A shot fired through the front of the windshield- To Barb and Jerry

[Barb Junkkarinen]

That's great Barb. Fashion interests me. I've never come across the apron style. That and the blouse seems to clinch it.

I also thought along the line of a waitress with perhaps a purse for transactions that seems to me to be located for easy access. It was lunch time and many attended as dressed from work. She's stylishly and seems functionally dressed as well.

Hi John,

I think the purse would be hers ... unlikely a waitress would take her waitressing money bag with her, even if empty, me thinks ... and she doesn't have any other purse that I can see. You know we females don't go anywhere without our purse.<g> I like your sense of stylish fashion too!

Bests,

Barb :-)

[John Dolva]

I'm just curious. How long has this nebula in that Altgens been an issue. How much stuff needs to go back to basics in the sense of a complex derivative possibly has as paes of its foundation a fundamental flaw. What does it change/mean?

[Josiah Thompson]

I'm just curious. How long has this nebula in that Altgens been an issue. How much stuff needs to go back to basics in the sense of a complex derivative possibly has as paes of its foundation a fundamental flaw. What does it change/mean?

Actually, it changes very little. For some thirty or forty years, it was obvious that the windshield had not been penetrated by a bullet although it had been hit by a bullet fragment from the rear. At some point, David Lifton became interested in the issue because his body alteration theory was sympathetic to any claim of windshield alteration. But David never thought the "spiral nebula" thing had anything to it. Actually, it may have been Fetzer who first gave currency to the notion back in 2000 when he published Doug Weldon's article in one of his books. He published a copy of Altgens #6 and circled the "spiral nebula" region of the windshield as "Circle 1." Fetzer's caption for the photograph ran: "The Altgens photograph. Circle 1. The apparent through-and-through hole in the windshield..."

That's typical of Fetzer to illustrate arguments with unqualified captions that turn out to be fictitious. Apparently, Doug Weldon himself is staying far away from the claim since he won't say anything about it.

So once again we've used up a fair amount of energy and time debunking something that apparently grew still-born from Fetzer's imagination. It won't be the first time... and probably not the last... that this kind of effort has proved necessary.

Josiah Thompson

[Cliff Varnell]

So once again we've used up a fair amount of energy and time debunking something that apparently grew still-born from Fetzer's imagination. It won't be the first time... and probably not the last... that this kind of effort has proved necessary.

Josiah Thompson

Question: how much energy and time do we need to debunk something

that apparently grew still-born from Tink Thompson's imagination: that JFK's

throat wound was caused by an exiting fragment from the head wound(s)?

Answer: hardly any time and energy at all...

[Greg Burnham]

Indeed, Cliff. Unfortunately for Tink, he invested the proverbial "whole ball of wax" into some of his theories that, while I believe were sincere in the 60's, have lost credibility in the 21st century. This is not his fault. He did the best he could with what he had to work with almost a half century ago. (At least that's what I want to believe--even though his attitude strains that belief). Refusing to acknowledge the best evidence provided by the latest technology and the best experts currently available is not necessarily indicative of a nefarious agenda. Rather, it is understandable that as some age they fear to be "less than memorable" if they admit profound error in their earliest hypotheses. They believe they lack the time to rectify the record sufficiently to render their life long work "worth it" --as if that was the point!

True research seeks truth--not ego justification.

GO_SECURE

monk

So once again we've used up a fair amount of energy and time debunking something that apparently grew still-born from Fetzer's imagination. It won't be the first time... and probably not the last... that this kind of effort has proved necessary.

Josiah Thompson

Question: how much energy and time do we need to debunk something

that apparently grew still-born from Tink Thompson's imagination: that JFK's

throat wound was caused by an exiting fragment from the head wound(s)?

Answer: hardly any time and energy at all...

Edited March 20, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Karl Kinaski]

Spiral nebula alright. But do we know whats that is?

[Karl Kinaski]

So once again we've used up a fair amount of energy and time debunking something that apparently grew still-born from Fetzer's imagination. It won't be the first time... and probably not the last... that this kind of effort has proved necessary.

Josiah Thompson

Question: how much energy and time do we need to debunk something

that apparently grew still-born from Tink Thompson's imagination: that JFK's

throat wound was caused by an exiting fragment from the head wound(s)?

Answer: hardly any time and energy at all...

