The Head Wounds Revisited

[Daniel Gallup]

So, Daniel, do you think Zapruder himself was part of the plot and knew within an hour what the wounds were supposed to look like?

David L, do you think the Z-film was entirely fabricated or just partly altered? When was there time to do this? Do you think they did it before the assassination? Or sometime that afternoon?

Quote:
And, because of the way events unfolded that day (e.g., the unexpected shooting of John Connally) it was impossible to create that appearance by simply putting a rifle near a false sniper's nest, and then firing some shots from the Dal-Tex Building. That's a nice (almost benign) hypothesis, but it doesn't fit with all the evidence. No way does that explain what happened in Dealey Plaza that day.


Well, you managed to misread (or misrepresent) what I posted. I said that the plotters intended to hit JFK in the back of the head with one shot, but it didn't work out that way. The other shooters were meant to be backups.

Tracy, I hold no brief on Zapruder. I am a firm believer in the laws of nature, which tells us that there can be no effect without a cause. The effect is that which is witnessed and corroborated at Parkland: an avulsive wound with bones sprung out in such a manner as to indicate a shot exiting the back of the head, with a great loss of brain, blood and bone in that area. The cause? According to the extant Z-film, nothing. Nada. Zip. Because according the the extant film, nothing exited the back of Kennedy's head. In fact, let me advance the problem further. According to the extant film, a large amount of brain, blood and bone apparently exited the right front of Kennedy's head. But then we have Jackie's words: "from the front there was nothing..." So it would appear from the front of the head we have a cause without an effect, and from the back of the head, an effect without a cause. That's why, in addition to the limo stop, I put no faith in the extant film. I hope that clarifies my position.