Who’s telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?

[Albert Doyle]

Except there was an entry wound in the right temple and the X-rays show a pattern of tiny pieces of lead or, more likely, mercury that were distributed from the explosion of the frangible bullet that created the shock wave that blew his brains out to the left rear with such force that, when Officer Bobby Hargis, who was riding to the left rear, was hit with them, he initially thought that he himself had been shot. That Clint Hill observed a massive, gaping fist-sized hole in the back of his head does not suggest a shot from the rear. It is certainly not the position of David W. Mantik, John Costella, Jack White, Charles Crenshaw, David Lifton, David Healy or me.

I think you have a problem. There's something here right out in the open that you haven't accounted for. If Kennedy was hit by a Files-type frangible mercury-filled bullet in the right temple area there would be no doubt as to this wound at Parkland. There's no way you would see the intact head of hair you see in the photos. And there's no way all the people at Parkland would miss an exploding bullet wound to the front right.

There's a problem with your frangible bullet forensics. Kennedy's head was turned 23 degrees left at the time of the frame 313 head shot. Any shot from the Badgeman Knoll area would be nigh-on 90 degrees perpendicular. First, if you are claiming a temple entry wound from that angle the transit would be side to side through Kennedy's head instead of front to back. If you are claiming an exploding frangible bullet then there really is no transit. The exploding bullet would account for the blood fog seen in Zapruder. But you have to be careful because if you are claiming that the blood fog was forged you therefore can't use it to confirm a frangible bullet.

Another problem you have is the Parkland rear wound is being claimed to be the exit wound of a bullet shot from the front. I believe if you do scientific evaluation of frangible bullet behavior, you would find it unlikely that the exploding pattern of such a bullet would be able to create such a confined wound. Your problem is that the 23 degrees left position of Kennedy's head would mean any bullet fragment causing the Parkland wound would have to have shot 90 degrees left of its entry plane and then made a perfect hole while leaving the right front intact. And this is not the known behavior pattern of an exploding bullet.

Another thing that doesn't make sense is the section of skull and scalp Hill witnessed on the seat. If indeed that was a section of head blown-out by a shot from the front it would have been blasted-out and behind the car according to known shot behavior, but also according to known physical principles. If the rear wound plug was blasted-out of Kennedy's head by the kinetic force of an exiting gunshot the physical principles involved would mean that any force strong enough to break off the skull components in such a manner would have ejected them further according to the position of Kennedy's head. In my view any shot strong enough to blast a plug out of the rear of Kennedy's head is strong enough to shoot it onto the trunk. Unless it was the rearward force of a shot from behind - which would explain the lack of ejection. The skull pieces seen flying away in Zapruder are a good example of those forces acting directly in the outshoot direction. Brehm's skull piece flies 20 feet to the rear, yet the plug claimed to be evidence of an exiting shot only manages to plop down in place.

Again, you say the rear wound is evidence of Hargis's stinging ejecta, but the problem with that is the transit line of a temple entry shot to the rear exit wound, clearly located on the right side of the occiput in the McClelland drawing, doesn't line-up. With Kennedy's head turned 23 degrees left, if there was any such high-velocity ejecta it wouldn't have gone in Hargis direction according to the wound pattern. Also, it would seem the intact plug Hill witnessed plopped-down on the seat would conflict with materials exiting with force in the Hargis direction. So not only don't you have the bullet direction to create such a wound but you don't have the materials either.

In my opinion if the Zapruder Film is forged you have a problem because the rear wound plug and flap opening up in the right front conforms to a shot from the rear. (It's important to note this doesn't exclude a conspiracy, or multiple shooters, or a shot from the Dal-Tex Building)

[Jan Klimkowski]

this NIX gif below, hopefully working here as it shows a fragment being shot out the back of jfk's head..

Bernice - many thanks for posting this gif. Unfortunately, as per my post #21 in this thread, it is appearing on DPF as a .jpg file.

For it to function as an animated gif, I'm pretty sure the file would have to end with .gif

Please can you check your master version and see if it does end with the file extention .gif

If so, please send it to Magda or I, and we will try uploading the .gif file to see if there's a problem with the way DPF software is reading it.

[James H. Fetzer]

You puzzle me, Albert, I must confess. Here you are taking for granted that the film is authentic, when that is the key question I am raising. We actually know it has been fabricated on multiple grounds, but the point seems to have not sunk in.

Have you read BLOODY TREASON, ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX, or INSIDE THE ARRB, not to mention a half dozen articles such as "US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication"?

I ask because they are chock full of studies of the medical evidence by David W. Mantik, Charles Crenshaw, and Gary Aguilar, for example, and of the Zapruder film by David W. Mantik, Jack White, John P. Cosella, David Healy, and David Lifton.

