Were JFK autopsy photos altered?

[Marksbrother]

30 witnesses in Dallas described a large wound in the (anatomical) right rear of JFK's head. Such a massive wound

could only be the result of a shot which originated from in front of the limo.

Here's what some of them said:

SSA Clint Hill: The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head.

DP witness Phil Willis: It took the back of his head off

DP witness Marilyn Willis: Matter was coming out the back of his head

Nurse Diana Bowron: There was a gaping wound in the back of his head. It was gone. Gone. There was nothing there. Just a big gaping hole. There might have been little clumps of scalp, but most of the bone over the hole, there was no bone there. There was no damage to the front of his face, only wound in the back of his head and the entry wound in his throat. The wound was so large I could almost put my whole fist into it

Nurse Doris Nelson: There wasn’t even hair back there. It was blown away. All that area was blown out(when shown the rear of head autopsy photo)

Nurse Pat Hutton: A doctor asked me to place a pressure dressing on the head wound. This was of no use, however, because of the massive opening on the back of the head.

Dr Malcolm Perry: there was blood noted on the carriage and a large avulsive wound on the right posterior cranium.

Dr Robert McClelland: I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted… we did not lift his head up since it was so greatly damaged. We attempted to avoid moving him any more than it was absolutely necessary, but I could see, of course, all the extent of the wound.

Dr Marion Jenkins: Part of the brain was herniated; I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound (note "cerebellum", and where it is located)


Dr Ronald Jones: There was large defect in the back side of the head as the President lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted next with the brain and with a tremendous amount of clot and blood.

Dr Paul Peters: I noticed the head wound, and as I remember--I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput. It seemed to me that in the right occipitalparietal area that there was a large defect. There appeared to be bone loss and brain loss in the area…we speculated as to whether he had been shot once or twice because we saw the wound of entry in the throat and noted the large occipital wound

Dr Kemp Clark: 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.

Nurse Audrey Bell: Dr Perry turned the President's head slightly to the President's anatomical left so that she could see a right posterior head wound, which she described as occipital

Nurse Margaret Hinchcliff: the President had a gaping wound in the back of his head and an entrance wound in his throat.

Dr. Charles Crenshaw: The wound was the size of a baseball(photo depicts Crenshaw indicating right rear)

Dr. Kenneth Salyer: This wound extended into the parietal area(photo depicts Salyer indicating right rear)

Dr. Charles Carrico: There was a large, quite large, defect about here(photo depicts Carrico indicating right rear)

Aubrey Rike(Oneal Funeral Home, Dallas):You could feel the sharp edges of the bone at the edge of the hole in the back of the head

Bethesda photographer Floyd Riebe: a big gaping hole in the back of the head

FBI SA Frank O’Neill: a massive wound in the right rear

Petty Officer Saundra Spencer: They had one(autopsy photo) showing the back of the head with the wound at the back of the head. It was just a ragged hole.

Mortician Thomas Robinson: about the size of a small orange…Circular…ragged… directly behind the back of his head…they brought a piece of heavy duty rubber, again to fill this area in the back of the head…it had to be all dried out, packed, and the rubber placed in the hair and the skin pulled back over…and stitched into that piece of rubber.

FBI SA James Sibert: it was a good size, in the back part of the head there. Well, I think about 3 1/2 inches one way then quite a bit the other...they showed the pictures at that deposition that were neat in appearance, and boy, I don't remember anything like that
...but my recollection of the way the head looked is nothing that would appear as this photograph shows. This photograph is too neat. Right back here is where you would have had that massive wound, right in here, and you see that's neat. My thought was that that was probably taken after reconstruction was done... there was a big cavity there. I mean that you could look in to. The skull wasn’t intact, the bones weren’t in place…there definitely was a large cavity. It was just that apparent that there was so much skull missing

Law: Can you give me some information on the head wound?

Sibert: Oh, it was a good size, in the back part of the head there. Well, I think about 3 1/2 inches one way then quite a bit the other...now those two(Boswell and Humes) stayed there till about 5:30 in the morning as I recall. That was their admission--that they stayed and helped the morticians. In other words, they must have taken some other pictures too, because they showed the pictures at that deposition that were neat in appearance, and boy, I don't remember anything like that.

...but my recollection of the way the head looked is nothing that would appear as this photograph shows. This photograph is too neat. Right back here is where you would have had that massive wound, right in here, and you see that's neat. My thought was that that was probably taken after reconstruction was done...


So, where did the rear head wound go that 30 witnesses described, but isn't in the autopsy photo?

[noise]

1. Reality doesn't matter

If our leaders say Oswald shot JFK from the book depository then that is all one needs to know.

Patriotism=authoritarianism.

[Octafish]

2. Someone's been tampering with evidence.

The chain of evidence regarding the autopsy imagery is broken in dozens, if not hundreds or thousands of places, starting on November 22, 1963. That makes it obvious, to me, that people in positions of power have worked to obscure honest investigators.

That's obstruction of justice. Why has no one been charged?

Here's an excellent resource with lots o' articles:

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Medical_Evidence

[William Seger]

9. So you think the Zapruder film is faked, too?

It clearly shows a shot from behind:



And does not show any large wound on the back of the head:



It's consistent with the autopsy report. So it must be fake, huh?

[Marksbrother]

11. The bottom frame shows the avulsion in the back of his head

The avulsion wound is proof that he was struck by a bullet that originated from in front of him.

[William Seger]

12. No, it doesn't show any such thing

And you're still terrified of that top graphic, aren't you.

[Marksbrother]

13. Every JFK expert agrees that's exactly what it shows

Sorry, "seger". You gave evidence against your own interest, but no one made you do it.

[William Seger]

16. LOL, no they don't

First, not "every JFK expert" is a conspiracy theorist, and second, many who consider themselves to be have decided that the Zapruder film just doesn't show what they want it to, so it "must" be a fake.

Imaginary evidence doesn't allow you to conclude anything.

[Marksbrother]

18. Your response is laughable. The evidence is devastating

to Lone Nutters. Name one credible expert who says that JFK's head didn't have an avulsive wound in the rear portion.

[timster]

97. no facial blowout

[Marksbrother]

14. Do you know what an avulsive wound is, or are you just pretending

that you can't see it in the bottom frame capture from the Z film?

[William Seger]

15. You must think it means "invisible"

But perhaps you are confused by Jackie's glove:



Nor do the frames immediately following the bullet impact show any evidence of an "avulsive" ("explosive") wound at the back of the head:



The Zapruder film shows no evidence of an avulsive wound on the rear of the head, but it shows very clearly the huge avulsive wound above the ear and toward the front that was described in the autopsy report.

[Marksbrother]

17. Name 1 credible expert who says there's no avulsion wound

in the back of JFK's head.

[k-robjoe]

103. Glove

You wrote :

"...perhaps you are confused by Jackie's glove"

but the image you posted has since dissapeared. I´m just curious to see it. If you can still find it online?

[Cetacea]

112. Wrong. It appears in 337.

It can be seen after the the explosive head shot , suggestive of a second shot fired from the front just after the rear shot. It also helps explain how the two police officers traveling behind the limo were pelted with brain tissue and why Jackie was trying to retrieve brain matter from the trunk. She was clearly not looking directly at him during the the head shot at 313. Watch how quickly she removes her hand from him 1/2 second later and her reaction (pushed through major media as an attempt to escape the limo.)


