LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments

[Michael T. Griffith]

Another autopsy witness who confirmed the EOP entry site was Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman, noting that the entry wound was near the hairline:

KELLERMAN: Entry into this man's head was right below that wound [the large wound on the right-rear side of the head--see below], right here.
SPECTER: Indicating the bottom of the hairline immediately to the right of the ear [Specter's/viewer's right] about the lower third of the ear? . . .
SPECTER: Near the end of his hairline?
KELLERMAN: Yes, sir.
SPECTER: What was the size of that aperture?
KELLERMAN: The little finger.
SPECTER: Indicating the diameter of the little finger.
KELLERMAN: Right. (2 H 81)

During his HSCA interview, Kellerman drew a diagram that the put the entry wound about 2 inches below the exit wound and well to the left of the right ear (HSCA interview summary, 8/29/1977, p. 10).

Kellerman also saw a large wound in the right-rear part of the head. In the segment preceding the above-quoted testimony, Kellerman said the large wound was in the rear portion of the head, to the left of the right ear:

Mr. KELLERMAN. He had a large wound this size.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating a circle with your finger of the diameter of 5 inches; would that be approximately correct?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, circular; yes, on this part of the head.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the rear portion of the head.
Mr. KELLERJIBS. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. More to the right side of the head?
Mr. BELLERMAS. Right. This was removed.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say, “This was removed,” what do you mean by this?
Mr. KELLERMAN: The skull part was removed.
Mr. SPECTER. All right.
Representative FORD. Above the ear and back?
Mr. KELLERMAN. To the left of the ear, sir, and a little high; yes. About right
in here.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say “removed,” by that do you mean that it was
absent when you saw him, or taken off by the doctor?
Mr. KELLERMAN. It was absent when I saw him. (2 H 80-81)

In his WC testimony, Kellerman also noted that he told Agent Clint Hill that he wanted him to see the wounds and that he "pointed out the wounds to Hill" (HSCA interview summary, 8/29/1977, p. 7). This is noteworthy because in his 11/30/63 report, Agent Hill confirmed this and twice noted that the large wound was in the right-rear part of the head:

As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely; Part of his brain was gone. . . . 
         
At approximately 2:45 a.m., November 23, I was requested by ASAIC Kellerman to come to the morgue to once again view the body. When I arrived the autopsy had been completed and ASAIC Kellerman, SA Greer, General McHugh and I viewed the wounds. I observed a wound about six inches down from the neckline on the back just to the right of the spinal column. I observed another wound on the right rear portion of the skull. (Statement of Special Agent Clinton J. Hill, United States Secret Service, 11/30/1963, pp. 3, 5-6, in CE 1024, pp. 742, 744-745)

So Hill saw the same wound that he observed for several minutes en route to Parkland that he saw in the Bethesda morgue when he was asked to view JFK's wounds, and that wound was in the right-rear part of the skull. 

Kellerman's HSCA diagram also showed a large wound in the back of the head (HSCA interview summary, 8/29/1977, p. 10).

[Michael T. Griffith]

You are trying to have it both ways.

MTG-- “How could you believe, after all the facts and arguments I've presented, that I posit "two shooters both armed with carcanos, two entrance wounds and no exit wounds"? Where in the world could you infer such nonsense from my replies? Where?”

MTG-” When have I ever even implied that there were not two shooters? How much more plainly could I have stated up to this point that there were two headshots and that one of them came from the front?”

Uh, how is this "trying to have it both ways"? How? You seem incapable of the most basic logical deduction. I've never said "two Carcanos" were involved. Again, where do you get that from anything I've said? And I've never said there were no exit wounds. So how can you infer from my comments that I am "trying to have it both ways"? The problem is that you are unable and/or unwilling to consider any evidence that does not fit your version of the shooting.
 

How about start by explaining your belief there were two shots and the resulting wounds.

Uh, I've done that many times in this forum and have outlined my headshots scenario in this thread. Did you miss all that? You keep falling back on this same evasive tactic of pretending to miss or not understand contrary arguments and evidence in order to avoid dealing with evidence that you can't explain.

Simple math would leave you with two entrance wounds and no exit wounds.

Uh, no. Only supremely retarded math would leave you with "two entrance wounds and no exit wounds." Nobody but you has ever mentioned this idiotic scenario.

You realize that bullets that strike skulls don't always leave the skull, right? You know that one of the released FBI documents (ARRB doc MD 176) mentions that a bullet was lodged behind JFK's right ear, right? You know that we have known for years, thanks to Dr. James Young's disclosures, that another bullet, a deformed bullet, was found in JFK's limo and brought to the autopsy, right? Right? You know that we have good evidence that illicit surgery was done on JFK's body before the official autopsy began, right? Any clue? And on and on I could go. See also below.

JFK had two wounds on his head. The entrance wound on the back of his head and the exit wound above his right ear.

Ahh, so your "answer" is to just ignore all contrary evidence and simply blindly repeat the official version of the wounds. Tom Robinson, the mortician who helped to reassemble JFK's skull after the autopsy, said JFK had several wounds to his head, including a small wound in the right temple that Robinson filled with wax, and another wound in the back of the head that was filled to hold the skull together. Robinson also said there were tiny wounds in JFK's right cheek that had to be filled (these tiny holes must have been caused either by tiny fragments from the pavement strike or by tiny pieces of glass from the bullet that struck the windshield from the front and created the hole that was later seen by several witnesses).

And which rear head entrance wound are you going with? Government experts have given two very different rear head entry wounds, one that was 1 cm above the EOP (EOP site) and another that was 10 cm above the EOP (cowlick site). Your side's best wound ballistics guy has repudiated the cowlick site for a number of reasons, and I'm still waiting for you and your fellow WC apologists to explain how a bullet could have entered the cowlick site without damaging the underlying cerebral cortex, and how the cowlick site can explain the two back-of-head bullet fragments seen on the skull x-rays (these were not removed during the autopsy).

What about the dozens of medical and federal personnel who saw a large right-rear head wound that included part of the occiput? These witnesses include the Parkland nurses who cleaned JFK's head and packed the wound with gauze, the Dallas funeral worker who held JFK's head in his heads while he helped to put the body in the casket, two of the morticians who reassembled the skull after the autopsy, the chief autopsy photographer, two of the x-rays technicians, the Secret Service agent who saw the wound up-close for several minutes en route to Parkland and saw it twice more that day, another Secret Service agent who made it a point to have Agent Hill view and record JFK's wounds, the Parkland neurosurgeon who examined the head wounds, the two doctors who observed the autopsy (Karnei and Canada), etc., etc., etc.

The only fragments recovered were from a jacketed carcano round traced back to LHO’s rifle which was found in the 6th floor of the TSBD. It seems if you can’t explain this simple fact, the rest of this longwinded diatribe is really meaningless.