Just to offer on illustration of why they should impact your analysis, one of the "smoking guns" in MURDER concerns the inconsistency between the angle of tilt of JFK's head and the official trajectory, which shows they cannot both be correct.

That occurs in the Prologue to MURDER on page 4. In the Preface to HOAX, I point out that Newsweek (22 November 1993) published an article showing the head shot as having occurred around 35 feet further west than the "X" mark on Elm Street.

That puts it about opposite the steps leading up to the pergola. Interestingly, as I explain in the text, Mantik believes that location is far more likely and is supported, for example, by early reenactment photographs, among other evidence.

That discussion occurs on page x. Since considerations like these make a rather substantial difference to the kind of rebuttal you are offering, my suggestion would be that you do more homework and then get back with a revised argument.

With regard to some of your more specific suggestions, the ejecta was all over the trunk and nauseated other Secret Service agents when they observed in on the limo in Washington, as I point out in HOAX on page 27, yet is missing in the film.

While the bullet entered at the right temple, it did not exit at the back of the head, but rather created shock waves that blew his brains out the back of his head with such force that Officer Hargis, impacted with the debris, thought he himself had been shot.

A more complete explanation would include that the tough membrane covering the cerebellum, the tentorium, has to have been ruptured in order for cerebellar tissue to have been extruding from the wound, according to Robert Livingston.

Bob was a world authority on the human brain and also an expert on wound ballistics. It was his inference that the bullet that hit JFK in the throat fragmented and part went upward and severed the tentorium, which thereby exposed the cerebeullum.

So JFK's death was actually brought about by the causal interaction of three shots: the shot to the throat, which severed the tentorium; the shot around the EOP, which weaked the back of his skull; and the frangible bullet that entered the right temple.

It did, of course, also blow open the skull flap, which is apparent in frame 374, in the HSCA diagram and photograph, and was described by Thomas Evan Robinson, the mortician, who mentioned it to Joe West when he interviewed him about the wounds.

A copy of Joe West's notes about the wound can be found in HOAX on page 9 of the Prologue but also in "Dealey Plaza Revisite: What Happened to JFK?", which you can find published here http://www.und.edu/instruct/jfkconference/ as Chapter 30.

Maybe you are onto something that David Mantik, for example, has overlooked. But since David's studies of the X-rays, which support the use of a frangible bullet, are in works that you do not appear to have read, it might be worth reviewing them.

Except there was an entry wound in the right temple and the X-rays show a pattern of tiny pieces of lead or, more likely, mercury that were distributed from the explosion of the frangible bullet that created the shock wave that blew his brains out to the left rear with such force that, when Officer Bobby Hargis, who was riding to the left rear, was hit with them, he initially thought that he himself had been shot. That Clint Hill observed a massive, gaping fist-sized hole in the back of his head does not suggest a shot from the rear. It is certainly not the position of David W. Mantik, John Costella, Jack White, Charles Crenshaw, David Lifton, David Healy or me.

I think you have a problem. There's something here right out in the open that you haven't accounted for. If Kennedy was hit by a Files-type frangible mercury-filled bullet in the right temple area there would be no doubt as to this wound at Parkland. There's no way you would see the intact head of hair you see in the photos. And there's no way all the people at Parkland would miss an exploding bullet wound to the front right.

There's a problem with your frangible bullet forensics. Kennedy's head was turned 23 degrees left at the time of the frame 313 head shot. Any shot from the Badgeman Knoll area would be nigh-on 90 degrees perpendicular. First, if you are claiming a temple entry wound from that angle the transit would be side to side through Kennedy's head instead of front to back. If you are claiming an exploding frangible bullet then there really is no transit. The exploding bullet would account for the blood fog seen in Zapruder. But you have to be careful because if you are claiming that the blood fog was forged you therefore can't use it to confirm a frangible bullet.

Another problem you have is the Parkland rear wound is being claimed to be the exit wound of a bullet shot from the front. I believe if you do scientific evaluation of frangible bullet behavior, you would find it unlikely that the exploding pattern of such a bullet would be able to create such a confined wound. Your problem is that the 23 degrees left position of Kennedy's head would mean any bullet fragment causing the Parkland wound would have to have shot 90 degrees left of its entry plane and then made a perfect hole while leaving the right front intact. And this is not the known behavior pattern of an exploding bullet.

Another thing that doesn't make sense is the section of skull and scalp Hill witnessed on the seat. If indeed that was a section of head blown-out by a shot from the front it would have been blasted-out and behind the car according to known shot behavior, but also according to known physical principles. If the rear wound plug was blasted-out of Kennedy's head by the kinetic force of an exiting gunshot the physical principles involved would mean that any force strong enough to break off the skull components in such a manner would have ejected them further according to the position of Kennedy's head. In my view any shot strong enough to blast a plug out of the rear of Kennedy's head is strong enough to shoot it onto the trunk. Unless it was the rearward force of a shot from behind - which would explain the lack of ejection. The skull pieces seen flying away in Zapruder are a good example of those forces acting directly in the outshoot direction. Brehm's skull piece flies 20 feet to the rear, yet the plug claimed to be evidence of an exiting shot only manages to plop down in place.

