Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Josiah Thompson thought there were two head shots in less that ninth second

77 views
Skip to first unread message

bobr

unread,
Jul 25, 2011, 8:53:55 PM7/25/11
to

According to this Joasiah Thompson thought that there were two head
shots in just a few zapruder frames. He later changed that. Of course
I believe he was right the first time since I believe , and have shown
the evidence, of two head shots in 5 zapruder frames.
http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/8560/josiahthompsontwoshotst.png

bobr

unread,
Jul 25, 2011, 10:08:59 PM7/25/11
to

Here is a quote from Josiah Thompson in 2005 at the EdForum....It
describes his change from thinking there were two shots ,one from rear and
one from front, to only one shot from the front.

In “Six Seconds,” I claimed that JFK was hit in the head first from
the rear and then from the front within two Zapruder frames (Z312- Z314)
or one ninth of the a second. This claim was based on the autopsy data and
the fact that JFK’s head moved about two inches forward between Z312 and
Z313. Several years ago, Art Snyder of the Stanford Linear Accelerator
demonstrated to me that my measurement was of the smear in Z313 and not of
any movement of the head between these two frames. Within the last two
years, David Wimp has demonstrated that JFK’s head begins moving forward
about Z308 in concert with the forward movement of everyone else in the
limousine. At Z314, JFK’s head and body begin moving backward at a high
rate of speed while everyone else continues moving forward. Winp suggests
that Greer’s foot may have touched the brake pedal when he turned around
at Z302ff and that shifted everyone forward. In summary, I am now
convinced that there is no evidence of a double impact on JFK’s head at
Z312-314 of the Zapruder film. What we see there is a shot impacting from
the right front and only a shot impacting from the right front. If he was
shot in the head from the rear, that probably came later at Z327/328.

Hank Sienzant

unread,
Jul 25, 2011, 11:42:00 PM7/25/11
to

If you believe he was right the first time, you wouldn't be putting
the two shots five frames apart, because Thompson in SSID put the two
shots between Z312 - Z314, whereas you put them at Z313 and Z318.

So let me get this straight. You believe JFK is hit from behind at
Z313, then, for some reason, JFK's head starts going backward in Z314,
and then, in Z318, he is shot from the right front? How exactly do you
explain that?

It's always been argued by critics that the rearward movement is
*evidence* of a shot from the right front. But you apparently divorce
that rearward movement entirely from the rear shot. Am I understanding
that correctly?

It is strange that you quote Thompson, as he says in what you cited,
that he now believes in a head shot at Z314 from the right front and
*possibly* another, from the rear at Z327/Z328.

That doesn't appear to jibe with what I understand you are stating, a
shot from behind at Z313 and another from the knoll at Z318 (if I
understand your point correctly).

Of course, Thompson cited some witnesses who attested to this double-
bang - like Clint Hill and Jean Hill and S.M.Holland. He doesn't tell
us what we can do with those witnesses statements now that he's put
almost a full second (instead of just a ninth of a second) between the
shots. In addition. he leaves it entirely open now whether there was a
shot from the rear that hit JFK in the head, as I read his statement.
He is saying there might not have been a shot from the rear that hit
JFK in the head. Did the witnesses imagine that double-bang? Was it
slower that Thompson originally led us to believe?

And oif course,, that means every legit expert who conducted the
autopsy or examined the autopsy materials was totally wrong about the
head shot - they ALL, including Cyril Wecht - concluded the evidence
indicates JFK was struck only once in the head, and that shot came
from behind.

So despite the fact that you've introduced three different shot
sequences

1. Thompson's original theory of Z312 & Z314
2. Thompson's revised theory of Z314 &Z327/328
3. Your theory of Z313 & Z318

We are supposed to think better of conspiracy conjecture? I see
nothing that is convincing in any of those three theories.

You think you agree with Thompson's original theory, although you put
the shots in different frames, and further apart.

I guess they should bow to Thompson's superior forensic skills - and
yours.

Hank

David Von Pein

unread,
Jul 25, 2011, 11:43:17 PM7/25/11
to

>>> "Josiah Thompson thought there were two head shots." <<<

And Mr. Thompson, like nearly all conspiracy theorists, arrived at
that theory while totally ignoring the best evidence that proves such
a "Two Head Shots" theory is outright nonsense -- the autopsy report.

Question:

Why do conspiracists feel it's perfectly fine and appropriate (and
practically their DUTY) to completely ignore and/or dismiss JFK's
autopsy report (which is a report that was signed by THREE different
doctors)?

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0284a.htm

Do CTers like Josiah Thompson REALLY believe that ALL THREE of those
autopsy physicians were rotten, evil liars (or just brainless idiots)
when they signed their names to JFK's official autopsy report, which
is a report that is as clear as day regarding the number of bullets
that entered President Kennedy's body on 11/22/63?

And then ALL THREE of those pathologists decided they would tell lie
after lie about the President's autopsy for the rest of their lives
whenever they discussed the case with reporters or when they gave
testimony to a Governmental investigative organization? (Yeah, right.)

I suppose if we were to just toss aside all of the evidence in the
case (including the autopsy report and the testimony of all three
autopsists), then a case could be made for multiple shooters and two
head shots, even though such a silly action on the part of CTers would
STILL not create the existence of any bullets, guns, shells, or gunmen
that can be used to prop up their make-believe multi-gun conspiracies.

Oh, wait, that's just exactly what conspiracy theorists HAVE done in
the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases, isn't it? They've decided that
NONE of the evidence can be trusted. None of it. Therefore, a totally
clean slate must be introduced, after throwing out all of the Oswald-
did-it evidence (including all 12 or so witnesses in Oak Cliff).

It's kind of tough, though, to prove anything when you've started from
scratch -- with NO guns, NO bullets, NO gunmen, NO trustworthy autopsy
report, NO trustworthy FBI reports, and NO trustworthy information at
all coming from ANY of the Government committees who were assigned to
investigate the assassination (WC, HSCA*, Clark Panel, etc.).

* = Except, of course, for the HSCA's Dictabelt garbage, which many
CTers still love to embrace, while dismissing all of the Oswald-did-it
evidence that the HSCA re-examined.

In short -- conspiracy theorists who endorse the "Two Head Shots"
theory (or any other conspiracy theory that ends up with Lee Oswald
being declared innocent) have only one thing going for them:

Their imagination.

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/09/josiah-thompson-interview-december-1967.html

bobr

unread,
Jul 26, 2011, 8:19:19 AM7/26/11
to

I do not buy Josiah Thompsons theory exactly but I was heartened to
find out that he and I were on the same path.

I am confident that I have identified the time of the two shots to
JFK's head. A shot from the rear at frame 313 and a shot from the
right side at frame 318.

The shot at frame 313
http://pressbusone.com/images/zapruder_film/uUIij5.gif

The shot at frame 318
http://pressbusone.com/images/nix_film/nixzap_vertical.gif

bobr

unread,
Jul 26, 2011, 8:19:43 AM7/26/11
to
> http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/09/josiah-thompson-interview-d...

We know there were two shots to the head. There is very little doubt
about it.
We can see the damage in the Moorman photo and compare to the damage
in Zapruder frame 333 one second later.
The rear ward protrusion, which you always like to ignore , is real
and it did not exist at the time of the Moorman photo.

Those photos impeach the autopsy findings as not being complete, which
they are not complete.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 26, 2011, 8:21:29 AM7/26/11
to

Funny. I had been saying that since 1993 and no one paid any attention.

http://the-puzzle-palace.com/headshot.txt

Circumstantial Evidence of a Head Shot From The Grassy Knoll
(c) - Copyright 1993 by W. Anthony Marsh
Presented at The Third Decade conference June 18-20, 1993

As much as we would like to have direct evidence of a head shot
from the
grassy knoll, such evidence may be missing, inconclusive, or suspect.
However, there may be a body of circumstantial evidence which would indicate
that the fatal shot which struck President Kennedy's head at Z-313 came from
the grassy knoll. This paper will not present conclusive proof of a head
shot
from the grassy knoll, but it will cite examples of circumstantial evidence
which strongly suggest that the head shot came from the grassy knoll.
Some of
the examples are well known, but need to be reexamined.
The Zapruder film is the most well-known evidence of the head shot.
Various studies and interpretations of it have been made. Some studies, such
as the one done by Itek, have analyzed the movement of President Kennedy's
head around the time of the head shot. They note that President Kennedy's
head moves forward significantly from Z-312 to Z-313 and cite that as proof
of a shot hitting the head from behind. What they and everyone else has
failed to do is analyze the movements of all the occupants of the rear
compartment of the limousine, including the Connallys. That is what I have
done.
My analysis of the movements of the Kennedys and the Connallys is not,
unfortunately, based on the same reproductions of the Zapruder film as used
in other studies, due to cost considerations. I made measurements in 1/60th
of an inch increments on a photocopy set of prints from Zapruder frames 312
to 321, as reproduced by Robert Cutler in his dividend to The Grassy Knoll
Gazette of X-79. Bob's reference line is drawn through the center of the
window knob. I made all measurements starting at the front edge of his
reference line. However, I noticed that the distance from the reference line
to the rollbar is not constant. This means that we can not use unadjusted
measurements from these prints to calculate precise positions, but can
estimate relative movements. This may be due to a variety of factors,
such as
variations in printing and copying each frame, changes in perspective,
mismeasurements, or blurring. Some Zapruder frames are too blurred to allow
accurate measurements. Each measurement of Nellie Connally's position is to
the front edge of her hair. Each measurement of John Connally's position is
to the front edge of his forehead. Each measurement of Jackie Kennedy's
position is to the front edge of her pillbox hat. Each measurement of JFK's
position is to the edge of his hair at the rear of his head. All
measurements
were lined up against the chrome strip in the background for better
contrast.
Be sure to remember that increasing measurements for the Connallys represent
forward motion, while increasing measurements for the Kennedys represent
rearward motion. Notice the direction and amount of movement of each person
listed in Figure 1. Between Z-312 and Z-313, all the occupants of the rear
compartment of the limo moved forward by about the same amount. Unless all
four were hit by bullets (a practical impossibility), their forward movement
must be caused by something else. The most likely cause is inertia due
to the
limousine having suddenly slowed down. Dr. Luis Alvarez noted in his
study [1]
that the average velocity of the limousine going down Elm Street sharply
decreased just before the head shot. Some researchers have theorized that
Secret Service agent Bill Greer jammed on the brakes or took his foot
off the
accelerator. Whatever he did, the limousine very quickly changed from an
average velocity of about 12 MPH to about 8 MPH just before the head shot.
Obeying the law of inertia, passengers in the limo were thrust forward in
relation to their previous positions in the limousine. Further evidence of
this effect is the fact that the Connallys continued to move forward while
President Kennedy was being thrust backwards. I have not done a similar
analysis of previous Zapruder frames to pinpoint the start of the occupants'
forward movement, so I would urge others to do so themselves, in order to
verify my results and observations. Figure 1.