If I remember rightly, this "throat wound caused by fragment" theory was the standpoint of an NY-Times article in December 1963, well before the stupid SB-Theorie was created, which became the credo of all the big newspapers in the US in 1964.

KK

Edited March 20, 2010 by Karl Kinaski

[Bernice Moore]

karl you may be interested in this information...b

NETWORK ANOMALIES OF 11/22/63 by Vince Palamara

The following is a detailed compendium of every interesting

bit of information gleaned from all of the AVAILABLE network film/

video footage. Compare this list to "official" history:

I. ABC/WFAA (Dallas)- 1) Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce Breakfast

Speech, morning of 11/22/63(carried live): just before JFK is

scheduled to come out of the pantry area, the announcer starts going

into detail about the 1901 assassination of President William McKinley

by Leon C zolgosz, who he describes as "a man with a long history of

mental illness"(?);

2) Love Field arrival, later in the morning of 11/22/63(carried live):

Bob Walker stresses the Secret Service's presence, alittle more than

necessary;

3) First reports immediately after the shooting: "some of the Secret

Service agents thought the gunfire was from an automatic weopon fired

from the right rear,PROBABLY FROM A GRASSY KNOLL WHERE POLICE RUSHED";

4) Jim (Ed) Haggerty (Ike's Press Secretary for 8 years, now an ABC

executive and commentator): "I had a hand in the planning of many

motorcades...I have seen many motorcades...(this assassination) is

a little different than any other- a rifle was used...h as to be a

planned conspiracy( as w/ Truman attempt)...First time in our history

where a rifle was used...whoever fired it...could handle a rifle...must

have been a carefully planned tragedy and conspiracy", to which Don Goddard

responded, "(This) adds on e to the case for conspiracy";

5) DPD outrider James Chaney: In an interview with Bill Lord, Chaney

explained that he was "riding on the right rear fender" of JFK's limo

during the shooting, and that "the President was struck in the face"

by the SECOND shot. Lord ended the interview by telling the audience

that "(Chaney) was so close his uniform was splattered with blood"!;

6) Dead agent "story"?: Eddie Barker of KRLD-TV said, "The word is that the

President was killed, one of his agents is dead, and Governor Conally was

wounded"; from Washington: "A Secret Service agent apparently was shot by one

of the assassin's bullets" ; Bill Lord: " did confirm the death of the

Secret Service agent...one of the Secret service agents was killed...Secret

Service usually walk beside the car "; again, from Washington: "One of the

Secret Service agents traveling with the President was kille d today";

Associated Press Wire (read over the air): " A Secret Service agent

and a Dallas policeman were shot and killed...some distance from where

the president was shot";

7) Aubrey Rike: " We picked up an epileptic [Jerry Belknap]...(the Secret

Service told us) we would have to removethe remains(of JFK)"-

8) Dennis McGuire(Rike's partner): " A Secret Service man told us to prepare

to load (the) body" and put JFK in the hearse. McGuire added that

"one of the Secret Service men- three of them- DROVE OFF AND LEFT MR.

O'NEAL AND THE REST OF US JUST STANDING THERE"! Compare this to

"official" history (Rike's later statements );

9) Funeral home detour?: Bob Clark-" The President's body (was) taken

to a Dallas funeral home"; Jay Watson- " (JFK's body) is being taken

to one of the funeral homes here in Dallas";

10) AFTER Lee Harvey Oswald's capture- formal statement read by Dallas

Mayor Earle Cabell:

"the irrational act of a single man...all possible security

precautions were taken (between Dallas Police and the Secret

Service)...this could only be the act of a deranged man"- I feel

better now that E arle set us straight(!);

11) DPD Chief Jesse Curry:

"We have heard he (Oswald) was PICKED UP BY A NEGRO IN A CAR"- this

was Roger Craig's story!!!;

12) ABC commentator Paul Goode( a most objective, unbiased, unopinionated

newsman): "100% airtight case... Oswald had a rather sickly smile on his

face...mounting pile of evidence against him...Chief Curry is very

encouraged by the preliminary test[?!]...silly smirk on his (Oswald's)

face...Communism... seems to be the most likely reason... he's refused to

confess... the case against him is airtight"- Case Closed!?;

13) Dr.Robert R. Shaw Press Conference (Connally's surgeon), 7:00 CST

11/22/63: "The bullet is in the leg...it hasn't been removed...it will

be removed before he goes to the recovery room"(?!)- what about CE399

(the stretcher bullet) that entered the record around FIVE hours earlier?;

