Wich2 wrote:
You're maintaining the Zapruder film has been altered? Look at it: you can see, fairly clearly, the side-toward-front of the man's head explode - and the spray is forward.

And then there's the documentary interview with McClelland that Armand cites. And NOVA is a dang fine national broadcast operation, not "obscure radio hosts."


Look, I think he's mixing up McClelland with Jenkins.

If McClelland was interviewed by NOVA and said something different, please show me where to see that.  If you go over to you tube, and put in Robert McClelland and Brent Holland, you will get a TV interview from 2011.

There is no sense arguing about something I just saw as if I didn't see it and something I just heard Dr McClelland say as if I didn't hear him say it.

As for discrepancies between the Zapruder film, the eye-witness testimony, and the autopsy evidence, they exist.

This is from Douglas P Horne, the chief analyst for military records for the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB)

A--The brain photographs in the National Archives that are purported to be photographs of President Kennedy's brain are not what they are represented as being.  They are not pictures of his brain, but rather are photographs of someone else's brain.

B--There is something seriously wrong with the autopsy photographs of the body of President Kennedy.  It definitely is President Kennedy in the photographs, but the images showing the damage to the President's head do not show the pattern of damage observed by either the medical professionals at Parkland Hospital in Dallas or by numerous witnesses at the military autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital.  These disparities are real and are significant, but the reasons remain unclear.

If this fellow correct?  I don't know, but I don't dismiss evidence out of hand. 

This physician and nurse are only testifying to what they saw or remembered seeing.  It does seem hard to reconcile with the film. 

**Just as an aside, something I just came across, a man identified as a MD and radiologist who is interviewed and says that there is a clear white spot on the back of the skull x-ray which is far too white to be the x-ray of a skull bone (and does not match other x-rays of JFK's skull) and he thinks this is something put into the skull to replace the bone and cover the hole.  I personally don't have any way of evaluating this theory.