Z-frame rollbar Nellie Connally Jackie JFK
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
x/60" Z312 136 106 77 44 159
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
difference 9 forward 5 forward 10 forward 6 forward 7
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
Z313 145 111 87 38 152
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
difference 2 forward 2 forward 1 rearward 1 forward 1
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
Z314 147 113 88 39 151
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
difference 4 0 forward 4 forward 6 rearward 6
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
Z315 151 113 92 33 157
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
difference 3 forward 2 forward 1 rearward 1 rearward 9
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
Z316 148 115 93 34 166
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
difference 2 forward 2 forward 7 forward 4
rearward 11
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
Z317 150 117 100 30 177
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
difference 3 forward 5 forward 2 rearward 5
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
Z319 153 122 NA 28 182
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
difference 0 forward 4 forward 3
rearward 14
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
Z320 153 126 130 25 196
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
difference 4 rearward 1 forward 1
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
Z321 157 NA NA 26 195


Perhaps the most controversial evidence produced by the House Select
Committee on Assassinations would be the acoustical studies. In my opinion,
the conclusion that there was a conspiracy should not rest entirely on the
acoustical studies. But the acoustical studies are useful for establishing
the time between shots. All times are measured in seconds after the
microphone became stuck open for several minutes. BBN found 4 shots on the
tape, 3 of which came from the TSBD at 137.70, 139.27, and 145.61
respectively. The grassy knoll shot was found by Weiss and Aschkenasy to be
recorded at 144.90. There was a fifth set of impulses which was rejected by
HSCA as being a false alarm at 140.32. I have looked at the waveforms more
closely to try to determine when the muzzle blast of each shot was recorded,
to a greater degree of accuracy. My best estimate for each shot is 137.702,
139.268, 140.339, 144.895, and 145.608. You can get a general idea of the
spacing between shots by subtracting one time from another. But there is an
additional variable which must be taken into account. BBN found that the
recorder used that day was running about 5% slow, so all times must be
multiplied by about 1.05 in order to restore the original spacing. A more
accurate correction factor might be borrowed from the work which W&A did on
the grassy knoll shot. They found that a correction factor of 1.043 produced
the best fit for echo delays compared to their predicted model. Another
possible corroboration for the 1.043 correction factor is the 'bell' sound
found by BBN at 152.5. Although Todd Vaughan believes that it is only
electrical interference, if we can determine its true frequency, we can
derive the most accurate correction factor. That holds true for many other
sounds on the tape, such as car horns, tire squeals, police sirens, etc. BBN
found that the 'bell' sound had a nominal pitch of 420 Hz. This is close to
the note A, which is usually 440 Hz. If the sound is really a bell, it might
have been tuned to A=440. We do not know for sure what type of bell it was.
Most people have assumed that it is a carillon bell, but it could be a train
bell, a ship's bell, or a victory bell on a college campus. There are a
couple of other possible tunings which would produce a correction factor
close to 1.043. If the bell had been tuned using a mean-tone temperament
scale, it might have a real pitch of 438.075 Hz. Dividing that by 420 would
give us a correction factor of 1.0430357. If the bell had been tuned to an
old English standard of A=438.9, dividing that by 420 would give us a
correction factor of 1.045. Applying the correction factor to the spacing
between shots as found by BBN will give us the true spacing between muzzle
blasts picked up by McLain's cycle. If we want to then translate those into
Zapruder frames, we must multiply each interval by 18.3 frames. Figure 2 is
a rough approximation of how many frames there were between all 5 muzzle
blasts.
Matching these times to the Zapruder film is more complicated and
depends on making several real-world assumptions such as the speed of the
bullets. We can be fairly confident in ruling out the first three shots as
matching the head shot at Z-313, as such a match would place the first shot
after Z-255, when we can clearly see in Altgens 1-6 that President Kennedy
and Governor Connally have already been hit. The HSCA matched the last shot
with Z-313, because their medical evidence indicated that the head shot came
from behind. My alternative matchup tests the idea that the head shot came
from the grassy knoll.

Figure 2.
origin tape time spacing *1.043 *18.3 Z-frame Z-frame
TSBD 137.702 162 176
> 1.566 1.633 29.89
TSBD 139.268 192 206
> 1.071 1.117 20.44
TSBD 140.339 212 226
> 4.556 4.752 86.96
Knoll 144.895 299 313
> 0.713 0.744 13.61
TSBD 145.608 313 327

The first problem we notice with the HSCA version is that the
first shot
is much too early. No other evidence supports a shot that early and clearly
President Kennedy was not hit by a bullet close to that frame. The first
shot
was probably a miss. The HSCA places the hit to JFK's back at around Z190-
192. The problem with that is that we can see President Kennedy in the
Zapruder film during the range Z-190 to Z-210. He does not yet appear to be
reacting to being hit by a bullet. There is absolutely no indication that
Governor Connally was struck by a bullet at about that time, nor at about Z-
210 to Z-212, if we accept the fifth shot which HSCA rejected.
My matchup would indicate a hit to JFK's back somewhere in the
range of
Z-206 to Z-210, and a hit to Connally's back somewhere in the range of Z-226
to Z-230. I believe this is more consistent with previous studies of the
Zapruder film and eyewitness testimony. If there is some way to prove
exactly
when either President Kennedy or Governor Connally received their back
wounds, that would force us to choose between the HSCA version and mine,
regardless of other evidence.
Just as Altgens 1-6 helps us eliminate the first three shots as
matches
with Z-313, it may also help us eliminate the last shot from the TSBD as
matching Z-313. Everyone is familiar with the fact that CE350 shows a crack
on the windshield and that it is not seen in Altgens 1-6, but is seen in
Altgens 1-7. There has been some doubt about which shot from which direction
caused that crack. I believe that I am the first person to notice something
in CE350 which would resolve the doubt. If you look carefully at CE350, you
will notice that the back of the rearview mirror is dented, but you can see
that it was not dented in Altgens 1-6. This damage was caused by a bullet
fragment which struck the windshield from the inside and ricochetted
into the
rearview mirror. Many people believe this fragment came from the head shot,
which would been fired from the TSBD. I tend to feel that all the damage to
the limousine, consisting of the crack in the windshield, dented rearview
mirror and dented chrome topping, was done by the same shot. If we can find
evidence which pinpoints when that damage was done, we may be able to show
that it came several frames after Z-313. Photographic enhancement of the
Zapruder film, Muchmore film or the Bronson film might reveal that the
windshield was not cracked by Z-314. If that turns out to be true, then the
last shot from the TSBD must have missed JFK's head and hit the windshield.
In turn, that would mean that the fatal head shot came from the grassy
knoll.
I seriously doubt that there is any photograph which would show exactly when
the rearview mirror was dented, but perhaps some as-yet-undiscovered
photograph would show when the chrome topping was dented. That dent could
only have been caused by a shot from behind the limo. If it was undented at
Z-314, that would prove that the head shot came from the grassy knoll.
Another factor which might influence our choosing the HSCA version or
mine would be the jiggle analysis of the Zapruder film. Even the HSCA
admitted that the jiggle analysis matched better when the grassy knoll shot
was lined up with Z-313. [2] Figure 3 compares the timing of the impulses
to the Zapruder film. The HSCA rejected the shot which is indicated in
brackets as being too fast for Oswald to have fired. The jiggle analysis
measured the amount of panning error by Zapruder. To simply and clarify,
I have put the groups into ascending order. The group with the largest
amount of blur is marked 'A', the second largest 'B', etc. I have chosen
the Hartmann figures to be representative, as his are usually midway
between Alvarez or Scott's figures. Zapruder's camera ran at 18.3 frames
per second on average.

Figure 3. Two comparisons of jiggle analysis to acoustical data
Frames Group
158-159 D
191-197 B Note that the start of a jiggle group may not
227 C coincide with the firing or impact of a bullet.
290-291 E In most cases, it takes several frames before
313-318 A1 Zapruder reacts to a stimulus.
331-332 A2

HSCA Z-# hit? origin jiggle Marsh Z-# hit? origin jiggle
137.70 161 miss TSBD D 137.702 179 miss TSBD VI#1 B
139.27 191 JFK/JBC TSBD B 139.268 209 JFK TSBD VI#1
[140.32] 140.339 230 Connally TSBD VI#10 C
144.90 297 miss knoll E 144.895 312.6 JFK knoll A1
145.61 312 JFK TSBD A1 145.608 328 Connally TSBD VI#1 A2


The jiggle analysis can not be used as absolute proof of when a shot
occurred, but it matches up better for the head shot from the grassy knoll.
Could eyewitness testimony help resolve the question of which shot hit
what? Secret Service agent Clint Hill testified (2H144) that the last
shot he
heard sounded as though it had hit some metal place. If he in fact had heard
the last shot from the TSBD hit the chrome topping, that would not, in
and of
itself, prove that the TSBD shot missed JFK's head, as the dent could have
been caused by a fragment from the head shot. But it would narrow the range
during which the chrome topping was dented to between Z-313 to Z-331 and
make
it more likely that the chrome topping was dented at the same time that the
windshield was cracked, rather than much earlier as some have speculated.
On pages 126-129 of Six Seconds in Dallas, Josiah Thompson cites the
statements of several witnesses who thought that a shot came from the grassy
knoll. William Newman felt that he and his family were in the direct path of
gunfire. Given their position, it seems more likely that the head shot came
from behind the fence on the grassy knoll than from the TSBD. Emmett Hudson,
who was standing on the steps leading up to the pergola, said that the shots
sounded as if they came from behind him, above his head and to his left.
That
would place the origin near the fence. Zapruder felt that the head shot had
come from behind him and whistled past his right ear. Between these two
witnesses and behind them is the corner of the fence. W&A found a probable
shockwave at 24 ms. before the muzzle blast of the grassy knoll shot.
Assuming the weapon was aimed at the limousine, we can make a rough
calculation of the velocity of the bullet and the resultant angle of the
shockwave. Although the calculation for the decay of the shockwave is too
difficult for me, a rough calculation yielded an exit velocity of the bullet
at about 1564.5 fps. This would create a shockwave of at least 45 degrees on
either side of the flightpath of the bullet. All three witnesses were within
the cone of that shockwave and would have felt it very strongly.
How can we know whether the weapon was aimed at the limousine? If
it had
been aimed in some opposite direction, the open microphone would have been
outside the cone of the shockwave and thus the shockwave would not have been
recorded. Another indication of where the weapon was aimed can be found in
the statement that Sam Holland made to Josiah Thompson when he was shown a
very clear copy of the Moorman 2 Polaroid. He felt that the viewpoint was
looking right down the barrel of the gun. Given Mary Moorman's position, the
gun would have been aimed at the limousine. In Moorman 2 we can see the head
of a man peering over the fence, about 9 feet from the corner.
Interestingly,
this is the same spot where W&A located the origin of the grassy knoll shot,
unaware of the existence of Moorman 2. In Moorman 2 we do not see a side
view
of any weapon as we might expect if it was not aimed at the limo. Whoever
this man was, he moved from that position very quickly after the head shot.
There is no one there in later Zapruder frames or in the Stoughton
photograph, taken shortly after the head shot. The Stoughton photograph has
never been analyzed. The Warren Commission and the House Committee were
unaware of its existence. I believe that no one had ever studied it before I
found it at the JFK Library. Unfortunately, I do not have the resources to
properly analyze it and obviously the government will not, as it might
reveal
the presence of a gunman on the grassy knoll. One independent researcher,
Dale Meyers, has done some computer analysis which suggests that there is a
person behind the fence, several feet to the right of the corner.
Many witnesses can be seen reacting to the shots in various films.
Some
fell to the ground very quickly while others did not seem to realize the
danger. We would expect those witnesses closest to the gun on the grassy
knoll to react very quickly and dramatically to the shockwave whizzing past
them from the grassy knoll. One of the best films to observe their reactions
was taken by Marie Muchmore. In Muchmore frame 42 we can see Hudson and his
two companions on the steps leading up to the pergola. They do not seem
to be
reacting to any gunshots. In frame 55 we can see that two of the men are
reacting. It seems inconceivable that these men would not have reacted
to the
sound of a shockwave coming from so close behind them. If the grassy knoll
shot was the miss before the head shot, we would expect to see these men
react before the head shot. The fact that they did not react until after the
head shot would seem to indicate that the head shot came from the grassy
knoll.
Based on the circumstantial evidence we have now, I believe it is more
likely that the head shot came from the grassy knoll. Existing evidence can
and should be examined further. More information can be gleaned from
existing
data by novel analyses. The release of withheld data could provide new clues
and allow us to verify certain methods, such as the acoustical studies. I
urge other researchers to look for new evidence and perform new analyses.