LOL! Ah, so your answer is to repeat the official tale about only two fragments being recovered, even though we know that several more fragments were recovered, and even though the Dallas police chief at the time later admitted that they really had no evidence to put Oswald in the sixth-floor window with a rifle in his hands. Dealing with you is like confronting a Flat Earther with just some of the evidence that refutes his position.

I really don't know how you can get anything of value from Tobin's report. Seriously, you need to start thinking for yourself. Maybe reread it, this time with an eye for what is wrong with it.

If you "really don't know" how I can "get anything of value" from "Tobin's report," then you can't read. Can you name a single scientist who has disputed the Spiegelman-Tobin-James NAA study? How about the Radlich-Grant NAA study? Both of those studies, published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, destroy Guinn's fraudulent and erroneous claim that NAA shows that the bullet fragments came from Oswald's alleged ammo. NAA actually shows that those fragments could have come from as many as five separate bullets. You are simply in denial on this issue.

[Jack Nessan]

Uh, how is this "trying to have it both ways"? How? You seem incapable of the most basic logical deduction. I've never said "two Carcanos" were involved. Again, where do you get that from anything I've said? And I've never said there were no exit wounds. So how can you infer from my comments that I am "trying to have it both ways"? The problem is that you are unable and/or unwilling to consider any evidence that does not fit your version of the shooting.
 
Uh, I've done that many times in this forum and have outlined my headshots scenario in this thread. Did you miss all that? You keep falling back on this same evasive tactic of pretending to miss or not understand contrary arguments and evidence in order to avoid dealing with evidence that you can't explain.

Uh, no. Only supremely retarded math would leave you with "two entrance wounds and no exit wounds." Nobody but you has ever mentioned this idiotic scenario.

You realize that bullets that strike skulls don't always leave the skull, right? You know that one of the released FBI documents (ARRB doc MD 176) mentions that a bullet was lodged behind JFK's right ear, right? You know that we have known for years, thanks to Dr. James Young's disclosures, that another bullet, a deformed bullet, was found in JFK's limo and brought to the autopsy, right? Right? You know that we have good evidence that illicit surgery was done on JFK's body before the official autopsy began, right? Any clue? And on and on I could go. See also below.

Ahh, so your "answer" is to just ignore all contrary evidence and simply blindly repeat the official version of the wounds. Tom Robinson, the mortician who helped to reassemble JFK's skull after the autopsy, said JFK had several wounds to his head, including a small wound in the right temple that Robinson filled with wax, and another wound in the back of the head that was filled to hold the skull together. Robinson also said there were tiny wounds in JFK's right cheek that had to be filled (these tiny holes must have been caused either by tiny fragments from the pavement strike or by tiny pieces of glass from the bullet that struck the windshield from the front and created the hole that was later seen by several witnesses).

And which rear head entrance wound are you going with? Government experts have given two very different rear head entry wounds, one that was 1 cm above the EOP (EOP site) and another that was 10 cm above the EOP (cowlick site). Your side's best wound ballistics guy has repudiated the cowlick site for a number of reasons, and I'm still waiting for you and your fellow WC apologists to explain how a bullet could have entered the cowlick site without damaging the underlying cerebral cortex, and how the cowlick site can explain the two back-of-head bullet fragments seen on the skull x-rays (these were not removed during the autopsy).

What about the dozens of medical and federal personnel who saw a large right-rear head wound that included part of the occiput? These witnesses include the Parkland nurses who cleaned JFK's head and packed the wound with gauze, the Dallas funeral worker who held JFK's head in his heads while he helped to put the body in the casket, two of the morticians who reassembled the skull after the autopsy, the chief autopsy photographer, two of the x-rays technicians, the Secret Service agent who saw the wound up-close for several minutes en route to Parkland and saw it twice more that day, another Secret Service agent who made it a point to have Agent Hill view and record JFK's wounds, the Parkland neurosurgeon who examined the head wounds, the two doctors who observed the autopsy (Karnei and Canada), etc., etc., etc.

LOL! Ah, so your answer is to repeat the official tale about only two fragments being recovered, even though we know that several more fragments were recovered, and even though the Dallas police chief at the time later admitted that they really had no evidence to put Oswald in the sixth-floor window with a rifle in his hands. Dealing with you is like confronting a Flat Earther with just some of the evidence that refutes his position.

If you "really don't know" how I can "get anything of value" from "Tobin's report," then you can't read. Can you name a single scientist who has disputed the Spiegelman-Tobin-James NAA study? How about the Radlich-Grant NAA study? Both of those studies, published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, destroy Guinn's fraudulent and erroneous claim that NAA shows that the bullet fragments came from Oswald's alleged ammo. NAA actually shows that those fragments could have come from as many as five separate bullets. You are simply in denial on this issue.

Zapruder frame Z313 should help you understand what took place. If not, I am sure your fellow constituents at Deep Politics Forum can and will happily help flesh out this fantasy. I am living in the real world and none of what is proposed is even remotely possible. Best of luck with it. To your credit, you must believe it to have spent the time on it you have stated. I look at it as a waste of time.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Zapruder frame Z313 should help you understand what took place. If not, I am sure your fellow constituents at Deep Politics Forum can and will happily help flesh out this fantasy. I am living in the real world and none of what is proposed is even remotely possible. Best of luck with it. To your credit, you must believe it to have spent the time on it you have stated. I look at it as a waste of time.

How does Z313 explain the two separate, discontinuous wound paths through the brain, i.e., the cortical and the subcortical wound paths?

How does Z313 explain the two back-of-fragments that are 1 cm below the debunked cowlick entry site and about 9 cm above the EOP entry site?

How does Z313 explain the drastic contradiction between the autopsy brain photos, which show a virtually intact brain with only 1-2 ounces of tissue missing, and the autopsy skull x-rays, which show a large part of the right brain missing?

How does Z313 explain the absence of a rear head entry wound that can account for the high fragment trail?

How does Z313 explain the autopsy doctors' incredible and suspicious failure to mention the high fragment trail and the cortical damage in the autopsy report?

How does Z313 explain why the HSCA FPP made no effort to explain the subcortical damage, and why they provided such a superficial description of the subcortical damage (even though this damage is described in great detail in the supplemental autopsy report)?

How does Z313 explain the drastic contradiction between the autopsy report and the extant autopsy skull x-rays? (The autopsy report says there was a fragment trail that started near the EOP and ended at a point slightly above the right orbit, but the skull x-rays show no such fragment trail.)

How does Z313 explain the trajectory lines that Dr. Ebersole drew on the right lateral skull x-ray during the autopsy, one of which goes straight through the subcortical damage?