An excellent video here, btw:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVfIh-8nXyQ

[SDuderstadt]

116. Where's the entrance wound from...

the "front head shot", dude?

Of course, anything is possible when you don't know what you're talking about.

[Cetacea]

119. Can you disprove it, dude?

[SDuderstadt]

121. Take a course in Logic...

it's YOUR claim. I don't have to disprove it. YOU have to prove it.

[Cetacea]

124. It's a discussion based on in theory. No one has to prove anything.

[SDuderstadt]

126. Oh, I see...

in other words, you can't prove your claims, so let's just pretend we're merely discussing "theories".

[spooked911]

20. you're taking this out of context

he was already moving forward, and then jerked backward as soon as he was hit.

Nice try at distraction. I imagine you know the truth.

[SDuderstadt]

21. Bullshit, Spooked...

Anyone can watch the video and see what you are claming is simply not true.

[Marksbrother]

22. Spooked911 is exactly right. YOU are the BS peddler

Anyone can watch the Z film and see that you are peddling TBBS.

[SDuderstadt]

23. Done with your silliness, dude...

eventually it will sink in. I'm sure of it. I do have to say, however, your fixation on me is a tad troubling.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

26. "Truther Logic"

Vigorous debate is "truth suppression".

[timster]

98. the bullet blew out the back of the brain

[William Seger]

28. Spooky is exactly wrong

... and I think we've now determined how accurate you both are in your observations.

[Marksbrother]

30. Yes, we're both right and you couldn't be more wrong.

Nothing new.

[William Seger]

27. No, I am not. You are wrong.

Frames 309 through 313:



I won't hold my breath waiting for an apology. I imagine you wouldn't know the truth when it's right in front of your eyes.

[Marksbrother]

29. You either don't know what an avulsive wound is, or else you

are intentionally misrepresenting the evidence. The evidence is obvious to those who know the subject and those who don't

know the medical evidence can see the avulsion when it is pointed out to them.


It doesn't help your credibility whenever you hide your own evidence! Why'd you eliminate the photo in question, "seger"? Wait,

wait. I know. Because it shows the avulsion which proves that JFK was shot from in front.


Is your favorite rock group "Cheap Trick"?

[William Seger]

31. Too late, Sparky

You've already jumped in to "confirm" Spooky's completely false statement about the head already moving forward when the bullet hit. And you certainly won't avoid embarrassment and recover any credibility by trying to change the subject to your equally imaginary "avulsive head wound" on the back of the head, when it's quite clear from the Zapruder film where it was. As always, when your delusions are confronted with reality, all you've got is denial. You're like the Black Knight in the Monty Python Holy Grail movie: pathetic but always good for a laugh.

[Marksbrother]

32. Now you gone and erased BOTH photos! That makes you

look suspiciously aware that you're wrong. Would you also say that every doctor is also wrong who has examined the evidence and says

that JFK's avulsion in the rear of his head is proof that he was shot from the front? Or would you play like you didn't see this

post? Or would you try and change the subject? Try to bait in hopes that you can claim to have been insulted and therefore

are entitled to have the "offending" post deleted?


You're out of your league on this one, "seger". Give it up and go back to trying to fool people who don't know the evidence.

[William Seger]

39. WTF are you yammering about?

Nothing's been erased, except your last tiny shard of credibility, and I think that really happened about 100 posts ago.

And we've already finished with your "avulsive head wound" nonsense, twice, so last time for this: There isn't any evidence of one at the back of the head in the Zapruder film. If there was an avulsive head wound at the back of the head, we would see blood and brain matter exploding out the back of the head in that frame 313. That's what an avulsive wound means! You keep throwing that word around just because you read it somewhere, but you clearly don't understand it. But there isn't any doubt about where the avulsive head wound is in the Zapruder film: It's that massive hole in the front-right that's throwing gory stuff up and forward. I'm not sure what's wrong with your eyes (well, I do have my suspicions), but claiming you or other conspiracy nuts see something else there is pointless, boring, and inane. Get with the modern CT program and declare the Zapruder film fake, since it doesn't (and never will) support your paranoid conjectures. But the Zapruder film is consistent with the autopsy x-rays, and both have been verified as authentic by people who are actually experts, not self-defined experts who market conspiracy theories.

[Marksbrother]

42. Doctors & other experts are on record and I trust them, not you.

You disappeared the photos, one at a time, because they disprove your own bogus claim. I know what an avulsive wound is, because

I've studied the medical evidence. It doesn't appear that you had ever even heard of the term until after you posted a Z frame

that shows it and I explained to you that by your own evidence you've provided proof that JFK was shot from in front.


Maybe you should stick to issues where you're more adept at evading the evidence or at least explaining/spinning it away.

[William Seger]

45. No "disappeared" photos

... and no "explosive wound" to the back of JFKs head visible in the Zapruder film. You've "studied" conspiracy marketeers, but apparently you can't even see the Zapruder film.

You're losing it, MB. Maybe you should seek professional help.

(I mean an optometrist, of course. :eyes:)

[Marksbrother]

46. Semantics. So, you didn't disappear them, you just stopped

posting them. I see. Well, that IS a huge difference, I've got to admit. However, semantics aside, the fact remains that

the physical and medical evidence prove that JFK was struck from a bullet fired from in front of him and that caused an avulsion

in the back of his head. As the doctors described it, the bones were "sprung" out, giving a cone-shaped appearance which can

be seen in the Z film frame which you posted but later omitted in follow-up posts after your "mistaken" (bogus) claim was

disproven by your own evidence.


I even gave you a chance to save face by citing a credible expert who will substantiate your opinion that there is no avulsive

wound in the back of JFK's head, as seen in the Z film. Thus far, you haven't found it convenient to cite such an expert.

Instead, you've reached into your TB handbook for a few attempts to change the subject, evade the question, and of course,

insult the very person you should be apologizing to. I guess you're proving to be one of the exceptions to the general rule

that liberals have better manners than right-wingers and are generally much nicer people.

[William Seger]

52. WTF are you yammering about?

> " So, you didn't disappear them, you just stopped posting them. I see. Well, that IS a huge difference, I've got to admit."

Serious, WTF are you yammering about? The photos I posted have not "disappeared" and I have not "just stopped posting them." I can see all of them just fine (and I just checked using a different computer to make sure it wasn't because my browser has them cached), so if you're trying to say that you can't see them, maybe you should check your own system before jumping to conclusions.

Oh, I forgot. Jumping to conclusions is what you do best.

Actually, that's probably second best. Best would be logical fallacies such as "assuming the consequent," "appeal to authority" and "confirmation bias." We're talking about what the Zapruder film does and doesn't show, and you have yet to explain why it doesn't show what you keep claiming it shows (any sign of an "explosive" wound at the back of the head), and you have yet to explain why it shows exactly what I've been saying it shows (a backward head-snap immediately after the hit). Instead of even attempting any of that, you want to say it must be true because some conspiracy marketeers told you it's true (a.k.a. "appeal to authority," with a dubious authority as a kicker). Either you're asking people to deny what their own eyes show and instead accept your logical fallacy, or you're disingenuously trying to deny that you've already lost this "debate" and hope only a few people will notice.