14) Mary Moorman- first shot struck JFK;

15) Charles Brehm-"first shot hit him(JFK)";

16) The Newmans- the head shot came from the grassy knoll;

17) Jean Hill- heard 4 to 6 shots;

18) The rifle(which one?): ".25 caliber rifle"; "7.65 German Mauser"[said

three different times];" Argentine 6.5 Mauser"; " Argentine-made

rifle[said two different times]";

19) The President's head wound: shot in the RIGHT TEMPLE[said several

different times];

20) Dallas D.A. Henry Wade: "People CANNOT positively identify him

(oswald) there (in the window)"- too bad Wade would forget this

"official" statement in his later years, telling newsmen in the '90's

that upwards of 6 people did see Oswald in the window!;

21) BEFORE attempted transfer of Oswald: Bill Lord: "(It's) like an

armed camp...police officials are frankly worried...they don't want

anything to happen to Oswald"; Roger Sharpe: " All possible security

precautions have been taken...Bill Decker has done everything possible to

maintain strict security"; Lord again: " Extreme precautions have been

taken...police officials are worried...there are many weopons

visible...(the police are) ready to prevent anything they possibly can";

22) IMMEDIATELY after Ruby shot Oswald: Bob Walker: " probably more

security used for Oswald than for the President(?!)...most stringent

security precautions"- give me a break!;

23) Janet Adams Conforto a.k.a. JADA ( about Ruby): "He

disliked Bobby Kennedy...I don't think he loved Kennedy that

much"-hey, that goes against "official" history. Oh, well, at least

Jada didn't get in trouble for her little "mistake"-did she?;

24) those nasty rumors"- Bob Clark: " rumor that Oswald was in the

Carousel last week"; Jay Watson: " One of the workers at the Carousel

recognized Oswald in the audience"; Robert MacNeil: " A performer- a

memory expert- saw Oswald in Ruby's club"; Roger Sharpe: " Many, many

rumors...linking Ruby to Oswald"- so much so that the media reported

that the Dallas police were going on the "assumption" that Ruby and

Oswald DID know each other and that Ruby killed Oswald to shut him up;

25) Dallas' finest- Both Jim Leavelle and Patrick Dean recognized

Ruby, as they had known him long before 11/22/63;

26) C.A. Droby(a lawyer/friend of Ruby's): He "has been threatened"; As

Droby himself said on the air, " I received two calls that I would be the

next to die"-these calls came from " a man". Droby added: "I was standing

pretty close to the Sheriff's office" on 11/22/63;

27) 47 witnesses and counting- ABC's Bob Clark, who rode in the

motorcade, ALSO said the presidential limousine stopped during the

shooting...

II. NBC/WBAP-TV(Dallas)-

1) "automatic weopon", "British 303 rifle", "30-30 rifle", " 7.65

German Mauser", "British, German, (or) Japanese"-gee, everything BUT a

6.5 Italian Mannlicher Carcano!;

2) Dallas Police statement: "The most stringent security precautions in

the city's history"(?);

3) Capt. Will Fritz: "Oswald hasn't admitted to anything yet, but HE

LOOKS LIKE A GOOD SUSPECT";

4) JFK shot in right temple[said several times];

5) the "dead" agent continued;

6) Jean Hill (via a live phone hook-up)- 4 to 6 shots, came from a hill, etc.

7) the murder weopon- "No fingerprints on it-sent to FBI here in

Washington for analysis";

8) Robert MacNeil- NO mention of running into Oswald, although he DOES go

into detail about using the phone at the TSBD, among other things;

9) Donald Wayne House- the Fort Worth suspect: shown and discussed about

to a confused public- what about Oswald?;

10) Newsmen Frank McGee and Bill Ryan- JFK's wounds were in "the back of

the head and, incongrously, someway or another, in the front of the neck".

This dilemna was pondered over by Robert MacNeil, as well;

11) Houston motorcade clip from 11/21/63- shows JFK's limo surrounded by

approx. 18 motorcycles !

III. CBS/KRLD-TV(Dallas)-

1) Dan Rather explains it all for us- The fatal wound to JFK "entered

at the base of the throat and exited at the base of the neck on the

back side"- what?! This is almost as bad as Hoover's call to LBJ

describing the shooting sequence;

2) Immediately after Ruby shot Oswald- Newsman:" Everyone down here

thought (he) was a Secret Service agent"(?!).