Why does JFK's head move forward for a split-second in Z312 and then suddenly rocket backward in Z313? Even Sturdivan has admitted that the jet-effect theory is impossible. So how do you explain that violent reversal of motion in just 1/18th/second? Neuromuscular reactions cannot occur and then move a head and upper body in just 1/18th/second (or 56 thousandths of a second/56 milliseconds). So what caused the head to move forward and then backward? How about two head shots, one from behind and one from the front?

Why does the explosion of particulate matter that blows out in Z313 disappear with impossible speed, in just two or three frames, when wound ballistics tests show it should have remained visible for at least six frames? (Hint: removing frames would cause the explosion to disappear prematurely.)

Why do Z313 and the succeeding frames show no brain and blood blown backward when we know that brain and blood were blown all over the limo's trunk, blown toward the two left-trailing patrolmen, and blown toward the hood and windshield of the follow-up car, all of which were splattered with blood and brain? Officer Hargis said he was hit so hard with the spray that he thought he himself had been hit (and he was only going about 11 mph, so we can't say that he felt this slamming impact because he drove into the spray--not to mention that the current Zapruder film shows no spray in front of him).

Why did Parkland Hospital nurse Diana Bowron not see a large wound above the right ear when she cleaned JFK's head wound and packed the wound with gauze? She said the wound was in the back of the head, not above the right ear. How could she have missed the gaping, obvious wound above the right ear seen in the autopsy photos of the head? Could she not tell the difference between a wound above the right ear and a wound 3-4 inches farther back on the head?

Why did Parkland Hospital nurse Patricia Hutton not see a large wound above the right ear? She saw JFK's body moved from the limo onto a hospital cart and she then helped to wheel the cart into the ER and witnessed the efforts to save JFK. She was asked to place a dressing on the head wound but she said this did no good "because of the massive opening on the back of the head" (Price Exhibit No. 21: Activities of Pat Hutton on Friday, November 22, 1963, MD 99, p. 2). She added that the President was "bleeding profusely from a wound on the back of his head." Could she not tell the difference between a large wound above the right ear and a large wound on the back of the head?

Why did mortician Tom Robinson not see a large wound above the right ear when he helped to reassemble JFK's skull after the autopsy? Robinson said he saw "a large, open wound in the back of the President's head" (ARRB meeting report, 6/211/96, MD 180, p. 2). He even provided a diagram of the wound (MD 88, p. 5).

Why did mortician John VanHoesen not see a large wound above the right ear when he helped Tom Robinson and Ed Stroble reassemble the skull? VanHoesen said there was a hole "roughly the size of a small orange (estimated by gesturing with his hands) in the centerline of the back of the head" (ARRB meeting report, 9/25/96, MD 181, p. 4). He explained that the hole was covered with a sheet of plastic "to prevent leakage."

Why did mortician Joe Hagan, who witnessed the last part of the autopsy and then supervised the skull reconstruction, not mention seeing a large gaping wound above the right ear? Hagan said that JFK's head was "open in the back" ("all of this was open in the back" as he gestured to the back of his head, specifically as he gestured "to the area between both of his own ears on the back of his head") (ARRB meeting report, 5/17/96, MD 182, p. 5).

How does Z313 explain how a bullet could have entered at the cowlick site without causing any damage to the underlying cerebral cortex?

How does Z313 explain the fact that no FMJ bullet in the history of forensic science has deposited a fragment on the outer table as it entered the skull, not to mention another fragment between the galea and the outer table, much less from its cross section? Simply put, the ammo that deposited those fragments could not have been the ammo that Oswald allegedly used.

[John Mytton]

How does Z313 explain the two separate, discontinuous wound paths through the brain, i.e., the cortical and the subcortical wound paths?

How does Z313 explain the two back-of-fragments that are 1 cm below the debunked cowlick entry site and about 9 cm above the EOP entry site?

How does Z313 explain the drastic contradiction between the autopsy brain photos, which show a virtually intact brain with only 1-2 ounces of tissue missing, and the autopsy skull x-rays, which show a large part of the right brain missing?

How does Z313 explain the absence of a rear head entry wound that can account for the high fragment trail?

How does Z313 explain the autopsy doctors' incredible and suspicious failure to mention the high fragment trail and the cortical damage in the autopsy report?

How does Z313 explain why the HSCA FPP made no effort to explain the subcortical damage, and why they provided such a superficial description of the subcortical damage (even though this damage is described in great detail in the supplemental autopsy report)?

How does Z313 explain the drastic contradiction between the autopsy report and the extant autopsy skull x-rays? (The autopsy report says there was a fragment trail that started near the EOP and ended at a point slightly above the right orbit, but the skull x-rays show no such fragment trail.)

How does Z313 explain the trajectory lines that Dr. Ebersole drew on the right lateral skull x-ray during the autopsy, one of which goes straight through the subcortical damage?

Why does JFK's head move forward for a split-second in Z312 and then suddenly rocket backward in Z313? Even Sturdivan has admitted that the jet-effect theory is impossible. So how do you explain that violent reversal of motion in just 1/18th/second? Neuromuscular reactions cannot occur and then move a head and upper body in just 1/18th/second (or 56 thousandths of a second/56 milliseconds). So what caused the head to move forward and then backward? How about two head shots, one from behind and one from the front?

Why does the explosion of particulate matter that blows out in Z313 disappear with impossible speed, in just two or three frames, when wound ballistics tests show it should have remained visible for at least six frames? (Hint: removing frames would cause the explosion to disappear prematurely.)

Why do Z313 and the succeeding frames show no brain and blood blown backward when we know that brain and blood were blown all over the limo's trunk, blown toward the two left-trailing patrolmen, and blown toward the hood and windshield of the follow-up car, all of which were splattered with blood and brain? Officer Hargis said he was hit so hard with the spray that he thought he himself had been hit (and he was only going about 11 mph, so we can't say that he felt this slamming impact because he drove into the spray--not to mention that the current Zapruder film shows no spray in front of him).

Why did Parkland Hospital nurse Diana Bowron not see a large wound above the right ear when she cleaned JFK's head wound and packed the wound with gauze? She said the wound was in the back of the head, not above the right ear. How could she have missed the gaping, obvious wound above the right ear seen in the autopsy photos of the head? Could she not tell the difference between a wound above the right ear and a wound 3-4 inches farther back on the head?

Why did Parkland Hospital nurse Patricia Hutton not see a large wound above the right ear? She saw JFK's body moved from the limo onto a hospital cart and she then helped to wheel the cart into the ER and witnessed the efforts to save JFK. She was asked to place a dressing on the head wound but she said this did no good "because of the massive opening on the back of the head" (Price Exhibit No. 21: Activities of Pat Hutton on Friday, November 22, 1963, MD 99, p. 2). She added that the President was "bleeding profusely from a wound on the back of his head." Could she not tell the difference between a large wound above the right ear and a large wound on the back of the head?