------
1. W. Peter Trower, ed., "Discovering Alvarez", (Chicago: The University
Press, 1987), pp. 210-224. Also HSCA Vol. I, pp. 428-442.
2. House Select Committee on Assassinations, Report, p.80, footnote 16


pjsp...@aol.com

unread,
Jul 26, 2011, 8:26:51 AM7/26/11
to
> http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/09/josiah-thompson-interview-d...

This is hilarious, David. You know full well that most LNs--including
YOURSELF--disregard the autopsy report, and assume the doctors were
wrong in both their assessment of the head wound location and back
wound location.


Hank Sienzant

unread,
Jul 26, 2011, 2:34:27 PM7/26/11
to
On Jul 26, 8:19 am, bobr <neok...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 25, 10:42 pm, Hank Sienzant <hsienz...@Aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 25, 8:53 pm, bobr <neok...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You think you agree with Thompson's original theory, although you put
> > the shots in different frames, and further apart.
>
> > I guess they should bow to Thompson's superior forensic skills - and
> > yours.
>
> > Hank
>
> I do not buy Josiah Thompsons theory exactly but I was heartened to
> find out that he and I were on the same path.

You are about 44 years behind Thompson's path at present, by my quick
back-of-an-envelope calculation.

>
> I am confident that I have identified the time of the two shots to
> JFK's head. A shot from the rear at frame 313 and a shot from the
> right side at frame 318.

You ignored all my points about the problems with your theory.

Here's the central point again:

So let me get this straight. You believe JFK is hit from behind at
Z313, then, for some reason, JFK's head starts going backward in
Z314,
and then, in Z318, he is shot from the right front? How exactly do
you
explain that?


It's always been argued by critics that the rearward movement is
*evidence* of a shot from the right front. But you apparently divorce
that rearward movement entirely from the rear shot. Am I
understanding
that correctly?

Do you have any explanation? Any explanation at all as to why JFK's
head would start going backward starting in Z314 if he isn't hit from
the knoll until Z318?
Is it a neuro-muscular reaction? A Jet Effect? Alteration of the Z-
Film? The Driver did it?

Anything?

Thanks,
Hank


>
> The shot at frame 313http://pressbusone.com/images/zapruder_film/uUIij5.gif

bobr

unread,
Jul 26, 2011, 3:05:15 PM7/26/11
to
On Jul 26, 7:21 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 7/25/2011 10:08 PM, bobr wrote:
> read more »

Its always about you isn't it?

When did you have a theory for two head shots within a few zapruder
frames? According to you Joshiah Thompson would be a kook for
supporting such a theory.


Gerry Simone

unread,
Jul 26, 2011, 3:07:42 PM7/26/11
to
I don't necessarily agree with you.

I believe if you look at a good copy of the Moorman photo, you will see a
triangular notch at the back of JFK's head which looks like more than a
photographic artifact.

"bobr" <neo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a9d3e958-578d-4bb2...@ei5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

Gerry Simone

unread,
Jul 26, 2011, 3:08:16 PM7/26/11
to
I thought the HSCA had difficulty with the assessment of wound location by
the original autopsy doctors (Humes was pressured and changed the wound
location).

Parkland staff all indicated an exit wound at the BOH. They were
civilians not under orders at the time of their initial observations.

The autopsy doctors were miltary men under orders.

Why does Mantik doubt the autopsy photos and x-Rays?

Look at an enhanced copy of Z236. That's an avulsion, plan and simple.

Too many such important inconsistencies, that no reasonable person can
ignore.

"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:958b220a-b2c8-4ea1...@a31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com...

Gerry Simone

unread,
Jul 26, 2011, 4:06:07 PM7/26/11
to
Excellent article & the observation that everyone's head moves forward
between Z312-Z313.

So the forward upward spray we see at Z313 is blowback? Is this possibly
from a frangible or explosive bullet?

I'm convinced that Z236 shows an avulsion to the BOH.

Can we have an rear exit wound then with a frangible/explosive bullet?


"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4e2e4169$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

bobr

unread,
Jul 26, 2011, 8:51:51 PM7/26/11
to

The Moorman photo does not show the rearward protrusion but it does
show the top of his head missing. One second later the zapruder film
shows the rearward protrusion.

Yes, jfk was moving backward in frame 314 in reaction to the first
shot but the movement of his head in frame 318 is much more violent
and to the left. We do not see the rearward protrusion until after
frame 318.


bobr

unread,
Jul 26, 2011, 8:53:04 PM7/26/11
to
On Jul 26, 2:07 pm, "Gerry Simone" <newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I don't necessarily agree with you.
>
> I believe if you look at a good copy of the Moorman photo, you will see a
> triangular notch at the back of JFK's head which looks like more than a
> photographic artifact.
>
> "bobr" <neok...@gmail.com> wrote in message

Just look at this blowup of frame 335.
There is forensic evidence in this photo. There is evidence of force
in both a forward direction and a rear ward direction. That rear ward
protrusion is HUGH. It is not seen in the Moorman photo.
http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/5396/z337wpng.png

bobr

unread,
Jul 26, 2011, 11:24:28 PM7/26/11
to
On Jul 26, 3:06 pm, "Gerry Simone" <newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Excellent article & the observation that everyone's head moves forward
> between Z312-Z313.
>
> So the forward upward spray we see at Z313 is blowback?  Is this possibly
> from a frangible or explosive bullet?
>
> I'm convinced that Z236 shows an avulsion to the BOH.
>
> Can we have an rear exit wound then with a frangible/explosive bullet?
>
Be careful.Are you really to suspend your belief in what your eyes are
telling you? The forward movement was negligible compared to the
movement of the presidents head.
http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/headmove.gif

bobr

unread,
Jul 26, 2011, 11:25:06 PM7/26/11
to
On Jul 26, 2:07 pm, "Gerry Simone" <newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I don't necessarily agree with you.
>
> I believe if you look at a good copy of the Moorman photo, you will see a
> triangular notch at the back of JFK's head which looks like more than a
> photographic artifact.
>
> "bobr" <neok...@gmail.com> wrote in message

Here is a good copy of the Moorman photo.
http://pressbusone.com/forum/index.php?topic=127.msg127#msg127

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 26, 2011, 11:26:06 PM7/26/11
to
On 7/26/2011 4:06 PM, Gerry Simone wrote:
> Excellent article& the observation that everyone's head moves forward

> between Z312-Z313.
>
> So the forward upward spray we see at Z313 is blowback? Is this possibly
> from a frangible or explosive bullet?
>

Not blowback. The bullet did not come from directly above his head. We
only see the blowout where the skull bones have been blown out to allow
the pressure to escape. But what we do see is something that real forensic
pathologists see every day. A semi-circular defect on the margin of the
fracture where the top of the head was blown open by the frontal shot. In
many cases they find both sides of the wound and put them back together to
document exactly where the bullet it. In JFK's case they couldn't find the
top of the skull which had blown out just above the fracture.

Either a frangible or an explosive bullet is possible. But I don't think
it was a franglible bullet by the size and number of fragments left in the
head. I think it was an explosive bullet.

> I'm convinced that Z236 shows an avulsion to the BOH.
>

I am not sure avulsion makes it easy for people to understand the nature
of the disruption of the back of the skull.

> Can we have an rear exit wound then with a frangible/explosive bullet?
>

I doubt it. Not a separate exit wound in addition to the exit wound in
the top of the head. It is all one massive exit wound.

>
> "Anthony Marsh"<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:4e2e4169$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>> On 7/25/2011 10:08 PM, bobr wrote:
>>> On Jul 25, 7:53 pm, bobr<neok...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> According to this Joasiah Thompson thought that there were two head
>>>> shots in just a few zapruder frames. He later changed that. Of course
>>>> I believe he was right the first time since I believe , and have shown
>>>> the evidence, of two head shots in 5 zapruder
>>>> frames.http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/8560/josiahthompsontwoshotst.png
>>>
>>> Here is a quote from Josiah Thompson in 2005 at the EdForum....It
>>> describes his change from thinking there were two shots ,one from rear
>>> and
>>> one from front, to only one shot from the front.
>>>

>>> In ?Six Seconds,? I claimed that JFK was hit in the head first from


>>> the rear and then from the front within two Zapruder frames (Z312- Z314)
>>> or one ninth of the a second. This claim was based on the autopsy data
>>> and

>>> the fact that JFK?s head moved about two inches forward between Z312 and


>>> Z313. Several years ago, Art Snyder of the Stanford Linear Accelerator
>>> demonstrated to me that my measurement was of the smear in Z313 and not
>>> of
>>> any movement of the head between these two frames. Within the last two

>>> years, David Wimp has demonstrated that JFK?s head begins moving forward


>>> about Z308 in concert with the forward movement of everyone else in the

>>> limousine. At Z314, JFK?s head and body begin moving backward at a high


>>> rate of speed while everyone else continues moving forward. Winp suggests

>>> that Greer?s foot may have touched the brake pedal when he turned around


>>> at Z302ff and that shifted everyone forward. In summary, I am now

>>> convinced that there is no evidence of a double impact on JFK?s head at

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 26, 2011, 11:26:33 PM7/26/11
to
On 7/26/2011 3:08 PM, Gerry Simone wrote:
> I thought the HSCA had difficulty with the assessment of wound location by
> the original autopsy doctors (Humes was pressured and changed the wound
> location).
>
> Parkland staff all indicated an exit wound at the BOH. They were
> civilians not under orders at the time of their initial observations.
>

Did the Parkland staff specifically say it was THE exit wound? No.
Did the Parkland staff specifically say it was a second wound? No.
Did the Parkland staff specifically say the wound was in the BOH? No.
BTW, all the Parkland staff were threatened to keep quiet by Baxter.

