ss100x doesn't stop, but it does slow wayyyyyy down.
-
Greer never braked.
The mayors wife said the whole motorcade hit the brakes.
A few other things too.
From the testimony of Mrs Earle Cabell
Mr. HUBERT. Please state your name for the record, please, ma'am.
Mr. CABELL. Mrs. Earle Cabell.
Mr. HUBERT. You are the wife of former Mayor Earle Cabell?
Mr. CABELL. Yes.
Mr. HUBERT. You reside with him now at what address?
Mr. CABELL. 5338 Drane.
Mr. HUBERT. Mrs. Cabell, I think you were with your husband in the presidential parade on November 22, 1963?
Mr. CABELL. That's right.
*********************************************************************
Apparently, the stenographer [for some reason] typed in Mr instead of Mrs on this deposition
Mr. CABELL. Because I heard the direction from which the shot came, and I just jerked my head up.
Mr. HUBERT. What did you see?
Mr. CABELL. I saw a projection out of one of those windows. Those windows on the sixth floor are in groups of twos.
Mr. HUBERT. In which window did you see the projection?
Mr. CABELL. I have always been a little confused about that, but I think it was the first window.
Mr. HUBERT. On what floor?
Mr. CABELL. On the top floor. Now I cannot take oath and say which window. There was some confusion in my mind.
Mr. HUBERT. But you say there were double windows. Is the confusion about whether it was the first or second double window, or the first or second window of the double windows?
Mr. CABELL. The first or second window of the first group of double windows.
Mr. HUBERT. What was this projection?
Mr. CABELL. I cannot tell you. It was rather long looking, the projection.
Mr. HUBERT. What did it seem like? An arm of an individual, or something mechanical?
Mr. CABELL. I did not know, because I did not see a hand or a head or a human form behind it. It was in just a fleeting second that I jerked my head up and I saw something in that window, and I turned around to say to Earle, "Earle, it is a shot", and before I got the words out, just as I got the words out, he said, "Oh, no; it must have been a "the second two shots rang out. After that, there is a certain amount of confusion in my mind. I was acutely aware of the odor of gunpowder. I was aware that the motorcade stopped dead still. There was no question about that.
***********************************************************************
Mr. HUBERT. You also mentioned that you were acutely aware of the smell of gunpowder?
Mr. CABELL. Yes.
Mr. HUBERT. When was that relative to the shots? I mean how soon after?
Mr. CABELL. I cannot say for sure, because as I told you, the motorcade was stopped. And somewhere in there, Congressman Roberts said, "That is a .30-06." I didn't know what a .30-06 was.
Mr. HUBERT. Did he say that after all the shots were fired?
Mr. CABELL. I believe so. There was much confusion.
Mrs Cabell had an acute sense of smell it seems.
-
I wondered if you didn't really know whether Zapruder really said that frames were missing from his film (as opposed to someone else saying he said it), and were playing coy about admitting it. At least you came out and admitted it the second time.
So, it's down to six degrees of Abraham Zapruder then?
Is it your suggestion that I knew there was no supporting evidence for the quote attributed to Zapruder that once hew started filming he did not stop and simply came clean when you caught me?
-
Yeah, Rather. The guy who saw the film then got it spectacularly wrong 20 minutes later. Zapruder, by the way, saw the actual event, plus seeing the film in 1963. If anyone would have noted significant discrepancies, it would be he.
Now, as to Zapruder thinking there were frames missing, is that something he said, or something someone said he said?
Zapruder's only claim was that he did not recall stopping the camera as the limo turned onto Elm. Coincidentally, the "damage" that Time/Life did to the film corresponded to a splice that cut out the turn onto Elm. But how do you damage a whole section of film? I can see melting a few frames or snapping the reel and splicing it back together, but removing over a hundred frames of film because you "damaged" it, is just a lame excuse for whatever editing you did to it.
So what went down during the turn onto Elm that we weren't supposed to see? And why didn't Oswald take a shot then? And where is the original film? Not in the Sixth Floor Museum of the TSBD, that's for sure.
-
Zapruder's only claim was that he did not recall stopping the camera as the limo turned onto Elm. Coincidentally, the "damage" that Newsweek did to the film corresponded to a splice that cut out the turn onto Elm. But how do you damage a whole section of film? I can see melting a few frames or snapping the reel and splicing it back together, but removing over a hundred frames of film because you "damaged" it, is just a lame excuse for whatever editing you did to it.