Why did mortician Tom Robinson not see a large wound above the right ear when he helped to reassemble JFK's skull after the autopsy? Robinson said he saw "a large, open wound in the back of the President's head" (ARRB meeting report, 6/211/96, MD 180, p. 2). He even provided a diagram of the wound (MD 88, p. 5).

Why did mortician John VanHoesen not see a large wound above the right ear when he helped Tom Robinson and Ed Stroble reassemble the skull? VanHoesen said there was a hole "roughly the size of a small orange (estimated by gesturing with his hands) in the centerline of the back of the head" (ARRB meeting report, 9/25/96, MD 181, p. 4). He explained that the hole was covered with a sheet of plastic "to prevent leakage."

Why did mortician Joe Hagan, who witnessed the last part of the autopsy and then supervised the skull reconstruction, not mention seeing a large gaping wound above the right ear? Hagan said that JFK's head was "open in the back" ("all of this was open in the back" as he gestured to the back of his head, specifically as he gestured "to the area between both of his own ears on the back of his head") (ARRB meeting report, 5/17/96, MD 182, p. 5).

How does Z313 explain how a bullet could have entered at the cowlick site without causing any damage to the underlying cerebral cortex?

How does Z313 explain the fact that no FMJ bullet in the history of forensic science has deposited a fragment on the outer table as it entered the skull, not to mention another fragment between the galea and the outer table, much less from its cross section? Simply put, the ammo that deposited those fragments could not have been the ammo that Oswald allegedly used.

1. Here's frames Z314 and Z315, where is the back of head wound and the resulting external expulsion that you say covered more than a dozen surfaces?



1a. Because the frontal explosion is as clear as the nose on your face!



2. Why didn't the first interviewed eyewitnesses from Dealey Plaza who were on camera within an hour or two, see your back of head injury and/or resulting explosion?



3. You say the head mist disappeared too quickly, but this GIF shows a deer head wound with a similar dissipation of fine particulate matter.



4. You seem to think that the back and to the left was caused by a bullet? For a start an 11 gram bullet lacks the kinetic energy to move a human anymore than an inch or two and secondly the empirical proof is in the following WW2 footage, these men were struck in the head with a FMJ bullet and no one falls forward like a Hollywood movie and instead, all fall back towards the origin of the bullet.



The muscles in the back are stronger than the muscles in the front, so therefore the head moved backward.
Dr Charles Petty

@2:50

5. The Jet effect is a demonstrably repeatable event.



6. I see you're still persisting with your claims of "removal of frames" without any regard for how these removed frames affect the synchronicity of the resulting altered background.

I removed 1 frame from the Zapruder Film and the lady running towards the Limo instantly shows a staccato effect, her leg unnaturally moves quickly forward and her dress flips up awkwardly. And this is only 1 isolated piece of the frame and when this is exponentially multiplied across the entirety of the frame, we have a million places where your "removal of frames" will be dramatically exposed.



As I keep telling you, if you want to remove frames you must isolate and extract the foreground elements and reinsert it into a smooth background but then you have the impossible task of aligning your matted out foreground with a continually moving backdrop and on top of that, you have constantly moving Limo occupants which is another factor which needs to be considered. And even with photoshop which can extract the individual elements, the need for feathering the outlines back into the original is another problem and then you must match the motion blur of your cut-out with the motion blur of Zapruder's wild imprecise camera movements. And cutting out foreground elements with excessive motion blur, which can't be detected at the granular level is your next impossibility. And don't forget the lining up the ghost images in the sprocket area in which every before and after frame is exposed between the sprockets.





The Zapruder film proves itself to be authentic. There is no possibility that any frames could have been cut out of the film. Every time a frame was exposed, part of the background scene was exposed onto the next frame and the previous frame in their sprocket hole areas. The ghostlike images in the sprocket hole area are double exposures. Real objects faintly visible. The cause is the particular design of the inner workings of the Bell & Howell camera. When a frame is being exposed, there is an aperture plate which covers the frames above and below the current frame so that they do not get accidentally exposed. Some 8 mm cameras leave open the sprocket hole area of the current frame, which allows information to be recorded there, but that area is normally not projected.
https://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Puzzle_Palace/zapruder.htm

JohnM

[Michael T. Griffith]

1. Here's frames Z314 and Z315, where is the back of head wound and the resulting external expulsion that you say covered more than a dozen surfaces?

Here again we see that you're reading has been one-sided and insufficient. The whole point is that several witnesses saw blood and brain blown backward, and we know that blood and brain were blown onto at least 16 surfaces, as I've documented.

When are you going to explain the presence of so much blood and brain on the follow-up car's hood and windshield, on Kinney's clothes (in the follow-up car), and on the windshields and clothes of the two left-trailing patrolmen? When are you going to explain why the Zapruder film does not show any blood and brain being blown backward, and does not even show a cloud of blood and brain into which the follow-up car and the two trailing patrolmen could have driven (since the particulate spray disappears in no more than 1/6th of a second)?

1a. Because the frontal explosion is as clear as the nose on your face!

Uhhh, nobody denies that the film shows an explosion in the frontal area of the head. You have a habit of pretending to make points when no one has disputed the point you're making.

2. Why didn't the first interviewed eyewitnesses from Dealey Plaza who were on camera within an hour or two, see your back of head injury and/or resulting explosion?

LOL! I guess you forgot about the Parkland operative and admission reports written soon after JFK died that day that mention a right-rear head wound? I guess you forgot about Malcolm Kilduff's nationally televised press conference held shortly after JFK died that day in which he demonstrated, based on what Dr. Burkley had just told him, that the bullet hit the right temple? I guess you forgot about the several 11/22/63 news accounts of a bullet hitting the right temple?

When are you going to explain the fact that the Parkland nurses who cleaned JFK's head and packed the large wound with gauze said the wound was in the back of the head? When are you going to explain the fact that Agent Clint Hill, after seeing the wound three times that day (including for several minutes from 2-3 feet away on the back of the limo en route to Parkland), said the wound was in the right-rear part of the head? When are you going to explain the fact that all three of the morticians who were involved with reassembling JFK's skull after the autopsy said there was a large wound in the back of the head? When? Why do you keep ducking this evidence?

3. You say the head mist disappeared too quickly, but this GIF shows a deer head wound with a similar dissipation of fine particulate matter.

That's a joke, right?

4. You seem to think that the back and to the left was caused by a bullet? For a start an 11 gram bullet lacks the kinetic energy to move a human anymore than an inch or two and secondly the empirical proof is in the following WW2 footage, these men were struck in the head with a FMJ bullet and no one falls forward like a Hollywood movie and instead, all fall back towards the origin of the bullet.

Yikes, here too, you are at least 20 years behind the information curve. Are you ever going to bother to actually read serious research that challenges what you so desperately want to believe?

