Thanks to a FB friend for mentioning possible alteration of the Z film as it relates to the direction Kennedy was facing at the time of the head shot. He suggests possible film alteration.The film may in fact be altered, edited, frames removed or added. However, the frame indicating the actual head shot must be authentic, and here's why. Blood spatter research indicates back spatter is initiated 0.000400 seconds after the bullet strikes the target. (MFRC, 2008). So, if there is blood spatter, the head has to be in the position it was in at the time of impact. No one moves there head position significantly in 1000th of a second. So if we can prove the blood spatter authentic, the head position must also be correct.
In order for position of the head to be correct at the time of impact, and in addition prove the blood is genuine, certain criteria must be met. The attributes of the blood spatter pattern in the Zapruder film must coincide with known blood spatter pattern characteristics. Which they do. (Google it or read a multiple of available books on blood spatter) And, it is essential to prove knowledge of those patterns characteristics were unavailable to film experts in 1963. But, they weren't. Experimental research directed towards the examination of back spatter was first published in 1982. The Summary Report of the Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Research Group was completed by Sanford Regional Crime Laboratory, Tampa Regional Crime Laboratory, Tallahassee Regional Crime Laboratory, Jacksonville Regional Crime Laboratory, and Pensacola Regional Crime Laboratory. The Journal of Forensic Sciences published a 1983 article entitled “Back Spatters of Blood” by Forensic Pathologists and Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Boyd G. Stevens of the San Francisco Medical Examiner’s Coroner’s Office in California and Dr. Terrence B. Allen, a forensic pathology fellow. The authors recognized the occurrence of minute droplets of blood being expelled from gunshot entry wounds traveling back against the line of fire. They also conceded back spatter of blood from gunshot wounds was a complex phenomenon that was not completely understood. The authors acknowledged the occurrence of back spatter was not widely recognized but was commonly seen in gunshot wounds to the head.
The blood spatter pattern is correct in dimension, velocity, pattern, distribution, and dissipation speed. It has to be found authentic. Therefore, the head position in 313 is correct. And "front" is not the grassy knoll.
Thank you for indulging me with a lengthy post. My very best to all of you, and hope this was of some assistance in determining what happened in Dealey Plaza that day.
Everyone learns to recognize patterns early in life: our mother’s face, behaviors that are acceptable, the turns in the road that take us home. We unconsciously look for patterns everywhere because it is a trusted method of learning. We also learn to assign intent or meaning to patterns, for example narrowed eyes, flared nostrils, and clenched teeth instantly signal danger. By developing informational patterns, we compile a set of self-proven facts that help shape our beliefs. We rely on the informational patterns to assess our surroundings and evaluate the options we confront when making choices. Particularly when challenged with the unknown, we look for familiar patterns—patterns we have identified as truths.
However, sometimes patterns can fool us. Ever look at a photo and initially see one image that suddenly becomes another? (http://www.opti…-vase-illusion) If the patterns we identify and rely on are wrong or misinterpreted, we make erroneous decisions, choices, and assumptions. In doing so, we construct a truth or reality that may be based on a variety of details having little to do with irrefutable evidence. Therefore, what we perceive as truth is colored by variables such as familial teachings, peer pressure, education, life experiences, and cultural reinforcements. Rarely do any of us studiously weigh the pros and cons of circumstances, and then choose the most logical and rational conclusion, especially if the logical outcome contradicts with previously held beliefs. Instead, we filter information through the personally biased, life-view filter of theories, assumptions, hunches, and prejudices we have amassed through learned informational patterns. We then sort through the body of data with that set of truths and select data that conforms to what we already believe, sometimes ignoring, or rationalizing away, those that are disconcerting.
There is nothing wrong with using our information patterns to make decisions or understand circumstances. It is the blatant disregard or rationalization of the information that does not readily fit our established beliefs that is problematic. Unable to recognize familiar patterns, claims of alteration, manipulation and fabrication became the mantra for some. Failing to see anticipated patterns, they imagine there must be sinister intent. The power of expectation then drives their choices. They expect alternation, manipulation, and deception. Subsequently, they find it.
However, not everything unfamiliar or not readily comprehended is altered or intentionally designed to result in ominous chaos. Sometimes there are alternate explanations, alternate explanations that are familiar informational patterns to others. This is why we must share information, and be open to new evidence. It enriches our knowledge base, and sharpens our cognitive skills. When that happens, we need to be flexible, incorporate the new information, and if necessary create new beliefs. This represents intellectual growth.
This learning concept can be applied to the Kennedy assassination. New forensic research should be incorporated into established informational patterns to determine accurate conclusions. We can now scientifically prove a single, front head shot from a location near the south end of the triple overpass. Yet, some researchers cling to the Grassy Knoll as the origin for the fatal head shot. They claim almost 50 years of experience prove them right. Those who have been researching the assassination for almost half a century without changing the theories or beliefs they established the first year they started are mired in the past. Maintaining the same information learned in the first year is not 50 years of intellectual growth or experience. It is just one year of knowledge experienced 50 times. In addition, in this case, believing something for 50 years doesn’t make it accurate, it just makes it old news.
We can now scientifically prove a single, front head shot from a location near the south end of the triple overpass.
Et peut le prouver scientifiquement, c'est à dire autrement que par une interprétation tendancieuse des images du film de Zapruder ?
Où sont les preuves ?
Cela-dit, il est inutile d'analyser les photos à rayons X pour constater que le crane de JFK n'a jamais été atteint par une balle tirée de l'avant. Sinon, où le trou d'entrée ?
In 1993 as a Certified Senior Crime Scene Investigator and Court recognized expert in Crime Scene Reconstruction and Blood Spatter Analysis, Sherry begin to apply her professional expertise to the Kennedy Assassination. By using the same Bloodstain Pattern Analysis and Trajectory Analysis techniques she’d used in court for over 20 years, she answers basic questions concerning the Kennedy Assassination. The result has been several NID Presentations, the development of 4 expanded presentations and several articles of interest to the assassination researcher.
Fiester has testified as an expert in crime scene reconstruction and bloodstain pattern analysis in over 30 judicial districts in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Florida. Her publications include “Bloodstain Pattern Identification and Documentation: a Workbook for Analyst,” 1990, “Blood Evidence; What Does the Blood Tell Us?,” JFK Lancer Publications, 1997; and “Bloodstain Pattern Analysis and the Kennedy Assassination, The Echo,” England, 2002.
In 2003, Fiester was presented with the Mary Ferrell - JFK Lancer New Frontier Award in appreciation for her contributions of new evidence and furthering the study of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
Vos calculs dites-vous ?
Où est le trou d'entrée ?
Que faites-vous des résultats de l'autopsie ?
Le trou d’entrée est au dessus de l’œil droit et à la base de la racine des cheveux.
la blessure massive à l’arrière droit du crâne de JFK constatée non seulement par une vingtaine de personnes au Parkland Hospital de Dallas
mais aussi par une vingtaine d’autres à l’Hôpital Naval de Bethesda, ce qui se sait moins.
Alors les résultats d’autopsie… vous imaginez bien ce qu’en j’en pense.
Par la suite, tous ces témoins directs conclurent bien évidemment que radios et photos fournies pour étayer la thèse officielle étaient des faux.
Alors en effet, comme Sherry Fiester et beaucoup d’autres, je remets en cause la pertinence de cette autopsie bâclée