Again, you say the rear wound is evidence of Hargis's stinging ejecta, but the problem with that is the transit line of a temple entry shot to the rear exit wound, clearly located on the right side of the occiput in the McClelland drawing, doesn't line-up. With Kennedy's head turned 23 degrees left, if there was any such high-velocity ejecta it wouldn't have gone in Hargis direction according to the wound pattern. Also, it would seem the intact plug Hill witnessed plopped-down on the seat would conflict with materials exiting with force in the Hargis direction. So not only don't you have the bullet direction to create such a wound but you don't have the materials either.

In my opinion if the Zapruder Film is forged you have a problem because the rear wound plug and flap opening up in the right front conforms to a shot from the rear. (It's important to note this doesn't exclude a conspiracy, or multiple shooters, or a shot from the Dal-Tex Building)

[Albert Doyle]

That occurs in the Prologue to MURDER on page 4. In the Preface to HOAX, I point out that Newsweek (22 November 1993) published an article showing the head shot as having occurred around 35 feet further west than the "X" mark on Elm Street.

If you move Kennedy further west it only increases the unfavorable factors I discussed. It then becomes even more unlikely that a frangible bullet would not only not blast-off the top of Kennedy's head but would also make a hard left turn and remove an intact plug in the occiput.

What stresses me about this is the bringing the mountain to Mohammed aspect of how this conflicts with all the witnesses and other photographs.

While the bullet entered at the right temple, it did not exit at the back of the head, but rather created shock waves that blew his brains out the back of his head with such force that Officer Hargis, impacted with the debris, thought he himself had been shot.

I question this because it brings into bearing all the points I raised. It does not conform to gunshot wound behavior that a "shockwave" would create such a precise plug wound that is then referred to as an "exit wound". You are working against physics when you zone the explosive pattern of a frangible bullet against its know behavior. If a frangible bullet enters at the temple area and explodes it creates a determinable pattern that radiates out from that point. What you are doing is channeling the force of this event towards the rear wound in such a way that necessitates the focus of this energy in the occipital wound area with enough force to cause the Parkland rear wound but avoid causing the predictable wounds that would have occurred closer to the area of impact. While I think the Discovery Channel re-creation is not scientifically valid, I believe it does show a good representation of an exploding bullet wound to the head. The Grassy Knoll shot blows the dummy's head off completely. When you compare the Parkland perfect hair with this explosive event you get an idea of what is wrong with this theory and the true nature of these shockwaves. At this point it is fairly unbelievable to match an exploding bullet wound to the temple and the condition of Kennedy's parietal area at Parkland (in my opinion).

With regard to some of your more specific suggestions, the ejecta was all over the trunk and nauseated other Secret Service agents when they observed in on the limo in Washington, as I point out in HOAX on page 27, yet is missing in the film.

The skull is a contained dome. The transit of a bullet inside creates a huge overpressure that can blast the skull open. The hemispherical shape of the skull creates a hemispherical burst pattern from this event. The enhanced slow-motion Nix Film shows ejecta bursting rearward at the same time as the parietal burst.

I agree the trunk looks too clean for what was told by witnesses. However this doesn't preclude the forgers eliminating visible trunk material for the purpose of establishing a rear shot no matter what the shot directions. If Zapruder shows how the camera captures a gunshot wound over frames 313-314-315 then there's no excuse for it not capturing the rear wound. Unless the rear plug plopped-out when Kennedy jerked backwards. Or even later on the ride to Parkland. ?

Bob was a world authority on the human brain and also an expert on wound ballistics. It was his inference that the bullet that hit JFK in the throat fragmented and part went upward and severed the tentorium, which thereby exposed the cerebeullum.

I'd really like to see an extensive examination of the microscopic direction of the tie fibers and how they are explained.

It did, of course, also blow open the skull flap, which is apparent in frame 374, in the HSCA diagram and photograph, and was described by Thomas Evan Robinson, the mortician, who mentioned it to Joe West when he interviewed him about the wounds.

So how much of this do you attribute to the blood fog and how much to the forgery?


.

[Bernice Moore]

www.dailypaul.com/node/154909:danceing:b.

[James H. Fetzer]

My replies to Albert's comments are in italics.

JF: That occurs in the Prologue to MURDER on page 4. In the Preface to HOAX, I point out that Newsweek (22 November 1993) published an article showing the head shot as having occurred around 35 feet further west than the "X" mark on Elm Street.