If JFK's head was hit by an FMJ bullet, how do you explain the two back-of-head bullet fragments when no FMJ bullet in the known history of forensic science has deposited a single fragment, much less two fragments, on the outer table or in the scalp when entering the skull?

You just go around and around and around by offering nothing but your tired, debunked lone-gunman assumptions, the same nonsense that your predecessors were peddling in the '60s and '70s.

The muscles in the back are stronger than the muscles in the front, so therefore the head moved backward.
Dr Charles Petty

Really?! Oh, boy. How do you explain the wound ballistics tests where the skulls were blown backward when struck from the front? For example, during three separate rounds of testing, Alvarez had his rifleman fire into taped and untaped green and white melons of varying sizes, coconuts filled with Jell-O, one-gallon plastic jugs filled with Jell-O and water, an eleven-pound watermelon, taped and untapped pineapples, plastic bottles filled with water, and rubber balls filled with gelatin. The majority of these items were blown downrange. Only after Alvarez reduced the size of his melons from ones weighing 4 to 7 pounds to ones weighing just 1.1 to 3.5 pounds did he get six out of seven melons to exhibit some retrograde motion.

Why does JFK's head move forward 6.44 inches in Z327-330? This is a faster movement than the Z313-320 backward movement! By your anti-scientific logic, this means a bullet hit him from the front! Is it just a coincidence that the DPD dictabelt recording has a gunshot impulse at right around Z327? (And why does the head wound look significantly different in Z337 than it does in Z313?)

5. The Jet effect is a demonstrably repeatable event.

More comedy based on your lack of research. Sheesh, your side's best wound ballistics expert, Dr. Sturdivan, admitted years ago that the jet-effect is impossible fiction in the case of the Z313 headshot. Have you read any of the refutations of the jet-effect theory written by scientists with doctorates in physics, such as those written by Dr. Art Snyder and Dr. David Mantik? No, I know you haven't.

6. I see you're still persisting with your claims of "removal of frames" without any regard for how these removed frames affect the synchronicity of the resulting altered background.

I removed 1 frame from the Zapruder Film and the lady running towards the Limo instantly shows a staccato effect, her leg unnaturally moves quickly forward and her dress flips up awkwardly. And this is only 1 isolated piece of the frame and when this is exponentially multiplied across the entirety of the frame, we have a million places where your "removal of frames" will be dramatically exposed.

As I keep telling you, if you want to remove frames you must isolate and extract the foreground elements and reinsert it into a smooth background but then you have the impossible task of aligning your matted out foreground with a continually moving backdrop and on top of that, you have constantly moving Limo occupants which is another factor which needs to be considered. And even with photoshop which can extract the individual elements, the need for feathering the outlines back into the original is another problem and then you must match the motion blur of your cut-out with the motion blur of Zapruder's wild imprecise camera movements. And cutting out foreground elements with excessive motion blur, which can't be detected at the granular level is your next impossibility. And don't forget the lining up the ghost images in the sprocket area in which every before and after frame is exposed between the sprockets.

The Zapruder film proves itself to be authentic. There is no possibility that any frames could have been cut out of the film. Every time a frame was exposed, part of the background scene was exposed onto the next frame and the previous frame in their sprocket hole areas. The ghostlike images in the sprocket hole area are double exposures. Real objects faintly visible. The cause is the particular design of the inner workings of the Bell & Howell camera. When a frame is being exposed, there is an aperture plate which covers the frames above and below the current frame so that they do not get accidentally exposed. Some 8 mm cameras leave open the sprocket hole area of the current frame, which allows information to be recorded there, but that area is normally not projected.
https://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Puzzle_Palace/zapruder.htm JohnM

Translation: You still have not read a single scholarly article that discusses evidence of alteration and that answers the anti-alteration arguments. Instead, you are still relying on arguments that you are copying from anti-alteration sources. Again, every single one of these objections has been answered. Did you bother to read Dr. Mantik's 42-page study on evidence of alteration that I cited in a previous reply? For your convenience, here is the link, again:

https://themantikview.org/pdf/The_Zapruder_Film_Controversy.pdf

I've read the article you cited from Ken Rahn's website. I read it years ago. It was written by W. Anthony Marsh, just FYI. It's only about five pages long. Dr. Mantik's study is 42 pages long and deals with all kinds of issues that Marsh wasn't even aware of.

Here are some extracts from Dr. Mantik's 42-page paper:

------------------------------------------------------------
An astonishing example of such inconsistency is seen in the intersprocket image for Z-318; a good quality reproduction of this frame shows the limousine immediately behind the motorcycle, in the ghost image! According to Zavada, the ghost image in Z-318 was exposed at the same instant as the primary image of frame Z-317 (which also shows the limousine). But if Zavada is correct, then the limousine is in two different locations at the same instant! If Zavada was aware of this flagrant paradox, he failed to comment on it.

Another line of evidence is the quality of the central image in the (arbitrary) first frame compared to the ghost image in the second frame. According to Zavada, they were formed at the same instant, and should therefore display similar features.

But this is not always the case: e.g., the central image in Z-319 is obviously blurred, whereas the ghost image in Z-320 is distinctly sharper. Since both images were formed at the same instant, according to Zavada, why do they show such different tracking characteristics? Again, Zavada offered no explanation. (p. 9)

If the extant film and the two SS copies were authentic there should be no oddities in the above table. In fact, there are many, as listed here.

1. Uninterrupted (i.e., no physical or photographic splices) loading fog does not precede the motorcade segment in SS #1, SS #2, or in the extant film.

2. In SS #2, fogged film and a perforated number 0186 are both present, which would ordinarily be earmarks of authenticity. However, a photographic splice is present where none should exist. Furthermore, an image of the four-foot leader (which was attached to the original film, according to Zavada) is missing. In addition, because this is the sole, normal, fogged sequence on any of the films, another question may be raised: rather than representing an image of fog from the original film, was this fog on SS # 1 caused by light striking SS # 1 directly? If so, this fog would provide no support for authenticity at all.

3. No perforated processing number (0183, 0185, 0186, and 0187) is continuous (i.e., no intervening physical or photographic splices) with the motorcade in any of the three copies or in the extant film.

4. Although the perforated number 0186 appears at the beginning of the motorcade side, the photographic image of 0183 appears at the end of the home movie side-in SS #1, SS #2, and LMH.

