JFK Zapruder Head Shot / Doctor's Recollection Question
RR
what the doctor's accounts here of the head injury. Hope all of you
can help.
So in the Z film, we see JFK head get shot, and it seems like a flap
of his head gets blown off above the right ear. But the doctors said
that when they got JFK in the ER, the back right rear of his head had
a fist sized hole in it. But the Z film doesn't show that does it?
If I recall it still show's JFK right rear of his head still intact,
just that big flap from the initial blast from the top of his head is
gone.
So how is it explanable that they saw this hole in the right rear of
his head???
Thanks.
Thalia
They saw it because it was there, simple. They all say the same thing,
including FBI agents and Secret Service agents. Don't beleive that the
Z film can give you the answers on the injuries JFK sustained, the
film is not of high enough quality.
WhiskyJoe
Hello RR
> I've never understood one thing about the
> head shot in the Z film and what the
> doctor's accounts here of the head injury.
> Hope all of you can help.
The Zapruder film shows large head wound above
and forward of the ear in over 50 frames.
The autopsy pictures, X-rays and autopsy
doctor's findings indicate the same thing.
The wound was huge but appears in the film
about twice as large as it was because the
scalp covering the wound was flapping down
so you see the wound plus the inside of the
scalp.
But most witnesses at the hospital, doctors
and nurses remember the wound on the back
right part of the head. What is the
explanation?
* Eyewitness testimony is unreliable.
Even the memories of experts can be off.
Nothing is as good as a camera.
* JFK was lying on his back at the hospital.
While the wound is seen exposed in the
Zapruder, at the hospital the scalp was
folded up to cover the wound. With all the
blood and hair, it was difficult to see.
However all the blood and gore from that
wound would be carried by gravity to the
base of the stretcher he was lying on.
So witnesses remember seeing the wound
where the blood and gore was, at the
back of the head.
Is it a coincidence that the witnesses remember
the wound being exactly where gravity would
carry the blood and gore, to the right back
of the head, regardless where on the right
side of the head the wound was? I think not.
* The hospital doctors and nurses were not
concerned about the exact location of the
wound, so they could figure out where the
shooter was. Almost all of them were very
busy trying to keep the heart going, the
breathing going, trying to replace the lost
blood, putting in other IVs, etc. None of
them made a careful mental note of the
wound's location.
In sum, eyewitness reports cannot be relied
upon and cannot trump film and photograph
evidence. Even if a large number of witnesses
all or almost all report the same thing, they
may be mistaken because of systematic eyewitness
errors. One cannot use simply statistics to
prove the reports must be correct.
One example of possible systematic eyewitness
error is that majority may report the wound
toward the back of the head because that is
where gravity caused the blood and gore to pool.
Or another example, many witnesses may report
one gunshot as two shots in rapid succession
for the last shot. This is because a rifle
shot can make two noises. A witness may
first hear the supersonic crack of the
bullet followed immediately by the slower,
sonic speed of the sound of the muzzle blast.
So, if a rifle is fired, one doesn't hear a
"Bang." Instead, one may hear a "crack-thump",
all from one rifle shot. Whether one hears a
"crack-thump" or just a "thump" depends on
how far the bullet traveled and how close
the bullet passed by the witness. I believe
that in this case the majority of the
witnesses said the head shot was caused by
one shot but a fair number said there were
two shots at the end, right on top of each
other.
**************************************************
Not all witnesses report the wound in the
back of the head. Mr. Zapruder, as seen below:
http://www.jfk-info.com/zapr-1.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpicOfFajNE
within an hour of the assassination described
the wound being toward the front. Of course,
Mr. Zapruder did not see JFK at the hospital.
Had he done so, the memory of the blood pooled
at the back of the head may have dominated his
memory and he may have become a back of the
head witness.
**************************************************
Finally, if a huge hoax was done, faking the
autopsy pictures and x-rays, faking the
Zapruder film, they were doing work they
did not need to do. The huge head was not
an exit wound, it was an explosive wound.