But as pointless and boring as this is, I've decided to not let you get away with that. As for "credible expert who will substantiate {my} opinion that there is no avulsive wound in the back of JFK's head," I strongly recommend that you read http://web.archive.org/web/20060115035336/www.zimmermanjfk.com/frontmenu_000010.htm">Dr. Chad Zimmerman's extensive analysis. But I suspect you're just baiting me to list some of the well-known non-conspiracists who don't see any "avulsive wound" on the back of the head, just so you can say "HA! He's not a CREDIBLE expert!" (because he doesn't agree with you, a.k.a. "confirmation bias"). But maybe you can explain why master conspiracy marketeer Harrison Livingstone (four books) doesn't see one either: "If the film shows a huge wound to the right side of the face, as it does, then all the witnesses who saw the dying or dead President and all the autopsy photographs are wrong. Common sense tells us they can't all be wrong (High Treason 2, 362)." Of course, he goes on to say: "Common sense, therefore, tells us that the film is wrong. That it is a fake." (That's the kind of "common sense" you have, huh, a.k.a. "assuming the consequent.") It won't matter to him or you that http://www.jfk-info.com/moot1.htm">actual experts have confirmed that the film is genuine. Nope, if JFK was shot from the front, then the Zapruder film and the x-rays must be fake, even though the http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/autopsy2.txt">x-rays have also been judged as genuine by experts. You want more experts? The HSCA http://www.jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo/hscv7c.htm#kenhein">re-examined ALL of the evidence about wounds, with expert testimoney, and reached an unambiguous conclusion: Two shots from the rear.

There's a reason you are losing this "debate" so badly, MB, every which way you try to twist it. Maybe some day you'll figure it out.

Or maybe not.

[SDuderstadt]

53. My money's on "not"...

What's the most I can bet?

[Marksbrother]

58. As you know, the evidence proves an avulsive wound on the rear of his head

Is there some particular reason why you continue to try and change the location? The entry point for the bullet which caused

the avulsion was on the right forehead area above his eye, at the hairline, but there's no avulsion there. Do you even know

what an avulsive wound is? Doesn't appear that you do.


You may be confusing the wounds elsewhere on his head with the "surgery" that was done after the president left Parkland Hospital.

[SDuderstadt]

62. Where's your picture of the "entrance wound" in JFK's forehead?

Oh, you don't have one? One doesn't exist? Thought so.

[William Seger]

65. Game over, MB

Actually, game, set and match. Obviously you have nothing left but denial and "proof by assertion." Pointless and boring.

[SDuderstadt]

66. And he certainly has no picture of this...

fairytale ''entrance wound in JFK's forehead''. Let's face it...it's not only game, set and match but, to add to the indignity, it appears someone has also stolen his racquet.

[Marksbrother]

69. You were proven wrong and it must be irritating you.

You even provided the evidence which shows how wrong you are.

[SDuderstadt]

47. WS...I love you, man...

(especially your well-reasoned posts) but you're trying to reason with a "no-planer" and one that has no aversion to twiating what you say or omitting evidence that contradicts his goofy claims. Let me suggest that there are some claims too bizarre to require refutation: "no-planes" and JFK assassination CT claims that fly in the face of the Zapruder film both fit perfectly into that category.

MB isn't a serious debater in the least. He's more like the 9/11 Forum pinata, except the more he gets his ass kicked, the more he thinks he "won".

[SDuderstadt]

33. Take it easy on MB...

with the exception of defendandprotect, Spooked is probably the last ally he has for his utter silliness.

[Marksbrother]

34. Thank you for helping to keep this thread active

No need to do anything different than what you've been doing.

You can continue to post as much goofiness as you wish. It's a minor irritant that's worth putting up with in order

for interested DUers to learn more of the truth about the conspiracy to assassinate JFK.

[SDuderstadt]

35. Always glad to give you the space...

to expose your bizarre claims, dude. Left to your own devices, you never fail to make ''trutherism'' look like a fraud. Keep flailing away, dude.

[Marksbrother]

43. Thanks dude yourself

The more people know about the conspiracy that took JFK's life, the more likely it is that those same people will be able to see a

repaeat of the pattern in the murder of his brother Robert.

[spooked911]

36. the problem with the head forward theory is that the blood spray at 313 totally distorts the image

of JFKs head so it's not really clear if he goes forward a bit or not

also, you're ignoring the massive jerk back of his whole body which is totally damning to a back of the head shot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-cri43ttTo&feature=related



yes it looks sort of like his head makes a slight dip at 313 but the whole shot gets blurry at that point so it is just as bad as what you say we use for evidence of no planes.

[SDuderstadt]

37. Why would his head go forward at all...

Spooked? Seger has shown that convincingly.

[spooked911]

38. it's not convincing-- and you're ignoring the massive backwards movement

of his body

[SDuderstadt]

40. Umm, no, I'm not, Spooked...

why did JFK's head snap forward (it almost buries in his chest) when the bullet hit, Spooked? Wouldn't you be better off trying to prove the WTC was nuked?

[spooked911]

48. eye roll

you're a waste of time

[SDuderstadt]

50. You're one to talk, Spooked....

n/t

[Marksbrother]

59. He DID

Maybe ws will profess his "love" for you since no one else seems interested in your tribulations. After all, he "owes" you

one, doesn't he?

[SDuderstadt]

63. DONE, dude....

I'm thinking now of having it translated into various languages until I stumble upon one you comprehend. I'm thinking it will be a long wait.

[William Seger]

41. That "slight dip" is about 2.3 inches, according to people who have analyzed it quantitatively

... and that would put JKF's chin solidly on his chest. The "back and to the left" that starts two frames later appears to be at least partly because the chin bounced off his chest. And, no, I have not ignored that "back and to the left": I have explained multiple times that it cannot possibly be caused by an impact that happened two frames earlier. Cartoon physics are irrelevant; the bullet could only impart momentum to the head during that split second that it was passing through the head. That was between 312 and 313, and frame 313 shows all that we can ever know about the immediate effect: It pushed JFK's head forward until his chin hit his chest.

Frame 313 is very blurry, but I have aligned it with 312 as best that pixelization will allow, by using a "difference" filter on the two layered together and moving the 313 layer until the difference between 312 and 313 was minimal. The forward head snap is quite real.

I happened to have found that forward snap for myself a couple years ago (actually, as a result of someone posting a link to the frames on this board), but since then I have learned that it is a well-known and thoroughly analyzed event -- it's just an ignored fact among the conspiracy marketeers, which is why you've probably never seen it.

But I'm glad you've dropped the "already moving forward" nonsense, even if you didn't apologize.

[spooked911]

49. as I said -- frame 313 is extremely blurry, so it is hard to trust that measurement

sounds like you manipulated the frames quite a bit as well. I don't trust you or that film.

but the overall problem is that the Z film has been extensively altered, in many ways-- that blob on JFK's face is undoubtedly fake, for instance.

Moreover, it's bullshit to write off the backwards movement, which was very quick and was too extensive and obvious for the CIA to edit out.

"I have explained multiple times that it cannot possibly be caused by an impact that happened two frames earlier. "

That's laughable-- two frames are a mere fraction of a second (~0.1 second), and a body just doesn't react much quicker than that.