> The autopsy doctors were miltary men under orders.
>
> Why does Mantik doubt the autopsy photos and x-Rays?
>

Something about optical density no being authentic.

> Look at an enhanced copy of Z236. That's an avulsion, plan and simple.
>

Some people will be confused by the would avulsion. Avulsion is a
protrusion, not a hole.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 26, 2011, 11:37:52 PM7/26/11
to
On 7/26/2011 3:07 PM, Gerry Simone wrote:
> I don't necessarily agree with you.
>
> I believe if you look at a good copy of the Moorman photo, you will see a
> triangular notch at the back of JFK's head which looks like more than a
> photographic artifact.
>

I believe if you make an extreme blow-up and take some LSD and stare at it
for hours you will see a huge hole in the back of the head. Either that or
27 elves.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 26, 2011, 11:41:48 PM7/26/11
to
On 7/26/2011 3:05 PM, bobr wrote:
> On Jul 26, 7:21 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 7/25/2011 10:08 PM, bobr wrote:
>> read more ?

>
> Its always about you isn't it?
>
> When did you have a theory for two head shots within a few zapruder
> frames? According to you Joshiah Thompson would be a kook for
> supporting such a theory.
>
>
>
>


I can't tell you the exact dates, but for me the difference was the
acoustical evidence. It rules out a simultaneous hit to the head. So we
have to choose which shot was the best match. As I outlined in my paper
Circumstantial Evidence of a Head Shot From The Grassy Knoll, the
acoustical evidence lines up better for the head shot coming from the
grassy knoll.

I am not sure when they leaked the info about the timing of the shots. I
can't remember if it was before the HSCA testimony or contemporaneous. It
might have been leaked by Paul Hoch.

And I know Tink and I would never call him a k**k. But we may disagree on
some points. He finally came around to my theories. But I couldn't get him
to buy the Modified Single Bullet Theory.


David Von Pein

unread,
Jul 26, 2011, 11:47:32 PM7/26/11
to

>>> "We know there were two shots to the head. There is very little doubt
about it." <<<

Oh, really? That's news to me.

The only way you can assert there were two head shots is by utilizing your
imagination...and also by totally ignore the autopsy report and the
autopsy doctors' testimony (which all CTers do, 24/7).

David Von Pein

unread,
Jul 26, 2011, 11:48:43 PM7/26/11
to

>>> "This is hilarious, David. You know full well that most LNs--including
YOURSELF--disregard the autopsy report, and assume the doctors were wrong
in both their assessment of the head wound location and back wound
location." <<<

I've never ever stated that the autopsy doctors were wrong about their
placement of the back wound. Where are you coming up with that? (Surely
you're not going to use the "dot" on the Face Sheet, are you? Because we
all know that the detailed measurements in the margin of the Face Sheet
trump that dot.)

The autopsy doctors most certainly did mislocate the exact location of the
head wound. And the red-spot photo proves that fact, IMO.

But this topic was about how conspiracy theorists MUST ignore the autopsy
report with respect to the specific issue of "The Number Of Bullets That
Struck JFK's Head". And that's something the autopsists got right. So I'm
not in disagreement with them on that big-ticket item at all.

JFK was hit in the head by one bullet, which entered the BACK of his head.
That is a proven FACT. And that proven fact is never going to change,
regardless of how many Josiah Thompsons and Mark Lanes are born in the
future who want to believe otherwise.

David Von Pein

unread,
Jul 26, 2011, 11:48:55 PM7/26/11
to

To try and explain away JFK's obvious forward head movement between
Z312 and Z313 with the silly argument utilized by some CTers about how
EVERYBODY in the car is also moving forward at the same rate and speed
as Mr. Kennedy's head in those two frames is an argument that just
reeks of CTer desperation, IMO.

Nobody's head in that limo, other than JFK's head, is SNAPPING forward
suddenly between 312 and 313. And anyone who claims otherwise needs a
new pair of eyes when looking at this Z-Film gif clip:

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/107ZapruderFilmHeadShotSequenceInSl.gif?

Plus, ITEK Corp. in 1975 measured the forward movement of JFK's head
between Z312 and Z313. Was ITEK only measuring "motion blur" in those
frames (even though Z312 is positively one of the clearest frame in
the entire Zapruder home movie)? Nonsense. ITEK measured the MOVEMENT
of President Kennedy's head at the instant he was struck in the head
from behind.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 27, 2011, 7:54:05 AM7/27/11
to


More WC defender propaganda. Itek erred. Yes, Itek was measuring the
amount of blur in frame 313.
Anyone who claims that there is no blur in frame 313 needs to see an
optometrist.
Itek like most WC defenders made the elementary mistake of measuring
from the back of one object to the front of another object. That adds
the amount of blur to the apparent distance. They quantified the forward
movement as 2.3 inches. After you deduct for the blur it is really about
1 inch.
Anyone who can look at the Zapruder film and not see that Kellerman also
moved forward needs to see a psychiatrist.


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 27, 2011, 7:54:12 AM7/27/11
to
On 7/26/2011 11:48 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>
>>>> "This is hilarious, David. You know full well that most LNs--including
> YOURSELF--disregard the autopsy report, and assume the doctors were wrong
> in both their assessment of the head wound location and back wound
> location."<<<
>
> I've never ever stated that the autopsy doctors were wrong about their
> placement of the back wound. Where are you coming up with that? (Surely
> you're not going to use the "dot" on the Face Sheet, are you? Because we
> all know that the detailed measurements in the margin of the Face Sheet
> trump that dot.)
>

As the real forensic pathologist on the HSCA FPP pointed out, the
landmarks used by the autopsy doctors are not reliable.

> The autopsy doctors most certainly did mislocate the exact location of the
> head wound. And the red-spot photo proves that fact, IMO.
>
> But this topic was about how conspiracy theorists MUST ignore the autopsy
> report with respect to the specific issue of "The Number Of Bullets That
> Struck JFK's Head". And that's something the autopsists got right. So I'm
> not in disagreement with them on that big-ticket item at all.
>

Wow, so it doesn't matter to you where the bullets came from as long as
they guessed correctly that two bullets hit JFK? And you consider that a
proper autopsy? Even a skidrow bum gets a better autopsy.

> JFK was hit in the head by one bullet, which entered the BACK of his head.
> That is a proven FACT. And that proven fact is never going to change,
> regardless of how many Josiah Thompsons and Mark Lanes are born in the
> future who want to believe otherwise.
>

How do you explain the semi-circular defect on the frontal bone?
Do you just ignore it or pretend not to see it in typical WC defender mode?
Even Dale Myers had to include that into his trajectory after I pestered
him for a few years.
But you, no clue.


bobr

unread,
Jul 27, 2011, 7:55:02 AM7/27/11
to

He did not come around to your theory.

bobr

unread,
Jul 27, 2011, 11:27:06 AM7/27/11
to
On Jul 26, 10:41 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 7/26/2011 3:05 PM, bobr wrote:

> I can't tell you the exact dates, but for me the difference was the
> acoustical evidence. It rules out a simultaneous hit to the head. So we
> have to choose which shot was the best match. As I outlined in my paper
> Circumstantial Evidence of a Head Shot From The Grassy Knoll, the
> acoustical evidence lines up better for the head shot coming from the
> grassy knoll.

The photographic evidence supports a near simultaneous shot to the
head.
The acoustic evidence does not rule it out. The acoustic evidence is
in conclusive.

You rely on classified information, information that is still being
withheld from the public.

David Von Pein

unread,
Jul 27, 2011, 11:30:46 AM7/27/11
to

>>> "Anyone who can look at the Zapruder film and not see that Kellerman also moved forward needs to see a psychiatrist." <<<

Was Roy Kellerman being hit in the head by a bullet at the EXACT
INSTANT his head moves forward between Z312 and Z313, Tony?

No. But JFK was.

Let me guess -- it was just a co-inky that JFK was being struck in the
head with a bullet at the precise 1/18th of a second when his head was
snapping forward--but the snap forward wasn't caused by the bullet
plowing into the back of his head (per Tony Marsh). No. We're supposed
to ignore the fact that a bullet is crashing into JFK at that EXACT
1/18th of a second.

Instead, per Marsh, it's best to believe that Greer's braking action
is causing the obvious forward SNAP of Kennedy's cranium, as Greer
slowed the vehicle from a whopping 9 or 10 MPH to--what?--6 or 7 MPH?

Yeah, right. That tremendous slowing from 9 to 6 MPH is bound to
rocket everybody forward, isn't it? (It's a wonder Jackie's pillbox
stayed on her head, what with that violent plunge forward.)

Is it truly possible that conspiracists will, indeed, ignore the
forward head snap...and/or pretend that it was caused by something
other than Oswald's bullet?

Amazingly, we have our answer from Anthony Marsh.

David Von Pein

unread,
Jul 27, 2011, 11:31:03 AM7/27/11
to

>>> "How do you explain the semi-circular defect on the frontal bone?" <<<

If it's an entry wound, Tony, then where's the exit wound for that
bullet?

And why is the left side of JFK's head totally undamaged and,
moreover, free of all bullet fragments?

Or do you think the shooter who caused that semi-circle in JFK's
frontal bone was shooting from directly in front of the President's
car (vs. being located off to the side, i.e., on the Grassy Knoll
someplace)?

I eagerly await your make-believe evidence as you attempt to answer my
above three inquiries.

Brokedad

unread,
Jul 27, 2011, 11:31:19 AM7/27/11
to
On Jul 25, 7:53 pm, bobr <neok...@gmail.com> wrote:
> According to this Joasiah Thompson thought that there were two head
> shots in just a few zapruder frames. He later changed that. Of course
> I believe he was right the first time since I believe , and have shown
> the evidence, of two head shots in 5 zapruder frames.http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/8560/josiahthompsontwoshotst.png

> According to this Joasiah Thompson thought that there were two head shots"


Any statement in which it is deemed as being 50% correct, IS NOT an
incorrect statement!