AD: If you move Kennedy further west it only increases the unfavorable factors I discussed. It then becomes even more unlikely that a frangible bullet would not only not blast-off the top of Kennedy's head but would also make a hard left turn and remove an intact plug in the occiput.

JF: That is a misreading of the analysis based upon the work of David Mantik and of Bob Livingston. The bullet did not pursue the tangential trajectory described by Charles Crenshaw but created shockwaves that blew the brains out the back of an already weakened cranium, as I have been attempting to explain (several times).

What stresses me about this is the bringing the mountain to Mohammed aspect of how this conflicts with all the witnesses and other photographs.

JF: Which witnesses and other photographs are you relying upon? Why don't you sketch for me what you think happened? But as I have previously observed, you appear to be discounting the witnesses who support the limo stop and the faking of the Zapruder. The Parkland Hospital physicians reports are consistent with this account as are the studies of the medical evidence by Mantik, Aguilar, and Lifton, among others, at least right up to the point where Humes takes a saw to the cranium of his patient.

JF: While the bullet entered at the right temple, it did not exit at the back of the head, but rather created shock waves that blew his brains out the back of his head with such force that Officer Hargis, impacted with the debris, thought he himself had been shot.

AD: I question this because it brings into bearing all the points I raised. It does not conform to gunshot wound behavior that a "shockwave" would create such a precise plug wound that is then referred to as an "exit wound". You are working against physics when you zone the explosive pattern of a frangible bullet against its know behavior. If a frangible bullet enters at the temple area and explodes it creates a determinable pattern that radiates out from that point. What you are doing is channeling the force of this event towards the rear wound in such a way that necessitates the focus of this energy in the occipital wound area with enough force to cause the Parkland rear wound but avoid causing the predictable wounds that would have occurred closer to the area of impact. While I think the Discovery Channel re-creation is not scientifically valid, I believe it does show a good representation of an exploding bullet wound to the head. The Grassy Knoll shot blows the dummy's head off completely. When you compare the Parkland perfect hair with this explosive event you get an idea of what is wrong with this theory and the true nature of these shockwaves. At this point it is fairly unbelievable to match an exploding bullet wound to the temple and the condition of Kennedy's parietal area at Parkland (in my opinion).

JF: Well, as I am sure you are aware, there are many kinds of bullets, even explosive ones, which have different properties. David Mantik has discussed the particles in the lateral cranial X-ray, which I discuss in various places, such as page 6 of MURDER. And of course Bob Livingston was a world authority on the human brain and an expert on wound ballistics. He explained to me the role of shockwaves. Remember that the back of his skull had already been weakened by a shot from the rear around the EOP.

JF: With regard to some of your more specific suggestions, the ejecta was all over the trunk and nauseated other Secret Service agents when they observed in on the limo in Washington, as I point out in HOAX on page 27, yet is missing in the film.[/QUOTE]

AD: The skull is a contained dome. The transit of a bullet inside creates a huge overpressure that can blast the skull open. The hemispherical shape of the skull creates a hemispherical burst pattern from this event. The enhanced slow-motion Nix Film shows ejecta bursting rearward at the same time as the parietal burst.

JF: But of course there was an earlier shot to the back of his head, which weakened the cranium. So his skull, at that point in time, was NOT a contained dome, but rather a dome with significant damage to the rear, where brain matter would have been forced out by the shock waves created by the type of frangible bullet that had been used.

AD: I agree the trunk looks too clean for what was told by witnesses. However this doesn't preclude the forgers eliminating visible trunk material for the purpose of establishing a rear shot no matter what the shot directions. If Zapruder shows how the camera captures a gunshot wound over frames 311-312-313 then there's no excuse for it not capturing the rear wound. Unless the rear plug plopped-out when Kennedy jerked backwards. Or even later on the ride to Parkland. ?

JF: Well, we know the rear wound, which is visible in frame 374, was painted over in a crude fashion in frames 313-316 and elsewhere, which we knew to be the case but which has been independently confirmed by this new group of Hollywood experts, as Doug Horne explained in INSIDE THE ARRB, Vol. IV, and which I discuss here: "US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication", http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/...5772.shtml What is your response to the five physical features that distinguish the film brought to the NPIC on Saturday from the one brought on Sunday?

JF: Bob was a world authority on the human brain and also an expert on wound ballistics. It was his inference that the bullet that hit JFK in the throat fragmented and part went upward and severed the tentorium, which thereby exposed the cerebeullum.

AD: I'd really like to see an extensive examination of the microscopic direction of the tie fibers and how they are explained.

JF: Yes, the more evidence, the better. I think we would all agree with that, assuming, of course, that we were getting authentic tie fibers. But there seems to me to be a lot of evidence that the shot to the throat was an entry wound, as I have already explained.