[SDuderstadt]

51. "that blob on JFK's face is undoubtedly fake"...

Again I ask, Spooked...is there any conspiracy theory so goofy even YOU won't embrace it?

[William Seger]

55. You don't have to "trust the measurement "down to the 1/10th inch

It's real -- in addition to that gap, the angle of the head has changed -- and it conclusively proves the shot was from the rear.

> "sounds like you manipulated the frames quite a bit as well."

You are a liar. I aligned the frames as best I could, and if you think you can do better, let's see it. And the next time you accuse me of fraud -- this certainly isn't the first time -- you damn well better have some proof, or I'm going to ask the moderators to kick you ass back to your ridiculous blog. I don't have to put up with your lies as well as putting up with your bullshit theories.

> "Moreover, it's bullshit to write off the backwards movement, which was very quick and was too extensive and obvious for the CIA to edit out."

Nobody wrote off the backward motion. There are at least three plausible explanations for it -- the "jet effect," neuromuscular reflex spasm, and compression/release of the backbone after the head was throw forward -- all of which were probably at work. The point that you would so desperately like to avoid is that it can't be explained by momentum from the bullet two frames delayed, especially when frame 313 shows the immediate forward reaction from the bullet.

> "That's laughable-- two frames are a mere fraction of a second (~0.1 second), and a body just doesn't react much quicker than that."

No, what's laughable is your frequent attempts to grapple with physics. The head DID react almost instantaneously by being thrown forward, just as the physics of momentum transfer would dictate. There are no physics that allow the momentum transfer to be delayed for even two frames.

[spooked911]

70. another problem besides the blurriness-- Jackie's head dips down too in frame 313--

Note-- the relative position of JFK's head to Jackie's hat never really changes from 311 to 313.

It seems the angle of the camera changed slightly in those three frames to give an appearance that the heads are dipping down.

[Marksbrother]

71. Don't fall into the "technical" trap. It's a standard method

used by artful purveyors of erroneous BS and disproven theories. "They" can always find someone or some article which claims the

opposite of the truth.

[William Seger]

79. Strike four and five

> "Note-- the relative position of JFK's head to Jackie's hat never really changes from 311 to 313."

I note no such thing. Quite the contrary: in 313, I note the head pitches forward with respect to everything else in the limo.

> "It seems the angle of the camera changed slightly in those three frames to give an appearance that the heads are dipping down."

The camera and the limo were both moving, so changing the camera angle slightly would be unavoidable. What's your point? The angle would change with respect to everything in the limo, so the forward head-snap is no illusion of camera angle.

[Marksbrother]

60. The blob was painted on the film

You are right that the Z film was "extensively altered, in many ways". One of those many alterations was the removal

of frames so that the film doesn't show the limo come to a near or complete stop in the "kill zone".

[Marksbrother]

44. There is no proof one way or the other. Only possibilities.

There are many possible explanations for the appearance, on the Z film, that JFK's head moved forward for a fraction of a second

before it was slammed violently back and to his left.


There is only ONE explanation for the violent back and to the left movement, and that is why the two TBs ignore that critical

and crucial evidence.

[eomer]

54. Must be another magic bullet -- it somehow manages to stretch Jackie's arm a couple of inches.

See how Jackie's right arm is distorted by two or three inches in frame 313 compared with 312? And it's not that JFK is moved out of the way letting you see more of her arm -- the part that is stretched the most is actually the width of her forearm.

So if the question we were discussing was whether the bullet penetrated Jackie's forearm and caused it to bulge several inches wider, congratulations, you've just proved your case! Brilliant work!

Whatever manipulation you did on this image obviously does not provide a reliable indicator of size, shape, or position of objects relative to each other. And, let's make it perfectly clear to anyone who might read this that the frame 313 that you're showing here is not the original -- rather it is a manipulated version that you produced by digital editing. If your attempt to digitally correct frame 313 -- to undo the blur -- had accurately positioned objects back to where they actually were realworld then there could not possibly exist this distortion of her arm.

And finally, the distortion of Jackie's arm is of at least as much distance as the movement you attempt to find in JFK's head, is in the same area of the frame and in the same direction, giving a strong indication that the apparent movement of the head could be nothing more than the same false effect that is causing the apparent widening of the forearm. So, no, the head movement is not a conclusion that is safely demonstrated by your digital edit.

[eomer]

57. An even more incredible result you can prove with your technique of comparing frames 312 and 313:

The bouquet of roses held by Mrs. Connally has been thrown forward with such force that it has pierced its way into the metal roll bar of the limousine! And can you guess how far into the rollbar it was driven? About two to three inches!

ETA:

The reason that the roses seem to pierce the metal rollbar is that when the camera is jiggled, lighter objects will win out over darker objects due to the physics of film being exposed to light. The rollbar is darker than the yellow rose so when the rollbar and the rose both get laid over a particular spot on the film (at two different instants of time), the light colored yellow rose wins out. This same effect could explain why Kennedy's head seems to move forward. The back of his head is very dark. The bright pink of Jackie's sleeve that is next to it will clearly win out and overwrite the dark area of the back of Kennedy's head as the camera jiggles and the objects smear over each other.

The position that the head was in at one instant leaves a dark spot on the film. An instant later that same area occupied by the dark head gets exposed by the pink light of the sleeve. Clearly the pink wins out over the dark brown and the back of the head seems to disappear from a spot that it actually, physically, was in. Just like the dark blue back edge of the roll bar disappears when it is overlaid by the yellow rose. This is proof that the back edge of Kennedy's head would also disappear from an area that it actually occupied.

[Marksbrother]

61. Astute analysis.

Excellent work, to be followed by hoots, howls, evasions, and maybe more WS magic. Plus an insult or three or two.

[Cetacea]

127. +1k

Why on earth would you think that?

[William Seger]

64. LOL, maybe In the ironic sense, since there's nothing magic about it.

That's just blurring from camera motion, and the forward snap is evident even after accounting for it. I suggest you take a closer look at it (and give it some thought) to why that's so:

The blurring causes everything in 313 to look longer horizontally, apparently because the camera was moving horizontally when the frame was exposed. But I have aligned the images so as to equalize that horizontal elongation as much as possible. That's why e.g. Jackie's arm and the door handle appear to stretch in both directions. Here's a larger version showing the same "expansion" in both directions for all features, including the bouquet -- all except for one, that is!



Because I have centered the blurring, for all the discernible objects and edges in the image, the left edge appears to move slightly to the left, and the right edge appears to move slightly to the right. For all objects, that is, except for the back of JFKs head: The left edge moves to the right. That implies that that the head itself must have moved to the right, and the horizontal blurring implies that the forward motion was actually even more than just the minimum visible gap that I have shown.

I'm really surprised that you would do such a sloppy analysis, eomer, without giving it some more thought. I had thought you were more careful than that.

[eomer]

68. No, look again.

It's not true that everything in 313 looks horizontally longer. Light objects look horizontally longer, while dark objects look horizontally shorter. This is true because light objects win out over dark objects in the process of light exposing the film.

So if the blurring motion were, say, three inches from left to right then the left edge of a light object will appear as if it is in the position at the start of the blur and the right edge of that same light object will appear as if it is in the position at the end of the blur, making the light object appear three inches wider than it really is.