So what went down during the turn onto Elm that we weren't supposed to see? And why didn't Oswald take a shot then? And where is the original film? Not in the Sixth Floor Museum of the TSBD, that's for sure.
Where did Zapruder say the he didn't recall stopping and re-starting the film?
Newsweek never had the film. The original (and a first generation copy) was owned/purchased by Time/Life magazine.
Where did you get this information that over a hundred frames were damaged? And where is your information as to which frames were damaged?
From what I've read, Time/Life said the ORIGINAL was damaged (a few frames but not over a hundred). So they took the frames from the first generation copy they had and added or spliced them to the original. Nothing was removed or taken out.
Zapruder's Shaw testimony is here: http://www.jfk-online.com/zaprudershaw.html
-
Where did Zapruder say the he didn't recall stopping and re-starting the film?
Newsweek never had the film. The original (and a first generation copy) was owned/purchased by Time/Life magazine.
Where did you get this information that over a hundred frames were damaged? And where is your information as to which frames were damaged?
From what I've read, Time/Life said the ORIGINAL was damaged (a few frames but not over a hundred). So they took the frames from the first generation copy they had and added or spliced them to the original. Nothing was removed or taken out.
Zapruder's Shaw testimony is here: http://www.jfk-online.com/zaprudershaw.html
ZAPRUDER/SHAW TESTIMONY
ATTORNEY - "Is the copy you have here today Identical to the original or are there any plates missing?"
ZAPRUDER - "That would be hard for me to tell, Sir."
COURT - "I cannot hear the witness. What is it?"
ZAPRUDER - "That would be hard for me to say. He asked me if there were any frames missing."
COURT - "What is your answer?"
ZAPRUDER - " I couldn't say."
Clearly, Zapruder while under oath is Not going to verify that the Zapruder Film he himself brought to court has Not been altered.
-
Zapruder's only claim was that he did not recall stopping the camera as the limo turned onto
And where does he actually say this? More to the point, what exactly did he say?
Elm. Coincidentally, the "damage" that Newsweek did to the film corresponded to a splice that cut out the turn onto Elm. But how do you damage a whole section of film? I can see melting a few frames or snapping the reel and splicing it back together, but removing over a hundred frames of film because you "damaged" it, is just a lame excuse for whatever editing you did to it.
Life had the film, not Newsweek
So what went down during the turn onto Elm that we weren't supposed to see? And why didn't Oswald take a shot then? And where is the original film? Not in the Sixth Floor Museum of the TSBD, that's for sure.
There were scores, if not hundreds, of people lining the street at the Elm Houston intersection. If anything particularly remarkable happened during the turn, it would have been particularly remarked upon by any number of witnesses. I can't say I recall any hullabaloo about witnesses remarking about any such particulars.
As for why Oswald (or any other posited TSBD gunman) didn't shoot while the limo is turning, no one can say for certain without holding a seance. My own opinion, based on my experiences at the 6FM and in Dealey Plaza, is based on two observations. The first is that the sniper's nest was set up specifically so that the shooter is firing Westwards down Elm; a shot at the limo at the corner, or on Houston would require the gunman to take a shot, then step over or around the box on the floor in a very tight space and re-set himself in order to continue firing at Kennedy. Also, it looks to be a fairly awkward shot given the angle to the car, the shallowness of the SN (it's only 2' wide), and the partially closed window.
-
Is it your suggestion that I knew there was no supporting evidence for the quote attributed to Zapruder that once hew started filming he did not stop and simply came clean when you caught me?
My suggestion is that you said something based on a either a vague memory of something someone else said at some point in the past or a memory of something vague that someone said, also in the past. Either way, you didn't remember the original source, and may not have ever known the original source other than via someone else's commentary about it. I suspect that you believed it when you said it, but when called on it, the underlying knowledge was a bit more nebulous than you'd first figured.
I give you a lot of credit for coming clean. This kind of thing happens more than we like to realize. Lots of people would simply try to bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns their way out; you didn't.
-
ZAPRUDER/SHAW TESTIMONY
ATTORNEY - "Is the copy you have here today Identical to the original or are there any plates missing?"
ZAPRUDER - "That would be hard for me to tell, Sir."
COURT - "I cannot hear the witness. What is it?"
ZAPRUDER - "That would be hard for me to say. He asked me if there were any frames missing."
COURT - "What is your answer?"
ZAPRUDER - " I couldn't say."
Clearly, Zapruder while under oath is Not going to verify that the Zapruder Film he himself brought to court has Not been altered.