5. The Zavada report states that the perforated number (e.g., 0183) omits photographic image, would ordinarily appear after the last image of the second side (the motorcade side). In fact, it appears at the end of the last image on the first side (the home movie side). (pp. 29-30)

Toni Foster's peculiar stop: Z-321 to Z-322. Foster is the pedestrian in the background grass. Her lateral separation from the adjacent (ghost) motorcycle image is constant between these two frames. Because the camera is tracking the limousine, her image should undergo a regular and steadily growing displacement from the motorcycle image. It is obvious from preceding and following frames that this is exactly what happens, but it does not happen for these two frames. It’s also apparent from nearby frames that Foster is not jumping to and fro within single frame intervals, so as to appear stationary between these two frames (1/18-second), a physical impossibility in any case.

For all nearby frames, the motorcycle, the limousine, and other objects advance uniformly across the field of view, as they should-but Foster remains quite stuck for these two frames. She retains almost exactly the same lateral position. To the tracking camera she seems to stop within 1/18-second, and then immediately to resume her regular frame-to-frame displacement within the next 1/18-second. This physical impossibility cries out for an explanation, but none has been forthcoming from devotees of authenticity(p. 32)
------------------------------------------------------------

It bears repeating that we've seen that you can't explain the impossible anomalies in the Zapruder film that I discuss in my article on alteration evidence, i.e., Brehm Jr.'s and Malcolm Summers' impossibly fast movements and the glaring contradiction between the Zapruder film and the Nix film regarding Jackie and Agent Hill's respective positions and locations before Jackie starts to retreat back into her seat. And your only "explanation" for the absence of a stop or marked slowdown in the Zapruder film is your fraudulent slowdown GIF--a GIF that even Dr. Alvarez's research exposes as bogus.

Finally, when are you going to deal with the subject of this thread, namely, the two back-of-head fragments seen in the autopsy skull x-rays?

[John Mytton]

Here again we see that you're reading has been one-sided and insufficient. The whole point is that several witnesses saw blood and brain blown backward, and we know that blood and brain were blown onto at least 16 surfaces, as I've documented.

When are you going to explain the presence of so much blood and brain on the follow-up car's hood and windshield, on Kinney's clothes (in the follow-up car), and on the windshields and clothes of the two left-trailing patrolmen? When are you going to explain why the Zapruder film does not show any blood and brain being blown backward, and does not even show a cloud of blood and brain into which the follow-up car and the two trailing patrolmen could have driven (since the particulate spray disappears in no more than 1/6th of a second)?

Uhhh, nobody denies that the film shows an explosion in the frontal area of the head. You have a habit of pretending to make points when no one has disputed the point you're making.

LOL! I guess you forgot about the Parkland operative and admission reports written soon after JFK died that day that mention a right-rear head wound? I guess you forgot about Malcolm Kilduff's nationally televised press conference held shortly after JFK died that day in which he demonstrated, based on what Dr. Burkley had just told him, that the bullet hit the right temple? I guess you forgot about the several 11/22/63 news accounts of a bullet hitting the right temple?

When are you going to explain the fact that the Parkland nurses who cleaned JFK's head and packed the large wound with gauze said the wound was in the back of the head? When are you going to explain the fact that Agent Clint Hill, after seeing the wound three times that day (including for several minutes from 2-3 feet away on the back of the limo en route to Parkland), said the wound was in the right-rear part of the head? When are you going to explain the fact that all three of the morticians who were involved with reassembling JFK's skull after the autopsy said there was a large wound in the back of the head? When? Why do you keep ducking this evidence?

That's a joke, right?

Yikes, here too, you are at least 20 years behind the information curve. Are you ever going to bother to actually read serious research that challenges what you so desperately want to believe?

If JFK's head was hit by an FMJ bullet, how do you explain the two back-of-head bullet fragments when no FMJ bullet in the known history of forensic science has deposited a single fragment, much less two fragments, on the outer table or in the scalp when entering the skull?

You just go around and around and around by offering nothing but your tired, debunked lone-gunman assumptions, the same nonsense that your predecessors were peddling in the '60s and '70s.

Really?! Oh, boy. How do you explain the wound ballistics tests where the skulls were blown backward when struck from the front? For example, during three separate rounds of testing, Alvarez had his rifleman fire into taped and untaped green and white melons of varying sizes, coconuts filled with Jell-O, one-gallon plastic jugs filled with Jell-O and water, an eleven-pound watermelon, taped and untapped pineapples, plastic bottles filled with water, and rubber balls filled with gelatin. The majority of these items were blown downrange. Only after Alvarez reduced the size of his melons from ones weighing 4 to 7 pounds to ones weighing just 1.1 to 3.5 pounds did he get six out of seven melons to exhibit some retrograde motion.

Why does JFK's head move forward 6.44 inches in Z327-330? This is a faster movement than the Z313-320 backward movement! By your anti-scientific logic, this means a bullet hit him from the front! Is it just a coincidence that the DPD dictabelt recording has a gunshot impulse at right around Z327? (And why does the head wound look significantly different in Z337 than it does in Z313?)

More comedy based on your lack of research. Sheesh, your side's best wound ballistics expert, Dr. Sturdivan, admitted years ago that the jet-effect is impossible fiction in the case of the Z313 headshot. Have you read any of the refutations of the jet-effect theory written by scientists with doctorates in physics, such as those written by Dr. Art Snyder and Dr. David Mantik? No, I know you haven't.

Translation: You still have not read a single scholarly article that discusses evidence of alteration and that answers the anti-alteration arguments. Instead, you are still relying on arguments that you are copying from anti-alteration sources. Again, every single one of these objections has been answered. Did you bother to read Dr. Mantik's 42-page study on evidence of alteration that I cited in a previous reply? For your convenience, here is the link, again:

https://themantikview.org/pdf/The_Zapruder_Film_Controversy.pdf

I've read the article you cited from Ken Rahn's website. I read it years ago. It was written by W. Anthony Marsh, just FYI. It's only about five pages long. Dr. Mantik's study is 42 pages long and deals with all kinds of issues that Marsh wasn't even aware of.

Here are some extracts from Dr. Mantik's 42-page paper:

------------------------------------------------------------
An astonishing example of such inconsistency is seen in the intersprocket image for Z-318; a good quality reproduction of this frame shows the limousine immediately behind the motorcycle, in the ghost image! According to Zavada, the ghost image in Z-318 was exposed at the same instant as the primary image of frame Z-317 (which also shows the limousine). But if Zavada is correct, then the limousine is in two different locations at the same instant! If Zavada was aware of this flagrant paradox, he failed to comment on it.

Another line of evidence is the quality of the central image in the (arbitrary) first frame compared to the ghost image in the second frame. According to Zavada, they were formed at the same instant, and should therefore display similar features.

But this is not always the case: e.g., the central image in Z-319 is obviously blurred, whereas the ghost image in Z-320 is distinctly sharper. Since both images were formed at the same instant, according to Zavada, why do they show such different tracking characteristics? Again, Zavada offered no explanation. (p. 9)

If the extant film and the two SS copies were authentic there should be no oddities in the above table. In fact, there are many, as listed here.