The left edge of a dark object, on the other hand, will appear as if it is in the position at the end of the blur and the right edge of that same dark object will appear as if it is in the position at the beginning of the blur, making it appear three inches narrower than it really is.

You can clearly see this effect by looking at Connally's head in your animation. The light area of his forehead appears to get wider in the transition from 312 to 313, while the dark area of his temple appears to get narrower.

The area of controversy in these frames is the left side of Kennedy's head. We have to look at the left side because the right side is obscured. So we are looking at the left edge of a dark object with a light object to its left. If you want to try to realign things to correct for the blur then the accurate way to do it would be to take a slice from 313 and lay it over 312 while aligning all the areas that have an edge between a dark object on the right and a light object on the left. When you do this correctly you will notice that the areas of the frames that have the inverse relationship (an edge between a light object on the right and a dark object on the left) will not line up between the two frames but rather will be offset by the length of the blur. This is the right way. What you've done, apparently, is to split the difference.

The proof that your method is inaccurate is the observation that the right side of Connally's forehead appears to jump to the right in your animation. Connally's forehead is a light object that is to the left of a dark object (his wife's face, which is in shadow) and therefore is analogous to our area of controversy. You will know that you've lined things up correctly when the right edge of Connally's forehead does not move at all in the transition from 312 to 313.

As I said, it looks to me like what you've done is to split the difference. Instead of lining up the right edge of light objects, you've taken light objects and lined them up where the left edge is offset about the same amount as the right side. This splitting the difference results in you being off by half the length of the blur.

If you try it again the way I'm proposing then you will see that most, but not all, of the head movement gets eliminated by the correction, when done correctly.

In place of the two inch movement that your animation appears to show, I believe there is actually more like a one inch movement.

I don't have time this morning but when I get a break I will try to produce a new version of your animation based on lining up the right side of light objects that have a dark object next to them on their right. Or perhaps you have the time and would be willing to put it together. If we get it right then the right edge of Connally's forehead will appear to remain stationary. The left edge of Kennedy's head will, I believe, appear to move to the right about half of what your current animation implies, or about one inch.

[William Seger]

72. Nope, I don't agree that's the "correct" way to do it, but that doesn't make the head-snap go away

What you are saying is a convoluted way of saying that you want to align the frames where the 313 exposure ends, so that all the blurring is to the left. I don't agree that that's the "correct" way to align them if the objective is to determine the actual amount of motion, but that's really a different argument. I didn't do it that way because visually, the frames don't look aligned when you do that -- 313 looks like it jumps to the left when aligned that way -- which makes it harder to judge what's actually happening.

But all that amounts to is quibbling over the exact position of my red lines, which were only intended as a visual aid to point out the forward motion, and it doesn't make the obvious forward motion disappear. I don't claim that my simple demonstration is the source of the 2.3" of forward motion: That was done quantitatively by estimating the actual position of the head in 312 and 313 (not light/dark boundaries), with respect to (I believe) the roll bar. That analysis also measured the motion of the center of the head, whereas my demonstration is simply noting the motion of the head relative to Jackie's arm, which would be less because it's lower, near the neck.

So here you go, and it's a very conservative representation of what you requested:



Even with 313 appearing to jump to the left, the head has clearly moved to the right. The forward motion is as real as the Zapruder film itself, so if the film is authentic then JFK was certainly shot from behind. CTists who want to continue insisting that JFK was shot from the grassy knoll don't really have any choice but to declare the film fake -- and good luck with that with the experts and common sense against you. Zapruder's description of what he filmed, in a http://www.jfk-info.com/wfaa-tv.htm">TV interview the day after it happened (and before the alleged forgery), matches the film exactly, as does the http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpwound.htm">testimony of other Dealy Plaze witnesses.

[eomer]

73. Thanks, that seems to be what I was looking for.

It is a bit misleading to say that 313 jumps to the left. We really need to think of 313 as two frames in one: 313₀ and 313₁. Frame 313₀ consists of all the light/dark edges, which were all captured at time 0. Frame 313₁ consists of all the dark/light edges, which were all captured at time 1.

In your new version, frame 313₀ does not jump to the left; light/dark edges that we assume to be stationary do appear stationary, letting us know that now we have it right. This is shown by your red line positioned at the light/dark edge between Connally's face and his wife's face. You can further confirm that 313₀ does not jump to the left by looking at the light/dark edge on the right side of the various glints off the roll bar and the one glint off the corner of the windshield. These light/dark edges don't jump, therefore your alignment lets us perceive the real movement, if any, of the left edge of Kennedy's head. Your earlier version had all the light/dark edges jumping to the right, which meant that some of the apparent movement in Kennedy's head was an artifact of incorrect alignment rather than realworld movement.

Frame 313₁ does jump to the left but that is irrelevant because we have no idea where the left side of Kennedy's head is in frame 313₁. Light/dark edges can't be seen in frame 313₁ because they were obliterated by light areas during the smear period between times 0 and 1.

Unfortunately the human brain will not naturally focus on just the light/dark edges. It perceives a jump in the transition between 312 and the composite 313. If we could pull the light/dark edges out of both 312 and 313 and display the transition between 312₀ and 313₀, as it were, then our brain would not tell us there was any jump. The only movement we would see would be the real movement, if any, in the left side of Kennedy's head.

The bottom line of all that is that your measurement of a 2.3" movement is a false measurement because it is based on an alignment that does not satisfy the requirement that light/dark edges that are actually stationary should produce a measured movement of 0. The new measurement represented by the red lines in your latest version is the accurate measure because it does satisfy the requirement that stationary light/dark edges should produce a measured movement of 0. That real movement looks more like an inch to me, just like I expected.

That assumes, as you say, that the Zapruder film is not faked. My own belief is that the Zapruder film is part fake and part real. That there was a real Zapruder film that was altered, at least by splicing out a period of time during which the car came to a stop or a near stop. I also believe that frame 313 and some frames immediately following it likely were altered. The blobs in those frames don't look real to me. Also, Kennedy's head in frame 313 seems to lose part of its mass in the back crown area. It's not clear to me whether this latter issue could be nothing more than an artifact of the 313₀/313₁ conflation or not, but it looks unreal at any rate.

The way I look at this is that the eyewitness testimony of the medical team in Dallas is overwhelmingly convincing that there was a large exit wound in the back of Kennedy's head. If there are parts of the Zapruder film that conflict with that testimony and that conclusion then either the testimony has to be false or those parts of the Zapruder film have to be fake. To me this then becomes an easy question. I don't see how all those doctors could be that mistaken or why they would have lied about it. I do see how the Zapruder film could have been altered and why it would have been.

To use a fresh analogy, alteration of the Zapruder film does cause my world to jump to the left or the right -- the world stays right where I see it. All those doctors being mistaken causes such a wrenching jerk that it can't be real -- we must have something out of alignment.

[Marksbrother]

75. That's due to the avulsion wound caused by the bullet shot from in front

"Kennedy's head in frame 313 seems to lose part of its mass in the back crown area."


The bones were sprung out, thus the cone-like shape of his head which causes it to appear

to have lost part of its mass.


One more reason why Z313 is so devastating to the claims of Lone Nutters like "william seger".