JF: It did, of course, also blow open the skull flap, which is apparent in frame 374, in the HSCA diagram and photograph, and was described by Thomas Evan Robinson, the mortician, who mentioned it to Joe West when he interviewed him about the wounds.

JF: Roderick Ryan told Noel Twyman that the "blob" had been painted in. John Costella has studied the blood spray in his tutorial, where it dissipates too rapidly to be real, at http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/ I hope you have reviewed it, because it gives a very nice, illustrated (visual) introduction to evidence of fakery.

AD: So how much of this do you attribute to the blood fog and how much to the forgery?

JF: I am not sure I understand the question, but Costella's tutorial may already answer it.

[Albert Doyle]

JF: That is a misreading of the analysis based upon the work of David Mantik and of Bob Livingston. The bullet did not pursue the tangential trajectory described by Charles Crenshaw but created shockwaves that blew the brains out the back of an already weakened cranium, as I have been attempting to explain (several times).

By admitting a shot prior to the temple shot you then have to admit that this shot was responsible for the parietal flap opening up. And if you admit the parietal flap then you have to admit it possibly, and most-likely, produced an associated blood burst. My problem here is you are suggesting there's evidence the blood fog was hand-painted in. Maybe it was, but you still have a wound that matches it in the parietal flap.

The problem with admitting a prior shot from behind is the first shot, if it opened-up the head at the parietal flap, would have seriously relieved the pressures inside the head. The second shot to the temple would then be dealing with conditions that would not support the needed containment to produce a shockwave strong enough to burst materials in Hargis's direction with stinging force. Not to mention that the position of the rear wound isn't facing Hargis's direction. The original shot from behind would, however, spray materials in Hargis's direction with stinging force according to what I previously described. When the flap first opened-up materials were shot back and to the left with the highest pressure on the underside of the skull. This was seen at Zframe 313 in Nix. I'll speculate, however, that perhaps a second bullet could have exploded inside the temple while the flap was open.

JF: Which witnesses and other photographs are you relying upon? Why don't you sketch for me what you think happened? But as I have previously observed, you appear to be discounting the witnesses who support the limo stop and the faking of the Zapruder.

I believe we could place the "Pumpkin Smashing Sound" witness in an exact spot. What he heard was key to understanding that the blood fog seen in Zapruder was real. Your weakened rear wound plug would not be able to make such an earwitnessed sound. This is fairly conclusive.

JF: But of course there was an earlier shot to the back of his head, which weakened the cranium. So his skull, at that point in time, was NOT a contained dome, but rather a dome with significant damage to the rear, where brain matter would have been forced out by the shock waves created by the type of frangible bullet that had been used.

As I mentioned above, the pumpkin smashing sound is only possible by having materials shot through air with certain associated limited physical properties. A large burst of blood and brain materials exiting the parietal flap seen in Zapruder would be responsible for this kind of sound. A weakened section of the occipital being plopped-out onto the seat would most definitely not be capable of making this sound.

JF: Bob was a world authority on the human brain and also an expert on wound ballistics. It was his inference that the bullet that hit JFK in the throat fragmented and part went upward and severed the tentorium, which thereby exposed the cerebeullum.

Just a speculation here but, I'd imagine such a neck-centered wound would a) Kill Kennedy instantly when it fragmented off his spine. b) Kill Kennedy instantly when it penetrated the motor control area of the brain in the Cerebellum. c) Leave unmistakable spinal damage. I'm not sure I see that in Zapruder. (Though I agree it isn't automatically predictable)

JF: Yes, the more evidence, the better. I think we would all agree with that, assuming, of course, that we were getting authentic tie fibers. But there seems to me to be a lot of evidence that the shot to the throat was an entry wound, as I have already explained.

We have to have a thorough examination of the tie with this wound.

JF: It did, of course, also blow open the skull flap, which is apparent in frame 374,

You see the problem is any suggestion of forgery of the blood fog suggests the lack of any parietal wound. However we can see there is such a wound. The question then is simple, how much blood fog is forged and how much actually burst out of the recognized skull flap wound?

[James H. Fetzer]

Once again, I have offered my replies to Albert's comments. This time they are underlined.

JF: That is a misreading of the analysis based upon the work of David Mantik and of Bob Livingston. The bullet did not pursue the tangential trajectory described by Charles Crenshaw but created shockwaves that blew the brains out the back of an already weakened cranium, as I have been attempting to explain (several times).

By admitting a shot prior to the temple shot you then have to admit that this shot was responsible for the parietal flap opening up. And if you admit the parietal flap then you have to admit it possibly, and most-likely, produced an associated blood burst. My problem here is you are suggesting there's evidence the blood fog was hand-painted in. Maybe it was, but you still have a wound that matches it in the parietal flap.