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 27, 2011, 6:35:14 PM7/27/11
to
On 7/27/2011 11:31 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>
>>>> "How do you explain the semi-circular defect on the frontal bone?"<<<
>
> If it's an entry wound, Tony, then where's the exit wound for that
> bullet?
>

Logical error. You know nothing about ballistics. There does not have to
be any exit wound at all. In the case of James Brady he was shot with an
explosive bullet and there was no exit wound. Only 4 or 5 tiny fragments
went into his brain and the base of the bullet was never recovered.
Likewise the bullet which hit the window in the building across the street
sent fragments into the hallway, but the base of the bullet had been blown
backwards by the explosion and fell onto the sidewalk below. There is not
one tiny little exit wound. The exit wound is the top right side of the
head. Like an impact crater.

> And why is the left side of JFK's head totally undamaged and,
> moreover, free of all bullet fragments?
>

That is simply not true. The autopsy doctors diagrams show extensive
fracturing and missing skull on the left side of JFK's head. And dozens of
dustlike fragments too small to be seen on the X-rays were scattered in
both the right side and left side of the brain.

A few tiny fragments can be seen on the left side of the head on the A-P
X-ray. The autopsy photos show that the hole in the top of JFK's head
extended well into the left hemisphere. Now your only way out is to claim
that the autopsy photos are fakes.


> Or do you think the shooter who caused that semi-circle in JFK's
> frontal bone was shooting from directly in front of the President's
> car (vs. being located off to the side, i.e., on the Grassy Knoll
> someplace)?
>

I have always said the shooter was where Josiah Thompson pointed him out
in the Moorman photo and where the acoustical evidence placed him, about 8
feet west of the corner of the fence, just behind and above the fence. Why
do you even pretend that you don't know this simple fact? A phony
challenge?

Now that you have answered a question with a question instead of just
answering my question, and I have answered all your silly questions and
schooled you, it it time for you to man up and just answer my question.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 27, 2011, 6:41:15 PM7/27/11
to
On 7/27/2011 11:30 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>

>>>> "Anyone who can look at the Zapruder film and not see that Kellerman
also moved forward needs to see a psychiatrist."<<<

>
> Was Roy Kellerman being hit in the head by a bullet at the EXACT
> INSTANT his head moves forward between Z312 and Z313, Tony?
>
> No. But JFK was.
>
> Let me guess -- it was just a co-inky that JFK was being struck in the
> head with a bullet at the precise 1/18th of a second when his head was
> snapping forward--but the snap forward wasn't caused by the bullet
> plowing into the back of his head (per Tony Marsh). No. We're supposed
> to ignore the fact that a bullet is crashing into JFK at that EXACT
> 1/18th of a second.
>

It was no coincidence. JFK was already moving forward. I could make your
same argument and ask if it was just a coincidence that the limo was
moving forward when the shot hit his head.

> Instead, per Marsh, it's best to believe that Greer's braking action
> is causing the obvious forward SNAP of Kennedy's cranium, as Greer
> slowed the vehicle from a whopping 9 or 10 MPH to--what?--6 or 7 MPH?
>

Greer did not brake. I never said he did. The brake lights never come on.

> Yeah, right. That tremendous slowing from 9 to 6 MPH is bound to
> rocket everybody forward, isn't it? (It's a wonder Jackie's pillbox
> stayed on her head, what with that violent plunge forward.)
>

Then why did everyone else move forward at about the same time and by
about the same amount?
If it was not caused by separate shots to each head, it must be caused
by a single cause.

> Is it truly possible that conspiracists will, indeed, ignore the
> forward head snap...and/or pretend that it was caused by something
> other than Oswald's bullet?
>
> Amazingly, we have our answer from Anthony Marsh.
>


Yes, and it was groundbreaking when I presented it at Ken's conference in
Providence. No one else had bothered to study the movements of the other
passengers in the limo. That is what I do. I research things that others
have overlooked.


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 27, 2011, 6:42:54 PM7/27/11
to
On 7/27/2011 11:27 AM, bobr wrote:
> On Jul 26, 10:41 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 7/26/2011 3:05 PM, bobr wrote:
>
>> I can't tell you the exact dates, but for me the difference was the
>> acoustical evidence. It rules out a simultaneous hit to the head. So we
>> have to choose which shot was the best match. As I outlined in my paper
>> Circumstantial Evidence of a Head Shot From The Grassy Knoll, the
>> acoustical evidence lines up better for the head shot coming from the
>> grassy knoll.
>
> The photographic evidence supports a near simultaneous shot to the
> head.
> The acoustic evidence does not rule it out. The acoustic evidence is
> in conclusive.
>

Logical fallacy. If you claim the acoustical evidence is invalid you
can't turn around and claim that it does not rule out something.

> You rely on classified information, information that is still being
> withheld from the public.
>

Not exactly. In some cases it is true that I rely on classified
information. In this case I do not rely on classified information. On this
point I rely on leaked information which was later declassified. Some more
information is still being withheld from the public and the government has
ignored my FOIA requests to release it. I guess they think it might cause
WWIII if the truth came out.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 27, 2011, 6:57:58 PM7/27/11
to


Yes, he did. Only the head shot from the grassy knoll. That is what he
said at the Wecht conference in 2004.


Caeruleo

unread,
Jul 28, 2011, 10:15:40 AM7/28/11
to
In article <4e2e...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
"Gerry Simone" <newdec...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Excellent article & the observation that everyone's head moves forward
> between Z312-Z313.
>
> So the forward upward spray we see at Z313 is blowback? Is this possibly
> from a frangible or explosive bullet?
>
> I'm convinced that Z236 shows an avulsion to the BOH.
>
> Can we have an rear exit wound then with a frangible/explosive bullet?

I'm guessing you meant Z336 rather than Z236. I'm curious as to why the
"avulsion" in the rear is emphasized, but nothing is mentioned about
something many orders of magnitude (to put it mildly) more obvious,
which are those gigantic, nasty, gory, horrific flaps of
bone/flesh/scalp that are abruptly just *there* right after Z313, flaps
that are so huge, in fact, that for the entire remainder of the time he
remains in view, in every frame, without a single exception, they
completely obscure the entire right side of his face from the camera.

Someone, anyone, explain to me why that is not at least 1000 times more
likely to be the exit than anywhere else on his head, since this damage
is obviously at least 1000 times worse than any other visible damage.

The "avulsion" is a mere triviality in comparison. It is a very slight
misshaping of the head. Very slight. Not a trace of exposed
bone/flesh/scalp can be seen there for certain in even one frame. Not a
bit. Not even in one frame. Not one.

Perhaps the noteworthy may consider this proposition:

A high-velocity missile traveling 1363.64 m.p.h. or 2194.57 k.p.h. (:D)
slammed into the rear of the President's head to the right and slightly
above the external occipital protuberance. As the cranium under such a
circumstance is a pressure cavity, it is inevitable that it will explode
open with great force. The majority of this explosive force went
forward with the bullet, naturally, and since the President's head at
that instant was inclined significantly downward and to the left, most
of the bone that exploded completely out of his head was forward along
the top and forward along the right side, which also would produce the
huge flaps of exposed bone/flesh/scalp which were so huge that they
completely obscured the entire right side of his face when viewed
direction from the right. The scalp was ripped open as this quantity of
bone blasted through it, but not that much scalp was taken along with
the exiting material. But the bullet entry would also naturally cause
severe fracturing of the skull in the rearward parietal bone, extending
somewhat into occipital bone, and due to this the back of the head would
become malleable, as these fractured pieces in some areas would no
longer be attached to each other, but still attached to the scalp. The
pressure cavity of the cranium would naturally involve pressure pushing
outward in every direction, not forward only, and so these fragmented
pieces of bone were shoved laterally in various ways, with a
corresponding tear in the scalp, but otherwise no scalp missing in the
rear of the head. What appears to be an "avulsion" is simply created by
that movement of fragmented skull.

It then seems that some erudite researchers have noticed what a tear in
the scalp, and displaced but still present fragmented bone, might create
to the right and somewhat below the bullet entry. It is not an "exit,"
as in material exiting in the same direction as the bullet. It is
instead produced by the fracturing that radiated out from the entry, in
combination with the overall pressure of the cranium exploding open.

The back of the head was malleable, as in its shape was no longer as
solid as it had just been.

"I was trying to hold his hair on. From the front there was nothing ---
I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you
know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on."

Jacqueline Kennedy, 6-5-64

--
"...the difference between rightwingers and
leftwingers is just which rights they want to ignore."
Michael O'Dell on 7-8-11

Caeruleo

unread,
Jul 28, 2011, 12:02:31 PM7/28/11
to
In article <4e2e...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
"Gerry Simone" <newdec...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I thought the HSCA had difficulty with the assessment of wound location by
> the original autopsy doctors (Humes was pressured and changed the wound
> location).

Yes, and that was based on a misunderstanding of the circumstances under
which the BOH photos, such as the one numbered by the HSCA as 42, were
taken.

> Parkland staff all indicated an exit wound at the BOH.

No. They indicated what only some of them mistakenly *believed* to be an
exit wound in the right rear of his head. The majority of them did not
specifically call it an exit wound. Because they could not see anything
even remotely close to all of the skull (no one would for the first time
until the hair and scalp were peeled back at the autopsy) they would
naturally not see the explosive forward exit that took out a large amount
of the skull. There was enough hair and scalp to cover that much larger
hole almost completely. The tremendously smaller hole or opening in the
right rear of the head was not caused by exiting, but by a combination of
the severe fracturing of the skull due to the rear bullet entry, the
overall explosive force of the cranium being blasted open, and a tear in
the scalp in that area. Naturally, because that would then be the only
opening in the head that they could see clearly, some of them would
mistake it as being directly related to missile exit, when in fact it was
indirectly related.

> They were
> civilians not under orders at the time of their initial observations.
>
> The autopsy doctors were miltary men under orders.

And if so, would perhaps explain why the rear damage was downplayed under
a mistaken belief that admitting it openly would be interpreted as an
admission of exit damage, which it was not.

> Why does Mantik doubt the autopsy photos and x-Rays?

Heh. That's a quagmire that I don't want to step too far into; suffice
it to say that he may have been under the same delusion except in
reverse.

> Look at an enhanced copy of Z236.

ITYM Z336.

> That's an avulsion, plan and simple.

Sort of. Scan your eyes a bit to the right in Z336. Just go a little bit
to the right of his ear. Do you not see something that makes that
"avulsion" a mere triviality in comparison?

I'm curious as to why you are not mentioning that the ***GIGANTIC*** flaps
of bone/flesh/scalp in front of his right ear in Z336 that are so
***HUGE*** that they complete obscure the entire right side of his face
from the camera were not mentioned by the Parkland staff either. Yet they
were not under orders, as you say. How do you reconcile that?

I know how I have reconciled it, and continue to do so; I'm just curious
to see if you can reconcile it at least half as plausibly.