There are other anomolies and items of interest on the

AVAILABLE video footage, but these are the most important. It would be

nice if we could obtain ALL of the video from the networks,

particularly CBS. Nevertheless, this network video survey is a vivid

reminder to us all that ,before we go believing what's in print, it

is a good idea to take a long hard look at what was said on the air

that day: 11/22/63.

Sources: "The Kennedy Tapes"(1983)- 14 hours of edited ABC footage

from 11/22 to 11/24/63; A&E's rebroadcast of the NBC tapes-6

hours(1988); 1988 special by Dan Rather and CBS , "Four Days in

November"- 2 hours of heavily edited footage

and

http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/largewound.htm

and

http://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/2370.html

b

Edited March 20, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[Josiah Thompson]

So once again we've used up a fair amount of energy and time debunking something that apparently grew still-born from Fetzer's imagination. It won't be the first time... and probably not the last... that this kind of effort has proved necessary.

Josiah Thompson

Question: how much energy and time do we need to debunk something

that apparently grew still-born from Tink Thompson's imagination: that JFK's

throat wound was caused by an exiting fragment from the head wound(s)?

Answer: hardly any time and energy at all...

You continue to follow Fetzer’s line that I’m guilty of something dreadful because of something I wrote in Six Seconds over forty years ago. Hypothesis were offered in that book to explain the evidence as we then knew it. One of those hypotheses was that the throat wound was caused by a bone fragment from the head shot. Fetzer has been using this to distract attention from the fact he couldn’t come up with evidence for one of his claims. Hence, earlier in this thread I tried to make the record clear by replying in this way to Fetzer in post #445 in this thread. I wrote:

Same old... same old. I won’t take much time to reply.

You keep trotting out the same old insults: I’m “a disgrace to my Yale Ph.D.” I’m “unreliable... untrustworthy... and an incompetent student of the death of JFK.” And how do we know all this? Because in 1967 I offered an hypothesis that the throat wound was caused by a skull fragment being driven downward and out the front of the neck. What is the truth of the matter? I don’t know. There are enormous difficulties in accounting for the throat wound as an entry wound from the front. Likewise, there are severe difficulties in accounting for the throat wound as coming from a fragment of skull being driven down and out the throat just as there are severe difficulties in accounting for the throat wound as the exit wound of a bullet that entered Kennedy’s back. Anyone who has studied the case more than superficially knows this... Post a photo of a bullet hole through a windshield that looks like what we have in Altgens #5 and maybe then there will be something to talk about. Otherwise, you’re just, as usual, bloviating.

Apparently, you missed this post.

What I’m trying to get across to you is that in 2010 I don’t know what caused the throat wound. All the various alternatives have great difficulties associated with them. None work very well to explain the evidence we have. If you asked me what caused the throat wound, I’d have to say simply and directly, “I don’t know.” And that opinion, it seems to me, is shared by most people who’ve looked at the question.

What we’ve been trying to do on this thread is much simpler and more direct. We’re not offering various hypotheses about Kennedy’s wounds but we’re dealing with a single piece of evidence. Does the Altgens #6 photo (taken at Z 255) show an undamaged windshield? I think it does and if I’m right then this has consequences for whatever scenarios one later chooses to construct.

Josiah Thompson

[Pat Speer]

Geez, John, I thought you knew a little more about the case. Mary was told it was taken about 1/8th of a second after the head shot, which was the one that entered his right temple. I presumed you would at least read the article through to notice John Costella's observation that, the entire debate may have been intended as a distraction from the orientation of his head as Mary caught it in her Polaroid. There is much more about the Moorman debate at http://www.jfkresearch.com/Moorman/ . I have no idea what you take to be the alternatives. Arlene Specter offered a fantastic scenario where Jack was standing and turned around, to which I shall return below. For all I know, given what you don't know, you may have been taken in by him. Here I highlight what I took for granted you would read:

Jim,

I still sit on Tink's side when it comes to the extant Moorman and what camera position it implies, so make sure that the issues are disentangled.

Re the head wound being inconsistent with the Z film, I think it's beyond doubt. The explanation I like best is David Lifton's in BEST EVIDENCE about the time they got hold of the clear frames in the early '70s. The GIF sequences of deblurred frames on my website make it clear for the newcomer, but it really goes back to DSL.