The problem with admitting a prior shot from behind is the first shot, if it opened-up the head at the parietal flap, would have seriously relieved the pressures inside the head. The second shot to the temple would then be dealing with conditions that would not support the needed containment to produce a shockwave strong enough to burst materials in Hargis's direction with stinging force. Not to mention that the position of the rear wound isn't facing Hargis's direction. The original shot from behind would, however, spray materials in Hargis's direction with stinging force according to what I previously described. When the flap first opened-up materials were shot back and to the left with the highest pressure on the underside of the skull. This was seen at Zframe 313 in Nix. I'll speculate, however, that perhaps a second bullet could have exploded inside the temple while the flap was open.

JF: If the first head shot had exited at the side of JFK's head around his right ear, then it would have been the case that the second shot, which created shock waves, would have blown brains out the right side of his head. Those brains, however, would not have included cerebellum and, in fact, his brains were blown out to the left rear. It follows that the first head shot did not exist the side of JFK's head around his right ear.

JF: Which witnesses and other photographs are you relying upon? Why don't you sketch for me what you think happened? But as I have previously observed, you appear to be discounting the witnesses who support the limo stop and the faking of the Zapruder.

I believe we could place the "Pumpkin Smashing Sound" witness in an exact spot. What he heard was key to understanding that the blood fog seen in Zapruder was real. Your weakened rear wound plug would not be able to make such an earwitnessed sound. This is fairly conclusive.

JF: We already have evidence that the blood spray was painted in, as John Costella has explained in his tutorial on the film. I am troubled that you are basing your arguments on the presumption that the Zapruder film is authentic, when we have already proven that it is a fabrication.

JF: But of course there was an earlier shot to the back of his head, which weakened the cranium. So his skull, at that point in time, was NOT a contained dome, but rather a dome with significant damage to the rear, where brain matter would have been forced out by the shock waves created by the type of frangible bullet that had been used.

As I mentioned above, the pumpkin smashing sound is only possible by having materials shot through air with certain associated limited physical properties. A large burst of blood and brain materials exiting the parietal flap seen in Zapruder would be responsible for this kind of sound. A weakened section of the occipital being plopped-out onto the seat would most definitely not be capable of making this sound.

JF: I find it fascinating how you are willing to promote a single witness to debunk the mass of evidence we have that the blow out was at the right rear of his head, which, of course, includes that it can be seen in frame 374 and that the Parkland physicians all confirmed it, including the extrusion of cerebral as well as cerebellar tissue.

JF: Bob was a world authority on the human brain and also an expert on wound ballistics. It was his inference that the bullet that hit JFK in the throat fragmented and part went upward and severed the tentorium, which thereby exposed the cerebeullum.

Just a speculation here but, I'd imagine such a neck-centered wound would a) Kill Kennedy instantly when it fragmented off his spine. b) Kill Kennedy instantly when it penetrated the motor control area of the brain in the Cerebellum. c) Leave unmistakable spinal damage. I'm not sure I see that in Zapruder. (Though I agree it isn't automatically predictable)

JF: Since he was a world authority on the human brain and we already know that the Zapruder film has been faked, I really don't understand why you are attempting to promote your personal "speculation" in lieu of his expertise. What you see in the Zapruder film, given it has been recreated, has virtually no probative value. Indeed, you appear to positively revel in taking positions contrary to the weight of the evidence.

JF: Yes, the more evidence, the better. I think we would all agree with that, assuming, of course, that we were getting authentic tie fibers. But there seems to me to be a lot of evidence that the shot to the throat was an entry wound, as I have already explained.

We have to have a thorough examination of the tie with this wound.

JF: We already have Perry's description of the wound as a wound of entry (three times during the Parkland press conference), Crenshaw's diagrams of the wound before and after the tracheotomy (ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, Appendix A), and Weldon's study of the trajectory having passed through the windshield before hitting his throat. Again, you seem to derive pleasure from discounting the best evidence about these things.

JF: It did, of course, also blow open the skull flap, which is apparent in frame 374,

You see the problem is any suggestion of forgery of the blood fog suggests the lack of any parietal wound. However we can see there is such a wound. The question then is simple, how much blood fog is forged and how much actually burst out of the recognized skull flap wound?

JF: Since the skull flap was to the side of his head, any blood spray would have been distributed to the side, not upward as it appears in the film. I wish there were reason to think you are serious about all of this, but the persistence with which you maintain your position on the basis of a fabricated film and by disregarding the best testimony from the best witnesses suggests to me that you are treating this as a playful exercise.

[Albert Doyle]

JF: If the first head shot had exited at the side of JFK's head around his right ear, then it would have been the case that the second shot, which created shock waves, would have blown brains out the right side of his head. Those brains, however, would not have included cerebellum and, in fact, his brains were blown out to the left rear. It follows that the first head shot did not exist the side of JFK's head around his right ear.