> Too many such important inconsistencies, that no reasonable person can
> ignore.

With that I certainly agree. And these inconsistencies can be resolved in
an entirely plausible manner, without dismissing any of the primary
elements of evidence. This manner does not require any question of
authenticity regarding the Zapruder film or even one autopsy photograph or
x-ray, nor does it require dismissing the majority of the c.40 witnesses
who saw JFK at any time, for any length of time, from the instant his head
was shattered until the moment the lid of his coffin was closed for the
last time. Sadly, I have not yet seen more than a handful researchers
gaining an insight into the obvious thread of consistency that runs right
through the majority of this evidence.

Caeruleo

unread,
Jul 28, 2011, 12:02:57 PM7/28/11
to
In article <4e2ee4dd$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
"Gerry Simone" <newdec...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I don't necessarily agree with you.
>
> I believe if you look at a good copy of the Moorman photo, you will see a
> triangular notch at the back of JFK's head which looks like more than a
> photographic artifact.

The Moorman photo is almost useless to this determination since it comes
nowhere close to showing the head in direct profile, and thus any
misshapen aspect to the back of his head that may already be present will
not necessarily be evident. The Zapruder film is also almost useless for
this determination since from Z314 to somewhere around Z330, I think, we
again do not get a clear profile view. Only after Z330 does that happen
for the first time.

Caeruleo

unread,
Jul 28, 2011, 12:03:16 PM7/28/11
to
In article
<ef04b414-0b22-43cb...@b19g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,

David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:

> To try and explain away JFK's obvious forward head movement between
> Z312 and Z313 with the silly argument utilized by some CTers about how
> EVERYBODY in the car is also moving forward at the same rate and speed
> as Mr. Kennedy's head in those two frames is an argument that just
> reeks of CTer desperation, IMO.
>
> Nobody's head in that limo, other than JFK's head, is SNAPPING forward
> suddenly between 312 and 313. And anyone who claims otherwise needs a
> new pair of eyes when looking at this Z-Film gif clip:
>
> http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RE
> LATED%20PHOTOS/107ZapruderFilmHeadShotSequenceInSl.gif?

Yep, still don't see anyone's head move forward except his, and I've
flipped back and forth between Z312 and Z313 many times in the past and
didn't see anyone's head but his jerk forward all those other times
either.

Caeruleo

unread,
Jul 28, 2011, 12:03:36 PM7/28/11
to
In article
<84b52efb-ff36-4e1b...@v11g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,

David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:

> >>> "Anyone who can look at the Zapruder film and not see that Kellerman also
> >>> moved forward needs to see a psychiatrist." <<<
>
> Was Roy Kellerman being hit in the head by a bullet at the EXACT
> INSTANT his head moves forward between Z312 and Z313, Tony?
>
> No. But JFK was.

Hmmm. I don't see Kellerman's head move forward an iota until 315-316.

Maybe I need to go see my psychoanalyst about that? Oh wait, I don't
have a psychoanalyst.

I'll just talk to my dog about it.

Caeruleo

unread,
Jul 28, 2011, 1:59:23 PM7/28/11
to
In article
<1ab5df2c-8be6-4cb4...@j37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
"pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@AOL.COM> wrote:

> This is hilarious, David. You know full well that most LNs--including
> YOURSELF--disregard the autopsy report, and assume the doctors were
> wrong in both their assessment of the head wound location and back
> wound location.

Yes, and actually that is because they are still laboring under the
mistaken belief that it is necessary to discard that and still support a
single shooter from the 6th floor of the TSBD, when in actual fact it is
not even slightly necessary.

Caeruleo

unread,
Jul 28, 2011, 1:59:30 PM7/28/11
to
In article
<2b6cc527-e7f3-401a...@p19g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,

David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:

> >>> "This is hilarious, David. You know full well that most LNs--including
> YOURSELF--disregard the autopsy report, and assume the doctors were wrong
> in both their assessment of the head wound location and back wound
> location." <<<
>
> I've never ever stated that the autopsy doctors were wrong about their
> placement of the back wound. Where are you coming up with that?

(Pssst...David...he didn't say the autopsy doctors, he said the doctors,
period. He obviously meant the Parkland doctors.)

> (Surely
> you're not going to use the "dot" on the Face Sheet, are you? Because we
> all know that the detailed measurements in the margin of the Face Sheet
> trump that dot.)
>
> The autopsy doctors most certainly did mislocate the exact location of the
> head wound. And the red-spot photo proves that fact, IMO.

Does the red spot line up with the skull entry, David? You will be
addressing me in that answer, not Mr. Canal, and I will thank you in
advance not to accuse me of mindlessly following his lead, just in case
you are tempted to do so, which I'm not necessarily saying you will. I
hope. :P

> But this topic was about how conspiracy theorists MUST ignore the autopsy
> report with respect to the specific issue of "The Number Of Bullets That
> Struck JFK's Head". And that's something the autopsists got right. So I'm
> not in disagreement with them on that big-ticket item at all.

Neither am I.

The Parkland doctors also got something else right: a much smaller
opening or hole in the back of his head due to loose and fragmented bone
fractured by the bullet entry in combination with a tear in the scalp.
The only part they got wrong, and it was only a few of them who got it
wrong, was mistakenly assuming it was an exit when it wasn't.

> JFK was hit in the head by one bullet, which entered the BACK of his head.
> That is a proven FACT.

Exactly.

> And that proven fact is never going to change,
> regardless of how many Josiah Thompsons and Mark Lanes are born in the
> future who want to believe otherwise.

Neither will that hole in the right rear of his head ever become a
bullet exit no matter how many Josiah Thompsons and Mark Lanes
desperately want it to be one.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 28, 2011, 2:00:45 PM7/28/11
to
On 7/28/2011 10:15 AM, Caeruleo wrote:
> In article<4e2e...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> "Gerry Simone"<newdec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Excellent article& the observation that everyone's head moves forward

>> between Z312-Z313.
>>
>> So the forward upward spray we see at Z313 is blowback? Is this possibly
>> from a frangible or explosive bullet?
>>
>> I'm convinced that Z236 shows an avulsion to the BOH.
>>
>> Can we have an rear exit wound then with a frangible/explosive bullet?
>
> I'm guessing you meant Z336 rather than Z236. I'm curious as to why the
> "avulsion" in the rear is emphasized, but nothing is mentioned about
> something many orders of magnitude (to put it mildly) more obvious,
> which are those gigantic, nasty, gory, horrific flaps of
> bone/flesh/scalp that are abruptly just *there* right after Z313, flaps
> that are so huge, in fact, that for the entire remainder of the time he
> remains in view, in every frame, without a single exception, they
> completely obscure the entire right side of his face from the camera.
>

Right. How MANY flaps do you see? Five, Twenty, Dozens?
Can you see the same flaps in the autopsy photos?
Do you also see some mysterious Blob suddenly appear over the face?

> Someone, anyone, explain to me why that is not at least 1000 times more
> likely to be the exit than anywhere else on his head, since this damage
> is obviously at least 1000 times worse than any other visible damage.
>

Logical error. Not THE exit. An exit. There was one massive exit on the
top right of the head. Many pieces of skull were blown out. Each one of
those was not THE exit, each was AN exit. Not even of THE bullet. Not
even of a fragment. Exit of debris. Blown out bone from the overpressure.

> The "avulsion" is a mere triviality in comparison. It is a very slight
> misshaping of the head. Very slight. Not a trace of exposed
> bone/flesh/scalp can be seen there for certain in even one frame. Not a
> bit. Not even in one frame. Not one.
>
> Perhaps the noteworthy may consider this proposition:
>
> A high-velocity missile traveling 1363.64 m.p.h. or 2194.57 k.p.h. (:D)
> slammed into the rear of the President's head to the right and slightly

It is not customary to refer to bullet velocities as KPH. FPS is the
standard measurement. How do you calculate the impact velocity?
Hopefully you don't just grab it from Sturdivan. Sturdivan uses m/s.

2165-265=1900 fps.


> above the external occipital protuberance. As the cranium under such a

Can you show me this bullet hole just above the EOP in any autopsy photo?

> circumstance is a pressure cavity, it is inevitable that it will explode
> open with great force. The majority of this explosive force went
> forward with the bullet, naturally, and since the President's head at

Not forward. Upward.

> that instant was inclined significantly downward and to the left, most

Exactly how many degrees?

> of the bone that exploded completely out of his head was forward along
> the top and forward along the right side, which also would produce the
> huge flaps of exposed bone/flesh/scalp which were so huge that they
> completely obscured the entire right side of his face when viewed
> direction from the right. The scalp was ripped open as this quantity of

Can you see for yourself on the autopsy photos exactly where on the
frontal bone the top of the head was blasted out?
When the scalp was reflected down to remove the brain do you assume that
it was parallel to the brow?

> bone blasted through it, but not that much scalp was taken along with
> the exiting material. But the bullet entry would also naturally cause
> severe fracturing of the skull in the rearward parietal bone, extending
> somewhat into occipital bone, and due to this the back of the head would
> become malleable, as these fractured pieces in some areas would no
> longer be attached to each other, but still attached to the scalp. The
> pressure cavity of the cranium would naturally involve pressure pushing
> outward in every direction, not forward only, and so these fragmented
> pieces of bone were shoved laterally in various ways, with a
> corresponding tear in the scalp, but otherwise no scalp missing in the
> rear of the head. What appears to be an "avulsion" is simply created by
> that movement of fragmented skull.
>

That's why the word avulsion does not adequate describe it.

> It then seems that some erudite researchers have noticed what a tear in
> the scalp, and displaced but still present fragmented bone, might create
> to the right and somewhat below the bullet entry. It is not an "exit,"
> as in material exiting in the same direction as the bullet. It is

Where is it written in stone anywhere that an exit must be in the same
direction as the bullet? Do you think one intact bullet exited or many
fragments?

> instead produced by the fracturing that radiated out from the entry, in
> combination with the overall pressure of the cranium exploding open.
>
> The back of the head was malleable, as in its shape was no longer as
> solid as it had just been.
>

Think plates.

> "I was trying to hold his hair on. From the front there was nothing ---
> I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you
> know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on."
>
> Jacqueline Kennedy, 6-5-64
>


And maybe MUCH more which is still being withheld by the Kennedy Library.


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 28, 2011, 4:38:12 PM7/28/11
to
On 7/28/2011 12:03 PM, Caeruleo wrote:
> In article
> <84b52efb-ff36-4e1b...@v11g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> David Von Pein<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> "Anyone who can look at the Zapruder film and not see that Kellerman also
>>>>> moved forward needs to see a psychiatrist."<<<
>>
>> Was Roy Kellerman being hit in the head by a bullet at the EXACT
>> INSTANT his head moves forward between Z312 and Z313, Tony?
>>
>> No. But JFK was.
>
> Hmmm. I don't see Kellerman's head move forward an iota until 315-316.
>
> Maybe I need to go see my psychoanalyst about that? Oh wait, I don't
> have a psychoanalyst.
>

I didn't say psychoanalyst.