1. Uninterrupted (i.e., no physical or photographic splices) loading fog does not precede the motorcade segment in SS #1, SS #2, or in the extant film.

2. In SS #2, fogged film and a perforated number 0186 are both present, which would ordinarily be earmarks of authenticity. However, a photographic splice is present where none should exist. Furthermore, an image of the four-foot leader (which was attached to the original film, according to Zavada) is missing. In addition, because this is the sole, normal, fogged sequence on any of the films, another question may be raised: rather than representing an image of fog from the original film, was this fog on SS # 1 caused by light striking SS # 1 directly? If so, this fog would provide no support for authenticity at all.

3. No perforated processing number (0183, 0185, 0186, and 0187) is continuous (i.e., no intervening physical or photographic splices) with the motorcade in any of the three copies or in the extant film.

4. Although the perforated number 0186 appears at the beginning of the motorcade side, the photographic image of 0183 appears at the end of the home movie side-in SS #1, SS #2, and LMH.

5. The Zavada report states that the perforated number (e.g., 0183) omits photographic image, would ordinarily appear after the last image of the second side (the motorcade side). In fact, it appears at the end of the last image on the first side (the home movie side). (pp. 29-30)

Toni Foster's peculiar stop: Z-321 to Z-322. Foster is the pedestrian in the background grass. Her lateral separation from the adjacent (ghost) motorcycle image is constant between these two frames. Because the camera is tracking the limousine, her image should undergo a regular and steadily growing displacement from the motorcycle image. It is obvious from preceding and following frames that this is exactly what happens, but it does not happen for these two frames. It’s also apparent from nearby frames that Foster is not jumping to and fro within single frame intervals, so as to appear stationary between these two frames (1/18-second), a physical impossibility in any case.

For all nearby frames, the motorcycle, the limousine, and other objects advance uniformly across the field of view, as they should-but Foster remains quite stuck for these two frames. She retains almost exactly the same lateral position. To the tracking camera she seems to stop within 1/18-second, and then immediately to resume her regular frame-to-frame displacement within the next 1/18-second. This physical impossibility cries out for an explanation, but none has been forthcoming from devotees of authenticity(p. 32)
------------------------------------------------------------

It bears repeating that we've seen that you can't explain the impossible anomalies in the Zapruder film that I discuss in my article on alteration evidence, i.e., Brehm Jr.'s and Malcolm Summers' impossibly fast movements and the glaring contradiction between the Zapruder film and the Nix film regarding Jackie and Agent Hill's respective positions and locations before Jackie starts to retreat back into her seat. And your only "explanation" for the absence of a stop or marked slowdown in the Zapruder film is your fraudulent slowdown GIF--a GIF that even Dr. Alvarez's research exposes as bogus.

Finally, when are you going to deal with the subject of this thread, namely, the two back-of-head fragments seen in the autopsy skull x-rays?

You can't be serious?

I present a wall of graphics that perfectly support each of my refutations of every one of your amateur observations, and your response is not a single image and some unqualified Conspiracy Kooks?? Hilarious!

It bears repeating that we've seen that you can't explain the impossible anomalies in the Zapruder film that I discuss in my article on alteration evidence, i.e., Brehm Jr.'s and Malcolm Summers' impossibly fast movements and the glaring contradiction between the Zapruder film and the Nix film regarding Jackie and Agent Hill's respective positions and locations before Jackie starts to retreat back into her seat. And your only "explanation" for the absence of a stop or marked slowdown in the Zapruder film is your fraudulent slowdown GIF--a GIF that even Dr. Alvarez's research exposes as bogus.

Yes, let's revisit your harebrained list of non supported gibberish about the authenticated Zapruder Film, that btw, still hasn't been updated on your website! Naughty naughty.

Brehm's son moves with a natural fluid motion and we are still waiting for your recreation, I accept that you lost your VHS tape -giggle- but you could at least film another attempt of a less than a second event, waiting Zzzzz....



Your perception of perspective in the Hill/Jackie meeting on the Limo Trunk is absolutely screwed up, and your bizarre contention that the angles are somewhat similar, only reinforces your lack of visualization skills.





Another one of your claims that in the Zapruder Film, Clint Hill doesn't come close to Jackie, and that Hill doesn't grab Jackie's arm to push her back in her seat has also been totally proven to be another one of your fantasies but at least you have stopped spreading this lie. Thanks!



Your Malcolm Summers gaff is another perspective mistake, Malcolm's left leg is not bent backwards but is splayed forward, with his left shoe clearly visible over the top of his right shin.



Lastly, the Limo obviously dramatically slows down at the time of the head shot and this slow down is very clear in Zapruder! Btw, have you worked out the difference between "slow down" and "stop" because you can't have it both ways! Hahaha!



JohnM

[Michael T. Griffith]

You can't be serious?

Do you think people won't notice that you have once again avoided dealing with contrary evidence and are simply repeating arguments that I've answered several times in detail?

I present a wall of graphics that perfectly support each of my refutations of every one of your amateur observations, and your response is not a single image and some unqualified Conspiracy Kooks?? Hilarious!

Your graphics are fraudulent and are even contradicted by some of your own side's experts, as I've noted before.

And, who, pray tell, are the "unqualified Conspiracy Kooks"? I've cited the late Dr. Art Snyder, who held a doctorate in physics and worked as a physicist at Stanford University. I've cited Dr. David Mantik, who holds a doctorate in physics and is a former professor of physics at the University of Michigan, in addition to being a board-certified and peer-review-published radiation oncologist. I've cited the late Dr. Roderick Ryan, who worked as a photography and film scientist with Kodak, who held a doctorate in cinema and comms from USC, who was a recipient of the Scientific and Engineering Award from the Society of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, who was a Fellow of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and who was a member of the Committee for Selection of Scientific and Technical Awards, Special Effects, Documentary Films.

You sound like a Flat Earther who's dismissing the observations of scientists by calling the scientists "unqualified Round Earth Kooks."

I notice you once again ducked the point that no FMJ bullet in the history of forensic science has deposited a single fragment, much less two fragments, in the scalp and/or outer table when penetrating a skull. I also notice that you ignored the wound ballistics tests in which simulated skulls were propelled backward when struck from the front, and that your own side's best wound ballistics expert has admitted that the jet-effect theory is impossible for the Z313 headshot.

Yes, let's revisit your harebrained list of non supported gibberish about the authenticated Zapruder Film, that btw, still hasn't been updated on your website! Naughty naughty.