What I'm trying to point-out here is there is a forensic universe to which the claimed shots must conform. For instance, if you postulate a shot that enters the rear and exits around the right ear you have to associate that with a source. Such a shot would trace back to a point of origin in that line. If you consider the angles involved with such a shot the point of origin would be the Dal-Tex Building > south.

I'm sorry but to the best of my knowledge the orientation of the wounds does not provide any direction for ejecta to the left rear from the wound seen at Parkland. It's clearly on the back right side of the occiput. Shockwave or not, the linear direction for such a wound, starting with a shot to the temple, is not in the back and to the left direction. If Kennedy's head was turned 23 degrees left the direction of the ejecta would be to the Depository side (If there was any ejecta because the plug plopped straight down and onto the seat).

You are only accentuating the problems. If you contend Zapruder was forged, and therefore Kennedy's head turn was not 23 degrees left but was straight, then by necessity you have to answer to the trajectory of you right ear-exiting shot which now rotates in an even more unfavorable direction. There's that nagging total universe showing up again. It has to match.

Furthermore, the parietal burst occurs at 313 in Zapruder. Since you admit the skull flap, you have a problem because you have a visible wound occurring at frame 313, forged or not. This flap resembles a wound bursted-out by pressure. And there's more to the parietal wound than just red coloring, there's flexible flesh movement and whitish scalp colors.

JF: We already have evidence that the blood spray was painted in, as John Costella has explained in his tutorial on the film. I am troubled that you are basing your arguments on the presumption that the Zapruder film is authentic, when we have already proven that it is a fabrication.

I'd be curious how you reconcile the skull flap wound you've already admitted and this blood burst? Was there no burst from the skull flap wound? Some burst? Partial burst enhanced by painting?

JF: I find it fascinating how you are willing to promote a single witness to debunk the mass of evidence we have that the blow out was at the right rear of his head, which, of course, includes that it can be seen in frame 374 and that the Parkland physicians all confirmed it, including the extrusion of cerebral as well as cerebellar tissue.

Here's where you're in trouble. The witness who heard the pumpkin smashing sound spoke of it shortly afterwards, unprompted, and immediately. I think most reasonable people would say that it was unlikely he either fabricated this or decided to make it up. It has the spontaneity of a legitimate witnessing. I'm forced to say this can't be answered by calling him "a single witness". Even worse, I believe there were other people who corroborated this horrible sound (and blood burst).

JF: Since he was a world authority on the human brain and we already know that the Zapruder film has been faked, I really don't understand why you are attempting to promote your personal "speculation" in lieu of his expertise. What you see in the Zapruder film, given it has been recreated, has virtually no probative value. Indeed, you appear to positively revel in taking positions contrary to the weight of the evidence.

I think my point is once you establish the Zapruder Film was faked there's a lot of possibilities that can fit in there. The overly-broad reference to the film being altered doesn't adequately address this IMO. The guiding factor then becomes how does all this conform to the other means of recording this, which is then mainly the witnesses and forensics.

JF: We already have Perry's description of the wound as a wound of entry (three times during the Parkland press conference), Crenshaw's diagrams of the wound before and after the tracheotomy (ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, Appendix A), and Weldon's study of the trajectory having passed through the windshield before hitting his throat. Again, you seem to derive pleasure from discounting the best evidence about these things.

Forgive me, but I don't think either side would allow no thorough examination of the tie.

JF: Since the skull flap was to the side of his head, any blood spray would have been distributed to the side, not upward as it appears in the film. I wish there were reason to think you are serious about all of this, but the persistence with which you maintain your position on the basis of a fabricated film and by disregarding the best testimony from the best witnesses suggests to me that you are treating this as a playful exercise.

No, I disagree. I believe the skull flap opened-up on the ridge of the head and flopped-open on a hinge of flesh on the side of the head. Zapruder does show something like this - for whatever it's worth.

There are several skull pieces caught flying upward in a whitish jet of materials in Zapruder. One is very triangular-looking. I think it could very possibly be the Harper Fragment. Since this could be connected to a know real event, then that reinforces the authenticity of the parietal burst seen in Zapruder. The Harper Fragment went well south of the limousine which would be in the opposite direction of your "side of the head" claim. The Brehm skull piece was also to the south quadrant.

I beg you to consider there's more to this than the forged film.

[James H. Fetzer]

Well, I certainly admire your perseverance. As I have explained in many places. I believe the shot to the back of his head was fired from the Dal-Tex, but not that came out the side of his head. The skull flap appears to have occurred as an effect of the shock wave set up by the frangible bullet, which entered at the right temple. Your position not only assumes the film is authentic, which is provably false, but that the best witnesses to the throat wound and the back-of-the-head wound are wrong, which is irresponsible. You are entitled to your opinions, Albert, but they are not supported by the weight of the evidence, which apparently does not bother you. But they are not well-founded and cannot qualify as rational.