> I'll just talk to my dog about it.
>

Don't. He'd probably bite you.

Anyway you already lost the argument. I did not specify frames 312 and
313 for Kellerman. Then YOU volunteered that you see him move at 315 and
316. You blink you lose.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 28, 2011, 4:38:23 PM7/28/11
to
On 7/28/2011 12:03 PM, Caeruleo wrote:
> In article
> <ef04b414-0b22-43cb...@b19g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
> David Von Pein<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> To try and explain away JFK's obvious forward head movement between
>> Z312 and Z313 with the silly argument utilized by some CTers about how
>> EVERYBODY in the car is also moving forward at the same rate and speed
>> as Mr. Kennedy's head in those two frames is an argument that just
>> reeks of CTer desperation, IMO.
>>
>> Nobody's head in that limo, other than JFK's head, is SNAPPING forward
>> suddenly between 312 and 313. And anyone who claims otherwise needs a
>> new pair of eyes when looking at this Z-Film gif clip:
>>
>> http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RE
>> LATED%20PHOTOS/107ZapruderFilmHeadShotSequenceInSl.gif?
>
> Yep, still don't see anyone's head move forward except his, and I've
> flipped back and forth between Z312 and Z313 many times in the past and
> didn't see anyone's head but his jerk forward all those other times
> either.
>

Thanks for proving my point. Because you are a WC defender you refuse to
see anything.
And again, this is not just about 312 and 313. The point is that
everyone was ALREADY moving forward BEFORE 312.
So naturally you refuse to look at any frames BEFORE 312.


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 28, 2011, 4:38:35 PM7/28/11
to
On 7/28/2011 12:02 PM, Caeruleo wrote:
> In article<4e2ee4dd$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> "Gerry Simone"<newdec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't necessarily agree with you.
>>
>> I believe if you look at a good copy of the Moorman photo, you will see a
>> triangular notch at the back of JFK's head which looks like more than a
>> photographic artifact.
>
> The Moorman photo is almost useless to this determination since it comes
> nowhere close to showing the head in direct profile, and thus any
> misshapen aspect to the back of his head that may already be present will
> not necessarily be evident. The Zapruder film is also almost useless for
> this determination since from Z314 to somewhere around Z330, I think, we
> again do not get a clear profile view. Only after Z330 does that happen
> for the first time.
>

So you claim that when you look at the Moorman photo you can not even
see where JFK's head is? Maybe you should look at a larger copy rather
than the 100x100 thumbnail.


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 28, 2011, 4:38:50 PM7/28/11
to
On 7/28/2011 12:02 PM, Caeruleo wrote:

Are you talking about a SECOND hole in the head?

Hank Sienzant

unread,
Jul 28, 2011, 4:46:42 PM7/28/11
to
On Jul 26, 8:51 pm, bobr <neok...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 26, 1:34 pm, Hank Sienzant <hsienz...@Aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 26, 8:19 am, bobr <neok...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 25, 10:42 pm, Hank Sienzant <hsienz...@Aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 25, 8:53 pm, bobr <neok...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > You think you agree with Thompson's original theory, although you put
> > > > the shots in different frames, and further apart.
>
> > > > I guess they should bow to Thompson's superior forensic skills - and
> > > > yours.
>
> > > > Hank
>
> > > I do not buy Josiah Thompsons theory exactly but I was heartened to
> > > find out that he and I were on the same path.
>
> > You are about 44 years behind Thompson's path at present, by my quick
> > back-of-an-envelope calculation.
>
> > > I am confident that I have identified the time of the two shots to
> > > JFK's head. A shot from the rear at frame 313 and a shot from the
> > > right side at frame 318.
>
> > You ignored all my points about the problems with your theory.
>
> > Here's the central point again:
>
> > So let me get this straight. You believe JFK is hit from behind at
> > Z313, then, for some reason, JFK's head starts going backward in
> > Z314,
> > and then, in Z318, he is shot from the right front? How exactly do
> > you
> > explain that?
>
> > It's always been argued by critics that the rearward movement is
> > *evidence* of a shot from the right front. But you apparently divorce
> > that rearward movement entirely from the rear shot. Am I
> > understanding
> > that correctly?
>
> > Do you have any explanation? Any explanation at all as to why JFK's
> > head would start going backward starting in Z314 if he isn't hit from
> > the knoll until Z318?
> > Is it a neuro-muscular reaction? A Jet Effect? Alteration of the Z-
> > Film? The Driver did it?
>
> > Anything?
>
> > Thanks,
> > Hank
>
> > > The shot at frame 313http://pressbusone.com/images/zapruder_film/uUIij5.gif
>
> > > The shot at frame 318http://pressbusone.com/images/nix_film/nixzap_vertical.gif
>
> The Moorman photo does not show the rearward protrusion but it does
> show the top of his head missing. One second later the zapruder film
> shows the rearward protrusion.
>
> Yes, jfk was moving backward in frame 314 in reaction to the first
> shot but the movement of his head in frame 318 is much more violent
> and to the left. We do not see the rearward protrusion until after
> frame 318.- Hide quoted text -
>

JFK was moving backward in reaction to the first shot *from behind*? Is
that your final answer?

Critics have been arguing since at least 1965 that JFK would not move
backward after being shot from behind, and have used that backward motion
to argue that JFK was struck in the head not from behind, but from the
right front.

Warren Commission defenders have argued that a jet effect or neuromuscular
reaction could cause JFK to move back, despite being shot from behind.

Now you come along and claim the critics have been wrong for 46 years,
that JFK's head could go back after being shot from behind.

If that's true, why doesn't he then go forward and to the right when - if
your claim JFK is hit a second time at Z318 is correct - JFK is hit in the
head a second time?

Instead, you claim JFK goes back (and to the left) regardless of where the
shooter was. Am I understanding that correctly?

You also claim that "the movement of his head in frame 318 is much more
violent and to the left [than prior to Z318]".

However, that is NOT confirmed by the measurements for the head motion in
Thompson's Six Seconds in Dallas.

Please advise on what basis you make that claim (did you just - gasp -
eyeball it)?

Hank
aka Joe Zircon

John Canal

unread,
Jul 28, 2011, 4:48:16 PM7/28/11
to
In article <caeruleo1-C37BF...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Caeruleo
says...

>
>In article
><84b52efb-ff36-4e1b...@v11g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> "Anyone who can look at the Zapruder film and not see that Kellerman also
>> >>> moved forward needs to see a psychiatrist." <<<
>>
>> Was Roy Kellerman being hit in the head by a bullet at the EXACT
>> INSTANT his head moves forward between Z312 and Z313, Tony?
>>
>> No. But JFK was.
>
>Hmmm. I don't see Kellerman's head move forward an iota until 315-316.

http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/946/z311toz3133.jpg

Re. this (above) graphic (hopefully the link will work) pretty much shows
that between 311 to 313 only JFK's head moves significantly
forward.....unless I'm going blind like Marsh (he can't see the entry in
the back of JFK's skull in F8...(see the link at the end of these
paragraphs).......he thinks it's a black "spot" or something like
that.....too bad he can't get to see the originals...even he might change
his mind and his silly "no-hits-to-the-back-of-JFK's-head" theory. Anyway,
they surely wouldn't let anyone who thinks there were no hits to the back
of JFK's head see them just as they wouldn't let anyone who claims they
were abducted by aliens see them.

By the way Tony's "spot" just happens to be: 1) centered in the photo
titled, Missile wound in posterior skull', 2) just below the ruler,....and
3) precisely the defect that Zimmerman and Sturdivan, who viewed the
"crystal clear" originals using a stereoscopic viewer, said was the entry.

One can't see what one doesn't want to see, eh Marsh?

http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/8086/senhanced.jpg


--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 28, 2011, 11:45:06 PM7/28/11
to

There is a difference between misinterpreting something you see and not
being able to see anything.

David Von Pein

unread,
Jul 29, 2011, 10:07:10 AM7/29/11
to

I love Tony's answer about the exit wound. I guess, per Anthony M.,
the entry and exit wounds in JFK's head did double duty on Nov. 22nd,
even though JFK was struck in the head by a high-powered rifle bullet.
So, the entry wound was also (essentially) the exit wound too. Right,
Tony?

But you DO think a HIGH-POWERED rifle bullet entered JFK's head, don't
you Tony?

And yet, at the end of the day, the left half of Kennedy's brain was
completely "intact":

"When viewed from the vertex, the left cerebral hemisphere [of
JFK's brain] is intact." -- From the Supplementary Autopsy Report
(CE391; Page 1)


Another question for Tony Marsh:

Why do you feel the need to supplement the existing official records,
such as CE391 and the testimony of Dr. Humes, Dr. Finck, and Dr.
Boswell, who ALL have always insisted that people like you are dead
wrong and they have always insisted that JFK was not hit by any
bullets from the front at all?

Are the theories of Anthony Marsh of Massachusetts (or any conspiracy
theorist anywhere in the world) really supposed to trump these
comments made by Dr. James Joseph Humes in 1967?:

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2011/05/dr-james-humes.html

Please give me one really good reason to disbelieve Dr. Humes'
comments above.

Can you do that, Mr. Marsh?

David Von Pein

unread,
Jul 29, 2011, 10:07:16 AM7/29/11
to

>>> "Pssst...David...he [Pat Speer] didn't say the autopsy doctors, he said the doctors, period. He obviously meant the Parkland doctors." <<<

No, he didn't. Pat was talking only about the autopsy doctors there.
And that's because this whole sub-topic that I brought up was about
how the CTers must always ignore the "autopsy report", which has
nothing at all to do with the Parkland doctors.

Plus, if Pat had been referring to the Parkland doctors with respect
to mislocating the BACK wound of JFK, that would be kind of silly--
because nobody at Parkland even saw the back wound to make an
assessment of how high or low on the back the wound was.

John Canal

unread,
Jul 29, 2011, 12:43:45 PM7/29/11
to
In article <e0935c49-cafc-4d48...@r12g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein says...

Not to be nitpicky David but there's a fair chance that's not true. 1st,
there was this statement on national TV not too long after the
assassination by Dan Rather (paraphrasing, because I'm going from memory,
but it's close): "Walter, this just in. We are being told the fatal bullet
entered at the throat and exited a the base of the neck on the back side".

Now did they guess the bullet exited there...if so, it was a pretty good
description of the location of that wound.

Perhaps they got the information from Nurse Bowron...who stated she saw
the back wound? Now was she simply trying to get her 15 minutes of fame by
saying that? Possible but there are actually a couple of reasonable
arguments against that being her motivation.

One, is that it's documented she washed the blood off JFK before he was
placed in the casket...and surely there was blood on his back...so if she
missed seeing a bullet wound, she was pretty inept for a nurse.

