13-01-2011, 11:13 PM
Well, as I document, he has been consistent about his actions and observations
for some 47 years. I assume you have noticed that THE ACTIONS HE SAYS HE
TOOK are not shown in the film. It's not just his observation of the back of the
head wound, which was confirmed by many witnesses, the Parkland physicians,
the report of the mortician, Thomas Evan Robinson, to Joe West, and the study
by Gary Aguilar I published in MURDER that falsify the film. He tells us when he
saw it and what he saw. What reason is there not to accept what CLINT HILL
has to tell us on this point, which is consistent with every other well-positioned
witness has to tell us? Considering it qualifies (in relation to the official account)
as what is known as "an admission contrary to interests", it certainly appears to
be credible to me, David Mantik, John Costella, and others who have taken some
interest in this aspect of the case. He slumped to his left and the wound, which
of course has been painted out in the Zapruder film, was probably not attracting
his attention as he raced to protect Jackie until he had her seated and was lying
above JFK's head, when he made the observations he has related to us. See his
statement of 30 November 1963, Commission Exhibit 1024, page 3, which I link.
I don't follow your remark about the "total alteration theory". Do you know some-
thing that we who have devoted ourselves to sorting out the authentic from the
non-authentic do not? Have you read MURDER or HOAX where it is documented?
or ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, for that matter? After all, if you are not disputing
his observation of a fist-sized hole in the back of his head, then the consequences
for the HSCA photographs, the X-rays, and the Zapruder film already follow. We
knew this before, but now it is confirmed by the words of Clint Hill! Remarkable!
for some 47 years. I assume you have noticed that THE ACTIONS HE SAYS HE
TOOK are not shown in the film. It's not just his observation of the back of the
head wound, which was confirmed by many witnesses, the Parkland physicians,
the report of the mortician, Thomas Evan Robinson, to Joe West, and the study
by Gary Aguilar I published in MURDER that falsify the film. He tells us when he
saw it and what he saw. What reason is there not to accept what CLINT HILL
has to tell us on this point, which is consistent with every other well-positioned
witness has to tell us? Considering it qualifies (in relation to the official account)
as what is known as "an admission contrary to interests", it certainly appears to
be credible to me, David Mantik, John Costella, and others who have taken some
interest in this aspect of the case. He slumped to his left and the wound, which
of course has been painted out in the Zapruder film, was probably not attracting
his attention as he raced to protect Jackie until he had her seated and was lying
above JFK's head, when he made the observations he has related to us. See his
statement of 30 November 1963, Commission Exhibit 1024, page 3, which I link.
I don't follow your remark about the "total alteration theory". Do you know some-
thing that we who have devoted ourselves to sorting out the authentic from the
non-authentic do not? Have you read MURDER or HOAX where it is documented?
or ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, for that matter? After all, if you are not disputing
his observation of a fist-sized hole in the back of his head, then the consequences
for the HSCA photographs, the X-rays, and the Zapruder film already follow. We
knew this before, but now it is confirmed by the words of Clint Hill! Remarkable!
Albert Doyle Wrote:Eeek. Forgive my traitorous heresy, but couldn't Hill see the head wound from the position he is shown in in those frames? I think he could. Forgive me but some might accuse that the total alteration theory for all photographic evidence might be some people trying take make their theory work by changing all the photographic evidence.