The only argument that Tink and Miller and the others put forward against this is that somehow JFK's head is massively rotated to the left in 313 and 314, and that we are seeing the part of his head above his right ear. Ironically, the Moorman polaroid itself dismisses this idea (if these were all genuine), as it lines up at about Z-315 or Z-316, and shows that JFK's head is tilted but not spun around as would be required-as you can see from Clip G on my website, his head starts to lift from 314 through to 318 but does not rotate left or right.

Indeed, maybe that's the point of all this Moorman guff. Forget about the pedestal for the moment, and look at JFK. Place the Moorman next to Zapruder frame 315 or 316, and you have two (allegedly genuine) different views of the same instant of time. That shows you that the "red blob" that explodes out the front of his head in the Z-toon is indeed supposed to be coming out of his right temple. If his head had been rotated massively to the left, we'd be able to see his face in the Moorman-but we don't.

John

If you are interested in the orientation of JFK's head at the time of the right-temple shot, then Mary's Polaroid captured it. I assumed you knew, for example, that Arlene Specter's claim that he was standing and turned around to waive to bystanders at the time of his throat shot was pure fantasy, which reflects the desperation of his attempt to deny that JFK was hit in the throat from in front, a wound that was widely broadcast on radio and television the afternoon and evening of the assassination. But then, we are observing a similar degree of desperation by Jerry and Josiah in their efforts to distract attention from the consideration that the only hypothesis that can account for all of the data presented by (a) though (g) is that the bullet passed through the windshield en route to his throat.

Jim

Jim, I said nothing about Moorman, besides it's taken after the headshot and not necessarily indicative of JFK's head orientation at the time of the bullet striking his head.

Jim, the speculation the throat wound--which was initially described as an entrance--was received when Kennedy tuned around was pushed by the media before Specter was even involved in the case. I've never seen anything linking Specter to this. If you have anything proving Specter was behind this at so early a date, or even later, I'd appreciate your bringing it forward, so I could incorporate it into my webpage.

(I know we don't see eye to eye on all that much, but I suspect you'd find chapters 1 and 1b to my webpage quite interesting. Those chapters are largely devoid of speculation, and basically report the treatment of the assassination as a case and as a story in the months prior to the WC's taking testimony. It's pretty damning, IMO.)

From patspeer.com, chapter 1b:

All the secrecy about Kennedy's death led to mucho speculation in the press, much of which would feed into the public's subsequent suspicions. On 11-27, for instance, a New York Times article entitled Kennedy Struck by Two Bullets, apparently recognizing that the Parkland doctors thought the throat wound was an entrance wound, but that Kennedy was past the school book depository when struck in the head, reported "The known facts about the bullets and the position of the assassin suggested that he started shooting as the President's car was coming toward him, swung his rifle in an arc of 180 degrees and fired at least twice more." This was days after the Times had helped the FBI and Police sell that there was but one shooter. And yet, apparently, no one at the Times had bothered to ascertain the whereabouts of Kennedy in relation to the sniper's nest at the moment he was first shot. Apparently, they'd spent so much energy trying to get the "official" word from Washington insiders that they'd failed to note the location of those closest to Kennedy at the time of the shots, or study the photos of the shooting itself. Even a modicum of study should have convinced them that Kennedy was far past the sniper's nest when first hit, and that he could not have received an entrance wound in the neck in such position without turning around in his seat. Astounding.

An article in that evening's Fort-Worth Star Telegram was even more problematic. This article, The Anatomy of Death in the Afternoon, written by Arthur J. Snider of the Chicago Daily News, was reportedly written "with the aid of movies taken by an amateur." This is clearly a reference to the Zapruder film. Its description of the shooting sequence follows:

(As presented online by Sixth Floor Museum Archivist Gary Mack, with pertinent sections highlighted)

"As the fateful car rounded the turn and moved into the curving parkway, the President rolled his head to the right, smiling and waving. At that instant. . .the sniper. . .fired his cheap rifle. . .the President clutched his throat for a bewildered instant, then began to sag. A second blast from the high-powered rifle ripped into the right rear of his head at about a 4 o 'clock position.