As Larry Sturdivan explains in his book
"The JFK Myths", if one fires a bullet
in ballistic gel, one can see a large
cavity form in the wake of the bullet.
The same thing happens in animal tissue.
If someone is shot in the arm, their arm
will momentarily swell up, a bit, because
as the cavity forms, the surrounding tissue
is generally not compressible and is shoved
outward violently. But when this happens in
the brain, the brain can't easily expand
because it is surrounded by the skull.
So instead, the pressure builds up until
the head explodes somewhere through the
skull. The site of the "explosion" may be
at an area of weakness, like the entrance
wound or the exit wound but it can be anyway,
especially since fractures will appear in the
skull and the fractures may form faster than
the bullet, at the speed of sound through
bone.
That is why JFK's head wound was vastly
larger then any of his other wounds or
Connally's wounds. The brain is the only
part of the body surrounded by bone, so
it is the only part of the body that can
have a huge explosive wound.
So, if the explosive head wound was toward
the back of the head, the hoaxers didn't
need to disguise this. They could have
just said that's were the explosive wound
happened to be.
The Dutchman
You're touching on a Gordian Knot, or the worst tangled ball of twine in
existence. Maybe some day a descendant of Alexander the Great will
straighten it all out, but don't hold your breath, because this is one of
the most polarized issues of the whole assassination. All I'm gonna say
is, it seems even the professionals, the ER Docs, may have been half out
their minds with stress that horrible day. Also, there is a lot of
ambiguity in some of the head wound descriptions. "Right rear" could mean
the back of the right side of the head, which is what we see in the Z
film, or it could mean the right side of the back of the head. Post
autopsy, I don't see why there couldn't be a hole in the BACK of his head,
since performing an autopsy on a patient with a huge avulsive head wound
without makin more "wounds" is like making an omelette without breaking an
egg. No matter what argument you make, someone can come from the other
side with a counter argument.
Anthony Marsh
> I've never understood one thing about the head shot in the Z film and
> what the doctor's accounts here of the head injury. Hope all of you
> can help.
>
> So in the Z film, we see JFK head get shot, and it seems like a flap
> of his head gets blown off above the right ear. But the doctors said
> that when they got JFK in the ER, the back right rear of his head had
> a fist sized hole in it. But the Z film doesn't show that does it?
They were simply wrong.
Herbert Blenner
If the filmed reactions of JFK to the head shot were consistent with
the motions reported by eyewitnesses and consistent with the wound
track documented by the autopsy then this film would diminish the
credibility of the Parkland doctors and others who observed a hole in
the right rear of the head.
The WC published the statements or testimonies of two dozen head shot
eyewitnesses who failed to describe a motion even remotely resembling
the back and to the left movement as seen on the Zapruder film.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/twodozen.htm
Further a frame by frame examination of the film reveals the forward
head snap. However, the uncontested medical evidence of a wound track
confined to the right side of JFK's head demands that a leftward spin,
instead of the forward snap, of the head would have dominated the
mechanical reaction to a shot from the rear.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/conflict.htm
So the failure of the Zapruder film to show damage to the right rear
of JFK's head is not a serious problem for the eyewitness reports of a
larger hole in the right rear of the head. In fact the Zapruder film
itself calls in question its own report of the head shot. In
particular, the excluding Z-313 from the head shot sequence, Z-311,
Z-312, Z-314 and Z-315 shows Toni Foster gracefully walking forward.
However, inclusion of the head shot frame, Z-313, disrupts the
continuity of Foster's motion and makes it appear as if she underwent
a physically impossible double stumble in a mere eighteenth of a
second.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/backward.htm
Herbert
jbarge
Anthony Marsh
SO, if 1,000 people stand outside a building and see the Virgin Mary in
a window, that alone proves she is really there?