Uh, is this supposed to be your answer to Dr. Mantik's 42-page paper on evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film? Is this supposed to be your answer to the several paragraphs that I quoted from Dr. Mantik's paper? Leaving aside the fact that your qualifications are nothing compared to Dr. Mantik's qualifications, if Dr. Mantik's scientific observations about impossible anomalies in the Zapruder film are "non-supported gibberish," you should have no problem refuting them. For your convenience, here, again, is the link to his 42-page study on alteration:

https://themantikview.org/pdf/The_Zapruder_Film_Controversy.pdf

You're full of bluff and bluster. You never back up your polemic with valid sources or facts. You just keep repeating your arguments and reposting bogus, deceptive graphics.

I notice you once again ducked the point that no FMJ bullet in the history of forensic science has deposited a single fragment, much less two fragments, in the scalp and/or outer table when penetrating a skull. I also notice that you ignored the wound ballistics tests in which simulated skulls were propelled backward when struck from the front, and that your own side's best wound ballistics expert has admitted that the jet-effect theory is impossible for the Z313 headshot.

Brehm's son moves with a natural fluid motion and we are still waiting for your recreation, I accept that you lost your VHS tape -giggle- but you could at least film another attempt of a less than a second event, waiting Zzzzz....

LOL! How do you move with a "natural fluid motion" from where Brehm Jr. starts to where he ends up in no more than 0.61 seconds?! You are a master at missing--or avoiding--the point. The whole point is that you can't move between those two locations in that amount of time in a "natural fluid motion." My son Jacob only came somewhat close to matching Brehm Jr.'s time by practically jumping into the required spot, but then he had to take time to steady himself.

And I take it that you are never going to do your own reenactment to prove that any kid that age could perform that movement in barely half a second, right? I mean, if there's nothing unusual about the speed of the movement, you should be anxious and willing to prove this with a reenactment. We both know that you can't. We both know that that's why you won't do a reenactment.

Would you like my son Jacob's phone number? He played the kid in my reenactment (he was in his teens at the time). You can talk to him and ask him anything you want about my reenactment. Send me a private message and I'll give you his email address and phone number.

Your perception of perspective in the Hill/Jackie meeting on the Limo Trunk is absolutely screwed up, and your bizarre contention that the angles are somewhat similar, only reinforces your lack of visualization skills.

Oh, hogwash. Your denial of observable reality is astounding. Anyone can look at the two frames and see that the camera angles are not drastically different. That's why both frames show the respective rear tires, the respective sides of the rear bumper, and the respective sides of Jackie and Agent Hill. This would not be the case if the camera angles were markedly different. I've pointed out this fact before, and you just keep ignoring it. If the camera angles were drastically different, we would not see the respective sides of these objects.

Again, you can delude yourself into imagining that the obvious differences in the locations and positions of Jackie's and Hill's heads and bodies in the two frames are an optical illusion caused by drastically different camera angles, but anyone with two working eyes can see that this is not the case. You just can't face this fact because admitting it would mean admitting that the Zapruder film has been altered.

I notice you once again ducked the point that no FMJ bullet in the history of forensic science has deposited a single fragment, much less two fragments, in the scalp and/or outer table when penetrating a skull. I also notice that you ignored the wound ballistics tests in which simulated skulls were propelled backward when struck from the front, and that your own side's best wound ballistics expert has admitted that the jet-effect theory is impossible for the Z313 headshot.

Another one of your claims that in the Zapruder Film, Clint Hill doesn't come close to Jackie, and that Hill doesn't grab Jackie's arm to push her back in her seat has also been totally proven to be another one of your fantasies but at least you have stopped spreading this lie. Thanks!

This is juvenile pettiness. You know I was referring to the sequence before Jackie starts to retreat back into her seat, as I immediately clarified once I realized I had misspoken. Are you really so immature and dense as to think that anyone is going to believe that I did not know that after Z380 Hill helps Jackie get back into her seat? Really?

Your Malcolm Summers gaff is another perspective mistake, Malcolm's left leg is not bent backwards but is splayed forward, with his left shoe clearly visible over the top of his right shin.

HUH? Can you read? How many times have I explained that in Z353 Summers' left leg is splayed forward and that his left foot is clearly extended beyond his right foot? That's the whole point, because 56 thousandths of a second later, or just 1/18th/second later, his left foreleg is bent noticeably backward and his left foot is now directly above his right foot! Moreover, by Z356, just 1/6th/second later at Z33, his legs, arms, and feet are in an obviously different position than they are in Z353.

This is at least the third time you have ducked and dodged these self-evident, readily observable facts. I mean, sheesh, do you somehow think that people won't notice your bald-faced evasion and dissembling on this issue?

Folks, to get an idea of John Mytton's evasion and misrepresentation on this issue, read my segment on Summers' movements in my article "Evidence of Alteration in the Zapruder Film": https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YOK_7uLe49zgXADGQxkIH1dmaEcpyaWd/view?usp=drive_link.

Lastly, the Limo obviously dramatically slows down at the time of the head shot and this slow down is very clear in Zapruder!

LOL! I ask you, again: If your slowdown is "very clear," how did Dr. Alvarez miss it?! How did Dr. Alvarez, not to mention every other expert who has examined the film, miss your "dramatic" slowdown?! The only slowdown he detected, after many hours of frame-by-frame analysis, is the Z295-304 slowdown, a slowdown (1) that no one else had detected until then and (2) that is virtually unnoticeable when you watch the film at normal speed. It is beyond silly to argue that this half-second slowdown is the stop or marked slowdown that dozens of witnesses described seeing. 

You are either deluding yourself or you have terrible eyesight. Your slowdown GIF is naked fraud and exposes you as a charlatan or as a person with bad eyesight.

BTW, when are you going to deal with the fact that the Muchmore film shows the limo's brake lights on for nine frames? Yet, in the Zapruder film the limo appears to move at a steady speed until after Z314, and after Z314 the limo speeds up.

Btw, have you worked out the difference between "slow down" and "stop" because you can't have it both ways! Hahaha!

You're again acting like a juvenile. As I've pointed out to you several times now, my article on alteration never just says "slowdown" but "marked slowdown," "rapid slowdown," "slowed markedly," and "slowed down markedly," in addition to "stop" and "stopped," e.g., "the car stopped or markedly slowed" (p. 1) and "Nothing like the stop or rapid slowdown described above appears in the current Zapruder film" (p. 2).

Do you just not understand the difference between "slowdown" and "marked slowdown/rapid slowdown"? Do you just not understand the difference between "the car slowed down" and "the car markedly/rapidly slowed down"? Is your English so bad that you don't understand the difference between the generic term "slowdown" and the more specific term "marked/rapid slowdown"?

I notice you once again ducked the point that no FMJ bullet in the history of forensic science has deposited a single fragment, much less two fragments, in the scalp and/or outer table when penetrating a skull. I also notice that you ignored the wound ballistics tests in which simulated skulls were propelled backward when struck from the front, and that your own side's best wound ballistics expert has admitted that the jet-effect theory is impossible for the Z313 headshot.