JF: If the first head shot had exited at the side of JFK's head around his right ear, then it would have been the case that the second shot, which created shock waves, would have blown brains out the right side of his head. Those brains, however, would not have included cerebellum and, in fact, his brains were blown out to the left rear. It follows that the first head shot did not exist the side of JFK's head around his right ear.

What I'm trying to point-out here is there is a forensic universe to which the claimed shots must conform. For instance, if you postulate a shot that enters the rear and exits around the right ear you have to associate that with a source. Such a shot would trace back to a point of origin in that line. If you consider the angles involved with such a shot the point of origin would be the Dal-Tex Building > south.

I'm sorry but to the best of my knowledge the orientation of the wounds does not provide any direction for ejecta to the left rear from the wound seen at Parkland. It's clearly on the back right side of the occiput. Shockwave or not, the linear direction for such a wound, starting with a shot to the temple, is not in the back and to the left direction. If Kennedy's head was turned 23 degrees left the direction of the ejecta would be to the Depository side (If there was any ejecta because the plug plopped straight down and onto the seat).

You are only accentuating the problems. If you contend Zapruder was forged, and therefore Kennedy's head turn was not 23 degrees left but was straight, then by necessity you have to answer to the trajectory of you right ear-exiting shot which now rotates in an even more unfavorable direction. There's that nagging total universe showing up again. It has to match.

Furthermore, the parietal burst occurs at 313 in Zapruder. Since you admit the skull flap, you have a problem because you have a visible wound occurring at frame 313, forged or not. This flap resembles a wound bursted-out by pressure. And there's more to the parietal wound than just red coloring, there's flexible flesh movement and whitish scalp colors.

JF: We already have evidence that the blood spray was painted in, as John Costella has explained in his tutorial on the film. I am troubled that you are basing your arguments on the presumption that the Zapruder film is authentic, when we have already proven that it is a fabrication.

I'd be curious how you reconcile the skull flap wound you've already admitted and this blood burst? Was there no burst from the skull flap wound? Some burst? Partial burst enhanced by painting?

JF: I find it fascinating how you are willing to promote a single witness to debunk the mass of evidence we have that the blow out was at the right rear of his head, which, of course, includes that it can be seen in frame 374 and that the Parkland physicians all confirmed it, including the extrusion of cerebral as well as cerebellar tissue.

Here's where you're in trouble. The witness who heard the pumpkin smashing sound spoke of it shortly afterwards, unprompted, and immediately. I think most reasonable people would say that it was unlikely he either fabricated this or decided to make it up. It has the spontaneity of a legitimate witnessing. I'm forced to say this can't be answered by calling him "a single witness". Even worse, I believe there were other people who corroborated this horrible sound (and blood burst).

JF: Since he was a world authority on the human brain and we already know that the Zapruder film has been faked, I really don't understand why you are attempting to promote your personal "speculation" in lieu of his expertise. What you see in the Zapruder film, given it has been recreated, has virtually no probative value. Indeed, you appear to positively revel in taking positions contrary to the weight of the evidence.

I think my point is once you establish the Zapruder Film was faked there's a lot of possibilities that can fit in there. The overly-broad reference to the film being altered doesn't adequately address this IMO. The guiding factor then becomes how does all this conform to the other means of recording this, which is then mainly the witnesses and forensics.

JF: We already have Perry's description of the wound as a wound of entry (three times during the Parkland press conference), Crenshaw's diagrams of the wound before and after the tracheotomy (ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, Appendix A), and Weldon's study of the trajectory having passed through the windshield before hitting his throat. Again, you seem to derive pleasure from discounting the best evidence about these things.

Forgive me, but I don't think either side would allow no thorough examination of the tie.

JF: Since the skull flap was to the side of his head, any blood spray would have been distributed to the side, not upward as it appears in the film. I wish there were reason to think you are serious about all of this, but the persistence with which you maintain your position on the basis of a fabricated film and by disregarding the best testimony from the best witnesses suggests to me that you are treating this as a playful exercise.

No, I disagree. I believe the skull flap opened-up on the ridge of the head and flopped-open on a hinge of flesh on the side of the head. Zapruder does show something like this - for whatever it's worth.

There are several skull pieces caught flying upward in a whitish jet of materials in Zapruder. One is very triangular-looking. I think it could very possibly be the Harper Fragment. Since this could be connected to a know real event, then that reinforces the authenticity of the parietal burst seen in Zapruder. The Harper Fragment went well south of the limousine which would be in the opposite direction of your "side of the head" claim. The Brehm skull piece was also to the south quadrant.

I beg you to consider there's more to this than the forged film.