Like maybe she's visiting an ill patient or something?
bigdog
It is my belief that Jackie closed that flap of skull as she cradled
his head in her arms and that the doctors never saw the true nature of
the head wound. The bullet shattered JFK's skull like an egg shell,
with many of the pieces remaining in place beneath the scalp. The
Harper fragment was one piece of skull that was blown completely away
while the skull flap remained attaced. The Harper fragment was from
the rear portion of the blasted out area, so if the skull flap was
closed, the only hole the ER doctors would have seen would have been
the missing Harper fragment, giving them the impression that the large
hole was toward the rear of the skull. Since they never treated the
head wound, it is probable that they never saw the full extent of it
which was a massive blow out along the upper right side of the skull.
claviger
> On Nov 25, 12:19 am, RR <rodni7...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I've never understood one thing about the head shot in the Z film and
> > what the doctor's accounts here of the head injury. Hope all of you
> > can help.
>
> > So in the Z film, we see JFK head get shot, and it seems like a flap
> > of his head gets blown off above the right ear. But the doctors said
> > that when they got JFK in the ER, the back right rear of his head had
> > a fist sized hole in it. But the Z film doesn't show that does it?
> > If I recall it still show's JFK right rear of his head still intact,
> > just that big flap from the initial blast from the top of his head is
> > gone.
>
> > So how is it explanable that they saw this hole in the right rear of
> > his head???
>
> > Thanks.
>
> They saw it because it was there, simple. They all say the same thing,
> including FBI agents and Secret Service agents.
They did not all say the same thing.
> Don't beleive that the Z film can give you the answers on the injuries
> JFK sustained, the film is not of high enough quality.
Oliver Stone used the Z-film as the centerpiece of his movie "JFK". He
presented a much enlarged close-up of the head wound in the dramatic
courtroom scene. This emphasis for shock effect backfired on him when many
people noticed the President's head moved forward first, then back and to
the left. For those paying close attention Stone did more to dispel the
shot from the front than prove it.
John Canal
RR says...
I see you've received a lot of replies....most, if not all different. No
surprise. Here's my two cents worth.
Most of the right-parietal, and even including a portion of the right
frontal bone, was blown out. The rear-most piece was, as BIG DOG
accurately stated, was the Harper Fragment, which was posterior parietal.
Anyway, you can see most of that damage in the Zapruder film.
As far the back of his head (BOH) goes, the autopsists clearly stated (and
autopsy photo nos. 44 and 45, as well as the testimony of other
eyewitnesses confirm that) the BOH skull was fragmented...and there must
have been some gaps between some of those fragments. Moreover, there was a
tear in the scalp in that same area allowing at least 11 eyewitnesses,
incluing the autopsists, to see cerebellum.
In any case, perhaps Jackie did cover the flap for the parietal part of
the large wound, but she couldn't have covered it all--much of the scalp
was blown out in that area along with the skull. It's important to note
that several of the PH docs did in fact say the large wound involved the
parietal...not just the occipital.
Now, IMO, the reasons, though, that most of the PH docs described a large
wound in the back of the head area (BOH) that was worse than anything
anyone can see back there in the Z-film are three fold.
First, the BOH wound wasn't a blow-out type wound (see above).
Second, when JFK was transferred from the limo to the gurney, undoubtedly
someone hurriedly grabbed the back of his head to keep it from falling
back and surely worsened it.
And three, as soon as he was prone on his back blood and loose brain
tissue gravitated towards the gaps between the loose BOH sull fragments.
My best guess is that, by the time most of the PH docs that attended him
arrived in ER1, the BOH wound probably looked a lot worse than the
aforementioned right parietal wound.
That said, IMO, the BOH wound was collateral damage (fragmented rear skull
with a scalp tear caused by the edge of one or more of those loose skull
fragments) caused by the rear entering bullet that deformed and deflected
up as it penetrated the rear skull just above the EOP....and, BTW, this
wound was not photographed during the autopsy. The authentic photo of the
intact BOH was taken late in the procedure....and does not conflict in any
way with the condition of his BOH as described by the PH docs....which is
the same as it was when the body was first received (but not photographed)
at Bethesda.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net