[William Seger]

80. 313 destroys your claims, "Marksbrother"

If 313 is authentic, then the shot was from behind. If it's not authentic, then you can't use it to claim any evidence of an "avulsion wound," even imaginary evidence. If there was an avulsion wound to the back of head, we'd see gory stuff shooting in that direction, too. We don't. Why do you keep using that word if you have no idea what it means?

[SDuderstadt]

81. I don't think he can hear you any more, WS...

I believe he pressed his luck once too often... if-you-know-what-I-mean.

[spooked911]

82. the z film was heavily doctored and I'm sure you know it

you probably also know the limo driver Greer did it.

[SDuderstadt]

83. No offense, Spooked....

but the "limo driver did it" theory is as bizarre as your "no planes" theories.

[William Seger]

84. You're sure I know it, huh

Seriously, Spooky, if you really believe that everyone "knows" you are right, so anyone who argues with you must be dishonest, then you have some issues that I don't believe you can deal with by yourself. Please get some help.

[spooked911]

86. I have issues with people like you, that's for sure

[William Seger]

76. Again, the 2.3 inches is not my measurement

That was from a study done by Itek Optical Systems, and they did it by mathematically "deblurring" the image. I still don't agree that your method is the "correct" way to align the images, but it doesn't matter since this was not an attempt to measure the movement, but to simply demonstrate it visually.

Yes, I understand what you are trying to do by aligning that way, but the problem is the very thing you used to introduce it: that the light areas are wider while the dark areas are narrower because the "light wins out." That is not an inherent effect of the motion blur but rather an artifact of a non-linear light response of the film (and/or the scanning process used, since this is a digitized version of a film image). If you had a "perfect" camera and media, with a flat response across its dynamic range, you would see both light and dark areas getting wider from the motion blur, as I said, but they would overlap and smoothly blend together over the distance of the motion blur. The light would not "win out"; e.g. the mid-point of the blended area would represent a 50% contribution from each area, because it was exposed by each area for 50% of the time. The apparent narrowing of the dark area in this digitized film image proves that that isn't happening here, because the light area is "winning out," by being over-represented. But that also means that accurately locating your 313o frame is not so simple. Because it's non-linear, the amount of effect is going to depend on the contrast between any particular light and dark areas, so it's not going to be the same everywhere in the image. If we align the over-represented light area at the right edge of Connally's forehead in each image, that does not guarantee that we are seeing the 313o frame in the correct place on the left edge of JFK's head, because those are both just apparent edges that are not guaranteed to be perfectly correlated. I still believe that "splitting the difference" by minimizing the difference between the overlayed images is "better", even though it means you have to guess where the middle of the blur is at the back of the head. But I don't believe either method would allow any highly accurate measurement of the motion, so I'm not really interested in arguing about it any further: Both methods clearly show the forward head-snap.

As for the doctors at Parkland, have you read http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/head.htm#witnesses">McAdams' analysis of some of their testimony, and how it's been misrepresented in many conspiracy books? They aren't all that consistent, either, which means they can't all be right. Even for the ones that haven't been misinterpreted, I personally don't have a problem understanding that many of the perceptions formed by the people who simply saw JFK lying in the stretcher and the operating table could be wrong in either their initial perceptions or in their reconstructed memories of what they saw: His head would have been a bloody mess, with a lot of blood and brain matter at the back, which could have looked like an exit wound if you didn't clean it up and examine it carefully. If the section of the skull that we see blown out in the Zapruder film had been pressed back into place, as it's reported that Jackie did on the way to the hospital, it could very well look like the major wound was at the back of the head, where most of the bloody mess was.

But the major problem is that I believe we can be quite sure that nobody shot JFK from the front. I find it impossible to believe that anyone would even plan to shoot JFK from the grassy knoll with any expectation of not getting caught, given that there was no way to know in advance who else might be up there. If there was any convincing evidence or irrefutable witness to a second shooter there, then the entire alleged scheme to pin the rap on the "lone nut" would have fallen completely apart and the conspiracy. Furthermore, after somehow getting "patsy" Oswald to shoot at JFK -- which certainly did happen -- there was no need whatsoever to have a second shooter. It just doesn't make sense in its premises, which is why I'm not at all surprised that their is no convincing evidence of a second shooter. The simple explanation for what we know with any degree of certainty is that there wasn't one.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eomer]

78. No, it's not that complicated.

When you have a very dark area next to a fairly light area and further assuming the transition between the two is abrupt then you don't have to get into the response of the film across its dynamic range. That's why I've been focusing on the edges between dark and light. The contrast in the subject matter at those abrupt edges will far exceed any effect that the dynamic response of the film might contribute. A very dark area that gets smeared over by a fairly light area will be completely obscured by the light area. The light area will totally win, no question about it, under the conditions I described.

I have a meeting to run to. I'll see if I can respond to your other points later, probably this evening.

[William Seger]

85. If I get some time this weekend, maybe I'll try some experiments

No point in just arguing about anything that can be tested (although it'll have to be with digital stills rather 8mm film). If I set up some similar scenario and you can determine with reasonably accuracy the distance a dark object moved against a light background, given a still shot before and a motion-blurred shot after, then I might be convinced you are right. (At the least, the potential to learn something about photographic analysis is much more interesting than the settled question of whether or not the Zapruder film shows a forward head-snap.)

[eomer]

87. Everything you need is already in those two frames.

Simply by noticing a certain pattern, the answer is already in front of us. The pattern to notice is that all edges of abrupt transition between light or bright on the left and dark on the right behave similarly. If you adjust the alignment so that one of them doesn't jump then you've adjusted the alignment so that all of them don't jump. All of them, that is, except the edge consisting of the left side of Kennedy's head and Jackie's sleeve. When all the other instances of that pattern don't jump, then this single one does jump, about one inch. That's all you need to know in order to conclude that your latest version, the one you did at my request, is a graphic representation of the movement of Kennedy's head. All that remains is to convert the two red lines in the graphic into a measurement in inches.

I agree that experimenting with a camera would be interesting but I don't see how experimenting with a digital camera will be of any use. How would you know whether the digital camera is simulating accurately what a camera with film would do? The only experiment that would shed any light would one using an old-fashioned movie camera, which would be very hard to accomplish. But luckily there is no need for any experiment at all, for the reasons I gave.

[William Seger]

89. Not quite, and that's my point

Bright reflections all stay in the same place, but for example, the left side of Connoly's head visually appears to jump to the left, as do a couple other light/dark boundaries with low contrast. If you assume that your 313₀ frame is at the very lightest part of those blurs that you can detect, then they stay about in the same place, but then you should do the same thing with the blur behind JFK's head, which would put the line closer to where it is in my original version. I didn't do that, because as I said, I wanted to do a very conservative version of what you asked for, to show the absolute lower limit of the forward motion. And, as I said, a mathematical deblurring showed 2.3" of motion, which is closer to my original line.

[eomer]

90. Are you getting my distinction between light/dark and dark/light?

By light/dark I mean light on the left and dark on the right and by dark/light I mean dark on the left and light on the right.

Only a small horizontal slice of the left side of Connally's head is a light/dark boundary. That would be the part adjacent to the thin white stripe of curb to its left. That part does not jump.