And two, she was pretty much "almost" unreachable for interviews in the
years following the assassination (still is, trust myself and Paul Seaton
on that)...suggesting she wasn't just trying to get her name in the
history books as being the one at PH who saw the back wound.

--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

John Canal

unread,
Jul 29, 2011, 12:46:00 PM7/29/11
to
In article <b6679dfc-30ee-46a8...@s2g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein says...
>
>

I'll try to answer that for him. It's because he: 1) examined copies of
the autopsy photos and x-rays, 2) was a forensic pathologist in another
life, and 3) HB&F only examined the body.

:-)


--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

Caeruleo

unread,
Jul 29, 2011, 12:51:05 PM7/29/11
to
In article
<e0935c49-cafc-4d48...@r12g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,

David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:

> >>> "Pssst...David...he [Pat Speer] didn't say the autopsy doctors, he said
> >>> the doctors, period. He obviously meant the Parkland doctors." <<<
>
> No, he didn't. Pat was talking only about the autopsy doctors there.

How can you tell that? Here's the complete quote from his article:

"This is hilarious, David. You know full well that most LNs--including
YOURSELF--disregard the autopsy report, and assume the doctors were wrong
in both their assessment of the head wound location and back wound
location."

He doesn't say "autopsy doctors" there, he just says "doctors." He's also
saying that most LNs assume the "doctors" to be wrong about the head
wound, so that's obviously referring to the Parkland doctors, not the
autopsy doctors, since I don't know of any LN who thinks the autopsy
doctors were wrong about the head wound.

> And that's because this whole sub-topic that I brought up was about
> how the CTers must always ignore the "autopsy report", which has
> nothing at all to do with the Parkland doctors.
>
> Plus, if Pat had been referring to the Parkland doctors with respect
> to mislocating the BACK wound of JFK, that would be kind of silly--
> because nobody at Parkland even saw the back wound to make an
> assessment of how high or low on the back the wound was.

Well, true enough, I don't know why he has "back wound location" there.
Maybe he's saying ALL the doctors in both places are assumed to be wrong
by most LNs? If so, that would be a very strange statement indeed. ;-)

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 29, 2011, 4:22:47 PM7/29/11
to

Not true.

> :-)
>
>


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 29, 2011, 6:02:11 PM7/29/11
to
On 7/29/2011 12:43 PM, John Canal wrote:
> In article<e0935c49-cafc-4d48...@r12g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
> David Von Pein says...
>>
>>
>>>>> "Pssst...David...he [Pat Speer] didn't say the autopsy doctors, he said the
>>>>> doctors, period. He obviously meant the Parkland doctors."<<<
>>
>> No, he didn't. Pat was talking only about the autopsy doctors there.
>> And that's because this whole sub-topic that I brought up was about
>> how the CTers must always ignore the "autopsy report", which has
>> nothing at all to do with the Parkland doctors.
>>
>> Plus, if Pat had been referring to the Parkland doctors with respect
>> to mislocating the BACK wound of JFK, that would be kind of silly--
>> because nobody at Parkland even saw the back wound to make an
>> assessment of how high or low on the back the wound was.
>
> Not to be nitpicky David but there's a fair chance that's not true. 1st,
> there was this statement on national TV not too long after the
> assassination by Dan Rather (paraphrasing, because I'm going from memory,
> but it's close): "Walter, this just in. We are being told the fatal bullet
> entered at the throat and exited a the base of the neck on the back side".
>

First you have to realize that Rather was a professional liar. Second that
he was an idiot. Third that he was just passing on rumors, what they call
scoops in the business. Like declaring James Brady dead.

> Now did they guess the bullet exited there...if so, it was a pretty good
> description of the location of that wound.
>

No. No one had yet seen any wound on the back. It was merely a guess that
if a bullet entered the throat it exited the back. Are you really going to
propose that the throat wound was an entrance, or are you just play
devil's advocate?

> Perhaps they got the information from Nurse Bowron...who stated she saw
> the back wound? Now was she simply trying to get her 15 minutes of fame by

No. She did not state it to anyone at the time. Only many years later.
Try again.
How about the SS agents who actually saw the hole on the jacket?
Most people can not figure out how there can be a hole in the clothes
and no corresponding hole on the body or vice versa.

> saying that? Possible but there are actually a couple of reasonable
> arguments against that being her motivation.
>
> One, is that it's documented she washed the blood off JFK before he was
> placed in the casket...and surely there was blood on his back...so if she
> missed seeing a bullet wound, she was pretty inept for a nurse.
>

She didn't miss it.

> And two, she was pretty much "almost" unreachable for interviews in the
> years following the assassination (still is, trust myself and Paul Seaton
> on that)...suggesting she wasn't just trying to get her name in the
> history books as being the one at PH who saw the back wound.
>

Maybe because she knows a lot more than she has revealed and she still
fears for her life.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 29, 2011, 7:30:27 PM7/29/11
to
On 7/29/2011 10:07 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> I love Tony's answer about the exit wound. I guess, per Anthony M.,
> the entry and exit wounds in JFK's head did double duty on Nov. 22nd,
> even though JFK was struck in the head by a high-powered rifle bullet.
> So, the entry wound was also (essentially) the exit wound too. Right,
> Tony?
>
> But you DO think a HIGH-POWERED rifle bullet entered JFK's head, don't
> you Tony?
>

No, medium-powered MC rifle bullet. Muzzle velocity 2235 fps.

> And yet, at the end of the day, the left half of Kennedy's brain was
> completely "intact":
>

Yeah, so what? The back of Kennedy's brain was completely intact. The
cerebellum was completely intact. The only one who says the whole brain
was turned into puree is Ayoob, from the AR-15.

> "When viewed from the vertex, the left cerebral hemisphere [of
> JFK's brain] is intact." -- From the Supplementary Autopsy Report
> (CE391; Page 1)
>

Yes. Brilliant. How in the world did you find that?
Are you claiming the photos of the brain are fakes?

>
> Another question for Tony Marsh:
>
> Why do you feel the need to supplement the existing official records,
> such as CE391 and the testimony of Dr. Humes, Dr. Finck, and Dr.
> Boswell, who ALL have always insisted that people like you are dead
> wrong and they have always insisted that JFK was not hit by any
> bullets from the front at all?
>

Three reasons.
First because they were incompetent.
Second because they were professional liars.
Third because they were following military orders to participate in the
cover-up.


Now, why didn't you ask me why I disagreed with the top forensic
pathologists in the world who said that the external beveling on the
semi-circular defect in the frontal bone always indicates an exit wound?
The reason why is because only I, not you or Canal or any WC defender did
the research to find the examples in the literature by a couple of those
forensic pathologists who years after the HSCA found external beveling on
ENTRANCE wounds.

> Are the theories of Anthony Marsh of Massachusetts (or any conspiracy
> theorist anywhere in the world) really supposed to trump these
> comments made by Dr. James Joseph Humes in 1967?:
>

Yes.
Are the reexaminations by the HSCA forensic pathologists really supposed
to trump the autopsy doctors? Yes.

> http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2011/05/dr-james-humes.html
>
> Please give me one really good reason to disbelieve Dr. Humes'
> comments above.
>

He was a liar.

> Can you do that, Mr. Marsh?
>


Every day. Why do you want to believe liars?


bobr

unread,
Jul 29, 2011, 7:36:10 PM7/29/11
to
On 7/28/2011 11:02 AM, Caeruleo wrote:
> In article<4e2ee4dd$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> "Gerry Simone"<newdec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't necessarily agree with you.
>>
>> I believe if you look at a good copy of the Moorman photo, you will see a
>> triangular notch at the back of JFK's head which looks like more than a
>> photographic artifact.
>
> The Moorman photo is almost useless to this determination since it comes
> nowhere close to showing the head in direct profile, and thus any
> misshapen aspect to the back of his head that may already be present will
> not necessarily be evident. The Zapruder film is also almost useless for
> this determination since from Z314 to somewhere around Z330, I think, we
> again do not get a clear profile view. Only after Z330 does that happen
> for the first time.
>

The Moorman photo is not useless for seeing the rearward protrusion. It is
clear that the rearward protrusion is not there in the Moorman photo. Is
it perfect? No it is not perfect But we see enough of the contour of the
back of his head in the Moorman photo to be able to definitely say that
the contour we see in the Zapruder 335 frame does not exist in the
Moorman.

Moorman
http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/1116/moormanfullheadcrop.jpg

Zapruder frame 335
http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/5396/z337wpng.png


John Canal

unread,
Jul 29, 2011, 7:39:44 PM7/29/11
to
In article <4e32f0de$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

[...]

I was going to reply to this when it dawned on me that you must have used
the same logic to arrive at whatever you wrote here that you used to
arrive at the ultra-wacky conclusion JFK was not hit anywhere in the back
of his head.......so maybe I'll not bother to waste my time addressing
what would surely be more illogical thoughts.

John Canal

>> That's precisely why 11 eyewitnesses said they saw cerebellum....IOW the
>> opening had to be that low for them to see it.
>>
>
>Silly. You base impossible theories on discredited statements.
>
>> None of that occipital bone was missing...again pieces were dislodged.
>>
>> Now there was a lot of top/right/front (mostly parietal but some frontal)
>> bone blown out with much of it retuned to Bethesda late.


--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net


--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 29, 2011, 9:15:55 PM7/29/11
to
On 7/29/2011 7:39 PM, John Canal wrote:
> In article<4e32f0de$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>
> [...]
>
> I was going to reply to this when it dawned on me that you must have used
> the same logic to arrive at whatever you wrote here that you used to
> arrive at the ultra-wacky conclusion JFK was not hit anywhere in the back
> of his head.......so maybe I'll not bother to waste my time addressing
> what would surely be more illogical thoughts.
>
> John Canal
>
>

Can someone translate this into English for me?

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 2, 2011, 5:06:57 PM8/2/11
to

>>> "He [Pat Speer] doesn't say "autopsy doctors" there, he just says
"doctors." He's also saying that most LNs assume the "doctors" to be
wrong about the head wound, so that's obviously referring to the Parkland
doctors, not the autopsy doctors, since I don't know of any LN who thinks
the autopsy doctors were wrong about the head wound." <<<

No. Pat was referring to the autopsy doctors, because many LNers (myself
and Vincent Bugliosi included) definitely think the autopsy doctors were
wrong about the location of the ENTRY wound in JFK's head. Pat was talking
about the ENTRY wound there, not the gaping exit wound.

Again, this whole sub-topic I brought up was about how CTers must ignore
the basic "ONE BULLET HIT JFK IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD" findings of the
autopsy report. Ergo, Pat Speer's previous comments to me were referring
to the AUTOPSY DOCTORS. The Parkland people didn't do the autopsy--HB&F
did.

0 new messages