You left out the last question from the exchange between Drymond and Z:
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: So you don't know whether it is a complete copy of the film you took on the 22nd of November?
A: Not if there are one or two frames missing, I couldn't tell you.
He says only "one or two", nothing like what would be missing if they'd carved out a section where the limo approached and turned onto Elm Street.
-
Where did Zapruder say the he didn't recall stopping and re-starting the film?
You'd reject any transcript I provided a link to so I won't bother. Besides, we don't need Zapruder's testimony. There is a "First Frame Over-Exposure" effect that is missing in the jump cut that removed the turn onto Elm. This occurs when you stop and start film. Since this frame was not present, the jump cut at frame 132-133 was not the result of stopping/starting the camera and this was not the original film. QED.
Newsweek never had the film. The original (and a first generation copy) was owned/purchased by Time/Life magazine.
I was throwing Newsweek back at the poster who claimed this. Otherwise, who cares who received a COPY of the Z film? They certainly didn't receive nor damage the original.
Where did you get this information that over a hundred frames were damaged? And where is your information as to which frames were damaged?
I'm extrapolating how many frames must have been cut between frames 132-133 based on the position of the limo and its speed and the frame rate of 18 fps.
From what I've read, Time/Life said the ORIGINAL was damaged (a few frames but not over a hundred). So they took the frames from the first generation copy they had and added or spliced them to the original. Nothing was removed or taken out.
How would you or any of them know they were working with the original?
-
[...]
I was throwing Newsweek back at the poster who claimed this. Otherwise, who cares who received a COPY of the Z film? They certainly didn't receive nor damage the original.
I'm the guy you were replying to at the time, yet I didn't mention Newsweek.
Just for shoots and googles, I used the site search engine to find the string "newsweek." All I got back was you bringing up Newsweek, and others quoting and/or replying to your claim.
-
I'm the guy you were replying to at the time, yet I didn't mention Newsweek.
Just for shoots and googles, I used the site search engine to find the string "newsweek." All I got back was you bringing up Newsweek, and others quoting and/or replying to your claim.
Then I suppose you were the one who corrected your post before I quoted you. I don't recall because whoever received a copy of the Z-film, and damaged it, is irrelevant.
But what about the rest of my post? Or is that all you got as a rebut?
-
My suggestion is that you said something based on a either a vague memory of something someone else said at some point in the past or a memory of something vague that someone said, also in the past. Either way, you didn't remember the original source, and may not have ever known the original source other than via someone else's commentary about it. I suspect that you believed it when you said it, but when called on it, the underlying knowledge was a bit more nebulous than you'd first figured.
I give you a lot of credit for coming clean. This kind of thing happens more than we like to realize. Lots of people would simply try to bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns their way out; you didn't.
I appreciate that you recognizing coming clean with a failed claim as a positive Kudos to you as well for just not attacking my lack of being able to produce a reference for a claim
-
This is pretty good evidence that the limo slowed down but it did not come to a complete stop. Watch in the upper right of the Nix film. As the cyclist is trying to keep pace with the car and the head shot hits, he suddenly slams on his brake. You can tell because the shock absorber bounces as he stops.
The limo though never stops, just slows down then speeds up and lucky for Hill he was running at full trot to grab on.
FWIW - I've used this video ad nauseum to prove that the Z film is original and not doctored in any way. But of course the crazies out there always disagree with that assessment.
-
Obviously if there was significant slowing that is not captured in the Zapruder film that would seem to lead to the conclusion of less frames are there than should be
-
Obviously if there was significant slowing that is not captured in the Zapruder film that would seem to lead to the conclusion of less frames are there than should be
Matt, they match up. Perfectly. If you think otherwise, more power to you.
-
Then I suppose you were the one who corrected your post before I quoted you. I don't recall because whoever received a copy of the Z-film, and damaged it, is irrelevant.
Your powers of supposition have failed you. Maybe you need further study at the suppository to improve your skills? I never used "Newsweek" in the first place. Would be foolish to scrub it, anyway, since most current content management systems journal changes instead of overwriting.
But what about the rest of my post? Or is that all you got as a rebut?
My reply was reply #186 yesterday at 06:33:34 PM. This must not be your week.
-
Matt, they match up. Perfectly. If you think otherwise, more power to you.
I thought the speed of the limo relative to the background reflect a constant speed I thought that was the whole point
-
FWIW - I've used this video ad nauseum to prove that the Z film is original and not doctored in any way. But of course the crazies out there always disagree with that assessment.