The rest of the left side of Connally's head is a dark/light boundary, which like all the other dark/light boundaries does jump and we expect it to jump. For example, the hair on the top of his head, which is fairly light and is adjacent to a very dark shadow on its left. All the other dark/light boundaries jump with the alignment of frames we're currently looking at, and that's okay. In fact it is what we expect because of the way that light areas trump dark areas when they overlay each other. For example, the dark/light boundary between Connally's light forehead and the dark temple area to its left (our left, which is his right temple), which does jump like all the others of its class.

I agree that areas where there is a mushy boundary rather than a sharp edge would be a different, more complicated question. But Kennedy's head gives a pretty sharp edge that I think allows the simpler approach.

[William Seger]

91. Yes, I understand what you are saying

> "Only a small horizontal slice of the left side of Connally's head is a light/dark boundary. That would be the part adjacent to the thin white stripe of curb to its left. That part does not jump."

It appears to jump, to me, unless as I said I look at it very closely and take the very faintest trace of light there. But that isn't how I located the line at the back of JFK's head in my second animation, either.

Anyway, we're not getting anywhere just pinging and ponging. I'd still like to try the experiment, but perhaps more interesting is that I've found some "deblurring" software on the web -- one is even a program written by a CTist named Dr. John Costella, for the specific purpose of examining the Zapruder film. The other is a commercial program called Focus Magic (which has a 10-image trial period, but I'm hoping it works well enough to buy since I take plenty of blurred photos). I did one quick run this evening with Costella's program, which shows a gap somewhere between the ones in my two animations. But the image is seriously degraded and still has some smear in it, so I'm hoping Focus Magic works better. (I'll play with them some this weekend, but I'm off to a poker game now.)

[William Seger]

93. Results from four "deblur" programs

In addition to Dr. Costella's Unblur program, I tested a freeware Java program called Unshake and two commercial deblurring programs, Focus Magic and Image Skill Magic Sharpener.

These are not standard "sharpen" routines like those that most graphics programs provide, which just increase the contrast at edges to clean them up a bit. Rather, they use "deconvolution" functions which attempt to mathematically reverse the process that caused the blurring (e.g. motion or an out-of-focus lens). For motion blurring, Unblur and Focus Magic require that you estimate the amount and direction of the motion, while Unshake and Magic Sharpener try to determine those automatically by analyzing the photo.

Frame 313 is too blurred for any of these programs to produce really clear results. Focus Magic was the only one that successfully removed most of the motion blur, but I have aligned all of the samples at Connelly's forehead. However, even though the image was degraded by all four, they all give fairly consistent results for the position of JFK's head:

Unblur:



Unshake:



Image Skill Magic Sharpener:



Focus Magic:



Since these are all showing the displacement of the head just above the neck, rather than higher up, I believe the Itek Optical Systems analysis that calculated a 2.3" forward snap is probably a good estimate.

[eomer]

88. Regarding the doctors' testimony.

My impression of the doctors' testimony is that they did in fact look at a wound on the back right part of Kennedy's head, more or less in the area depicted in the McClelland drawing.

That impression is based mostly on the fact that the doctors who say that they had a good view of the wound and/or specifically looked at it are clear and direct in their conclusions about where the injury was and what parts of the head and brain were injured.

I realize there are inconsistencies, but many of them have been exaggerated by taking small bits of testimony out of context, by taking certain manners of expression too literally, and other ways of misconstruing the testimony. If you read the entire body of early testimony and you make an honest attempt at understanding what the doctors meant rather than confusing their meaning by using unreasonable literalism, then I think the truth is pretty apparent.

I understand that you disagree and further that I'm not going to change your mind. I'm also not particularly interested in an exchange of dueling links. It is only by looking over the entire body of early testimony and applying a filter of common sense and reasonableness that one can reach a meaningful conclusion, if you ask me. That's a difficult thing to do in a forum like this, where the focus would likely be on one small bit at a time.

[Octafish]

56. Who knows? Do you?

With the thing changing hands from private to official to corporate hands in just 24 hours, how can a chain of evidence for the security of that film be established as evidence? What’s more, what kind of “investigation” allows evidence to be bought and kept from the public?

A History of the Zapruder Film from JFKLancer.com.

Regarding your images: Perhaps the President was struck at that moment. It certainly looks like he moved forward, with the arrow marking the movement between that stills. The thing is those two frames are just part of the 26-second film, representing about 1/9th of a second. When viewed in its entirety, the film clearly shows what happened next: President Kennedy is struck and forced violently BACKward and to the left. That indicates the line from which the bullet came – from in front and to his right.

[William Seger]

67. All I "know" is what the evidence suggests

... and I'm sure you're aware that camera experts believe the film is authentic, so I'll assume I don't have to look that up for you. To put it simply: The people who claim it's a fake do not make anywhere near as convincing a case, and frequent obvious blunders don't help their side any.

As for the forward motion being inconclusive, no: It's completely conclusive. There is simply no way the "back and to the left" motion could be caused by the bullet, since it it doesn't start until 1/9th second later. The reason is simple physics. When the bullet passed through the head, it slowed down, and that deceleration was immediately applied as an equal and opposite accelerating force on the head. It had to be immediate because of the law of conservation of momentum: Exactly at the same instant that the bullet lost any momentum, the head gained just that same amount of momentum, so that at any instance in time the total momentum did not change. Once the bullet left the head, there was absolutely, positively no way it could impart any more force on the head. Saying that the head could somehow react 1/9th second later is equivalent to saying that the bullet didn't lose any velocity as it passed through the head, but then 1/9th second later the head "realized" it had been hit by a bullet and started accelerating in the same direction as the bullet. That also means that the bullet -- god knows where it was by then -- would be required to slow down then to satisfy the conservation of momentum. Fully stated, that's a patent absurdity.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ohio Joe]

3. Interesting

30 witnesses in Dallas are all correct and tens of thousands in NY are all wrong.

[Marksbrother]

5. Two different events

This thread is about an aspect of JFK's assassination. You are conflating two events that took place more almost 40 years apart.

[Ohio Joe]

6. So witnesses were more reliable 40 years ago?

I don't understand the difference, you believe these witnesses but not the ones in NY, just seems inconsistent to me. Could you clarify what makes the difference is?

[Marksbrother]

7. Here's the reason why the Dallas witnesses are credible

They are all identified by name and profession. None of them had any known motivation to lie. None had any known hidden agenda.

Nearly all of them have subjected themselves to interviews during the remainder of their lives. All of them, except for the

F.B.I. agents and Secret Service Agents, are medical professionals. Not many of those kinds of folks are known to be loose with

facts. ALL of them are trained observers of even very small details. ALL of them have professional reputations which would be

subject to formal and legal consequences if they are found to be dishonest. The livelihood of all of the Dallas witnesses are at

stake whenever they give testimony about matters which they have observed in the course of their duties.


In the case of the NYC witnesses, for most of the identified ones, their very livelihood depended on them making statements

consistent with that of their superiors.


Finally, the physical evidence supports the testimonies of the Dallas witnesses. It does not in the case of the NYC witnesses.

[Ohio Joe]

8. So...

You really believe there were no witnesses in NY that did not work for the perps. Priceless, Thanks!

[Marksbrother]

10. Is that a question or are you making a statement?

[scubadude]

4. Very interesting

Yes, there are too many anomalies here to believe the Warren Commission report any longer.