You're using the film itself to demonstrate the authenticity of the film? How does that work?
(http://www.yim778.com/data/out/185/1178361.gif)
-
You're using the film itself to demonstrate the authenticity of the film? How does that work?
(http://www.yim778.com/data/out/185/1178361.gif)
Two people with cameras from opposite sides of the street shooting the same sequence. If one looks "funny" then one or the other has been faked some how. They don't which means they're authentic.
PS - and why would the guy in NZ make a synched tape like that? To prove they both match.
PPS - I'm not into animated icons. One of the biggest all-time jerks I've ever come across on JFK forums, Dave Josephs, uses them like the 50-year-old child that he is.
-
Two people with cameras from opposite sides of the street shooting the same sequence. If one looks "funny" then one or the other has been faked some how. They don't which means they're authentic.
What if they all look funny? Weren't they shot at different frame rates?
-
Two people with cameras from opposite sides of the street shooting the same sequence. If one looks "funny" then one or the other has been faked some how. They don't which means they're authentic.
PS - and why would the guy in NZ make a synched tape like that? To prove they both match.
PPS - I'm not into animated icons. One of the biggest all-time jerks I've ever come across on JFK forums, Dave Josephs, uses them like the 50-year-old child that he is.
If they are willing to alter one why would they not be willing to alter another?
-
The original Orville Nix film was studied in 1978 by the HSCA , but was lost when they returned it to UPI in 1979. Copies of the film were returned to the Nix family, but the whereabouts of the original film remains a mystery. If found ,the film could possibly reveal important details , like the presence of a shooter on the grassy knoll. Examination of the film shows the image of what seems to be a shooter on the top of a car. Gayle Nix Jackson, Orville's granddaughter , is on the hunt for the original film since 1988. Gayle wrote a book titled , Orville Nix: The Missing Kennedy Assassination Film . In the search of the film, she has talked to many people, among them Maurice Schonfeld , co-founder of CNN. In 1963 , Schonfeld was a
UPI executive who agreed to pay Orville Nix $5,000 for his film . In 1978, HSCA only studied 8 frames of the film. Two experts of the HSCA photo panel, Drs. Clyde Snow and Paul Roetling, told Gayle Nix that "they had never studied the film, only frames...Eight frames were shown to them and those were the 8 frames studied". The HSCA studied the film with the image of what seems to be that of a shooter leaning on the top of a car but they concluded that the image is simply a combination of lights and shadows. Gayle Nix Jackson is on this forum. Personally I don't think it was just coincidental that the original Nix film was not returned to the Nix family. I feel like there were parts of the Nix film that showed something that certain people did not want us to see .
ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1189005
-
Matt, they match up. Perfectly. If you think otherwise, more power to you.
Claiming that Creation matches up "Perfectly" is an exaggeration worthy of a Used Car Salesman. Viewing this Mulligan Stew repeatedly via You Tube reveals at least 2 areas which refute your "Perfectly" description: (1) The movements of the guy that went to the ground behind Ike Altgens, and (2) The slipping/stumbling SA Hill as he attempts to step up on the bumper/climb atop the Limo trunk lid. Interestingly, when Dino Brugioni was comparing the Zapruder Film he Examined on 11/23/63 to the Current Zapruder Film, the footage which displays the SA Hill/Jackie tussle on the Limo trunk lid was footage he called into question.
-
Two people with cameras from opposite sides of the street shooting the same sequence. If one looks "funny" then one or the other has been faked some how. They don't which means they're authentic.
What if they all look funny? Weren't they shot at different frame rates?
John, for what it's worth, it doesn't matter how many frames were going through the camera's gate. If one was running at 1,000 FPS and the other was running at 10 FPS - but they both captured the same 20-second scene - they will match up.
Of course the 1k version will look crystal clear because it was capturing so much detail. The 20 one will obviously be like the Z and Nix films. But if someone in the car had a flash on their camera and snapped a photo and the flash fired, you can take both films, sync them up on the very first flash frame then play them back at normal speed (play back speed) and they'll match up.
I shot wedding video for 15 years. Now I'm talking about video here now vs film but the same principal concept is the same. We used to start recording 5 minutes before the start and I'd go down and aim a flash at both cameras, fire it, and then I used that to sync the tapes up for editing.
But back to the NZ YTV video - the sync they did shows clearly that nothing sinister was going on with either film.