Scuba

[MinM]

19. Altered to match the cover story...

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/MinM/51

[IMR1fley]

94. there is no way he was shot from the front, or the side w/out either

the windshield blowing to pieces,or mrs. kennedy getting her head blown off. a few things first, i live in dallas, so i visit Deely plaza whenever i can. i have scoped all the positions myself where there could be a second shooter. anywhere to the left of the front left of the car, and the windshield would have shattered, anywhere from the front right, (grassy knoll, the bridge, etc.) and jackie would have been killed as well. i do not deny the POSSIBILITY that there was a second shooter, but there is also the possibility that a flying cow shot him too. the latter is just slightly less likely. if there was a second shooter, then he didn't land any hits. the theory that the driver shot him, thats just stupid. thats people wanting to believe there was a second shooter, AKA the driver. the .45 is actually the reflection of the sun on the passengers head, and off the pomade in his hair for the barrel. his "arm, is the curb in the background. i don't think oswald was alone, however, but i don't think it was a mob either. i believe that it was just a small group of people that jfk did something to piss them off. if the government did know there were others involved, think why they wouldn't tell. anyone care to take a guess?

its for the same reason that they wouldn't say theres an alien spacecraft in area 51. HUMANITY IS NOT READY TO ACCEPT THAT. if there was a small group of people that could successfully take out a president, people would panic, they wouldn't feel safe anywhere. or, if there were some people who didn't like obama, for example, and they wanted to kill him, they would just use the same setup as the jfk assassination. did you guys ever consider the fact that people do stuff for others? there is always a good reason for things such as this.

[BeFree]

95. HUMANITY IS NOT READY TO ACCEPT THAT

Ain't that the truth.

Welcome to DU.

[IMR1fley]

100. A few more things...

I have a lot of hobbies that can prove my point about the
snipers position.  If anyone wants me to, I can make a 3D
model of Deely plaza, the limo, and all surroundings with
accuracy to the nearest pixel in the texture patterns in the
tires on the limo.  I also am a crack shot with almost any
rifle, a damn good marksman, soon to be Air Force sniper, and
gun expert.  If anyone needs me to show the shot from
different angles, I can easily get those shots for you.    If
anyone wants to hold me to this, I'll do it, and put the link
in a reply for the video.  Just put a reply to this, and give
me time to get around to looking at the posts, (If you'll
notice, i didn't even get on for almost a year of posting the
last reply.)

[jschurchin]

25. Yes.

[Theobald]

92. No they were not altered.

[MrMickeysMom]

110. Yes, there were altered

[vincent_vega_lives]

96. LHO shot Kennedy

with a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle from the Dallas Book Depository. This fact does not nessecarily prove he was not part of a conspiracy.

Why folks go through tortured motions to dispute this mistifies me.

[timster]

99. he must of been on the grassy knoll

[IMR1fley]

101. THANK YOU!!

That was what I was talking about in my previous post.  There
is a very distinct POSSIBILITY that there was another sniper,
just a very bad one.  Just because the killing shot was from
LHO, there could have been a whole group he was part of. 
THANK YOU FOR SOMEWHAT GETTING THAT PART OF MY STATEMENT.  

[zappaman]

102. absolutely!

the question is who was the sniper if it wasn't Howard Hunt?

[IMR1fley]

104. I don't know...

But that's what I was talking about in the latter part of the
post I made.  If there was a second shooter, the government
probably might know that, but that would be the reason for
them covering it up.  Because any other possible conspirators
were not caught, they would have to cover it up for the safety
and mental health of the american people, if not humanity
itself.  If the worlds most powerful man was killed by a group
of people, and only one was caught, people would not feel
safe.  

The way I mean that can be easily summed up in a quote form a
certain movie, ( name disclosed for product placement reasons)

"We should let people know about this.  People are
smart."
"No, a person is smart.  People are a hysterical,
chaotic, dangerous mass at the first sign of something larger
than their position in life."

That is probably not the exact quote, but if you can figure
out what it's from, good for you.

[zappaman]

105. The other question is where the shooter was

Obviously, behind the fence makes sense.
But there HAD to be a guy in the sewer(or gutter or whatever you want to call it).
It has been proven that there may have been as many as 37 shooters and I can guarantee you that most have been "taken care of" by the guys who masterminded it.
We will never know...

[SDuderstadt]

106. How did you get it down to...

only 37?

[zappaman]

107. Easy

I am ruling out LBJ leaping out of his car and running across the plaza with a six shooter(even though I was told by a "researcher" that this is what happened.)
I am also counting the driver of JFK's limo who can be clearly seen turning and shooting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_rB4mZv3sg
Do a little research, dude.

[SDuderstadt]

108. I HAVE done a little research and...

discovered that you are Earl Warren's grandson.

Nice try, dude.

[MrMickeysMom]

109. Listen up and decide for yourself, mmmmmmm?

http://www.blackopradio.com/black456a.rm

Debate-

Opening statements: John, then Jim
The opening statements present the credibility of evidence as seen by both opponents
The points made will be too numerous to list. Please listen to the audio for your best coverage
Q: Why should anyone believe the 'Single Bullet Theory?'
Q: Whose portrait of Oswald is correct the Commission's or Jim Garrison's?
Q: Did Oswald go to Mexico CIty, and if so what did he do there?
Q: Are you satisfied with the official autopsy?
Q: Do you believe the official x rays and photos are real?

[defendandprotect]

111. Altered ... the artist who DREW the head as evidence drew it from a photo -- !!!

Keep in mind also that the first and primary witness was Jackie Kennedy who told

us clearly that his head was blow off in the rear --

She was a very dangerous witness for the right wing plotters -- and we see how dangerous

it was in her need to get out of the country. And, IMO, the murder of her son a decade

or more ago !!


"The myth of a free press died with the assassination of Pres. John F. Kennedy" --

[Cetacea]

113. And the lie that she was trying to leave the limo.

Funny how every major media outlet "knew" that. It is very possible that he was hit with two almost simultaneous shots . One from the rear and one from the front.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVfIh-8nXyQ

[SDuderstadt]

114. "It's very possible that he was hit with two almost simultaneous shots"

No, it's not. Where's the entrance wound?

Why you guys persist in spreading nonsense nearly fifty years later is beyond belief.

[Cetacea]

115. Did you actually watch the video? Of course not. It's ten minutes long.

I started a separate thread for it. It would be nice if you could intelligently go over the points so carefully addressed in the video rather than just disagreeing right off. Besides, if there were an actual conspiracy evidence would have been altered, no?

[SDuderstadt]

117. You don't think I've seen that bullshit before?

Simple stop-you-dead-in-your tracks question:

Where's the entrance wound, dude?

[Cetacea]

118. It's here for others to see as well.

Again, how do you prove a successful conspiracy? Hmmm?

[SDuderstadt]

120. So, your lack of proof....

proves it was a successful conspiracy?

Dude, that's just another rationalization.

[Cetacea]

122. I thought we were discusiing theories.

[SDuderstadt]

123. I have no idea what...

you're discussing, dude. It seems like the same warmed-over, repackaged bullshit the JFK assassination "community" has been peddling for nearly five decades.

[Cetacea]

125. lol. ok