"It was a violent wound. As a motorcycle officer described it: 'It just seemed as if his head opened up.' The President swerved to his left and collapsed into the arms of his wife. Mrs. Kennedy climbed onto the trunk to beseech aid from a Secret Service man. The President slumped against her leg, bloodying her skirt and stocking.

"Meanwhile, Gov. John Connally had turned to see what happened. A third shot rang out. It struck the governor in the back. The bullet was deflected to his right wrist and lodged in his left thigh. A fragment of rib, fractured by the bullet, punctured a lung."

Now this article, with its implication that the Zapruder film shows Kennedy turned far enough to his right to receive an entrance wound in his neck from the sniper's nest, would be strange enough. But this isn't the only version of this article. The version in this evening's Chicago Daily News, presumably published after the syndicated version of the article had been wired to Forth Worth, raises even more questions.

"As the fateful car rounded the turn and moved into the curving parkway, the President rolled his head to the right, smiling and waving. At that instant, about 12:30 PM, .the sniper, peering through a 4 power telescopic sight, fired his cheap rifle.

The 6.5 millimeter bullet--about .30 caliber--pierced the President's neck, just below the Adam's apple. It took a downward course.

"If you're wearing a bow tie, the position is just about where the knot is," said a Dallas neurosurgeon who saw the wound.

The President clutched his throat for a bewildered instant, then began to sag.

Meanwhile, Gov. John Connally had turned to see what happened. A second shot rang out. It struck the governor in the back. The bullet was deflected to his right wrist and lodged in his left thigh. A fragment of rib, fractured by the bullet, punctured a lung.

The car rolled on slowly. Onlookers, instinctively startled by the shots, were still unable to grasp their meaning.

Then, in quick order, the third blast. It ripped into the right rear of the President's head at a 4 o 'clock position.

It was a violent wound. As a motorcycle officer described it: 'It just seemed as if his head opened up.'

The wound was so vast and ghastly that a pathologist in Arlington, VA, suggests the assassin may have used flattened "dum-dum" bullets."

Yes, you got it. The order of the shots has been changed. It seems doubtful that Snider himself made this change. He had after all, studied the Zapruder film while writing the article. Well, if he didn't change it, who did? And why?

Perhaps we have an answer. At 4:30 PM Governor Connally was interviewed live on television from his hospital bed. He both decried the climate of hatred that led to the assassination and expounded upon the complexities and greatness of his long-time friend Lyndon Johnson. He said of Johnson, "I think in our dealings with foreign nations I know of no man in my lifetime that I would rather be dealing my hand than him." Connally also described the shooting to the nation: "we had just turned the corner, we heard a shot; I turned to my left...Almost simultaneously, as I turned, I was hit...I said, "My God, they are going to kill us all." Then there was a third shot and the President was hit again and we thought then very seriously...."

From this, one can assume that someone at the Chicago Daily News, in order to make its interpretation of the evidence fit the Governor's widely-watched recollections, re-wrote Snider's article at the last second, after the version printed in the Star-Telegram had already been transmitted. Beyond this possibility, it's difficult to see how two articles written by the same man and published on the same evening could contain such widely divergent conclusions.

Edited March 21, 2010 by Pat Speer

[Bernice Moore]

KK..Sylvia Meagher..Press Descriptions Wounds..

PRESS DESCRIPTIONS OF THE PRESIDENTS WOUNDS

"A wealth of discrepancies,distortions, and omissions impels one to conclude that the official autopsy report is unreliable; that the description of the President's wounds is innacurate ; that the single-missile theory is wholly unsupported by and in conflict with the evidence; that this theory respresents an attempt to salvage the case against Lee Harvey Oswald as a lone assassin; that the conclusions in the WR on the source,number,and perpetration of the shots are completely invalid; and that the evidence in fact constitutes proof of conspiracy.."..Sylvia Meagher...1967.

Press Descriptions:

"In the first days and weeks after the assassination news stories constantly revised the number, location, and nature of the President's wounds..

At Parkland Hospital according to the Doctors, he has suffered and entrance wound at the Adam's apple and a massive wound in the head."

New York World-Telegram and Sun: Nov.23/63..p.2

New York Times :Nov.24/63..p2.col 6.

New York Post : Nov.24/63..p2.col 3

"The official theory to account for those wounds was that the President had been shot while his car was approaching the Book Depository Building".

New York Herald-Tribune, Nov.27/63.pp1& 9

"That was soon dropped in favor of a new theory; that he was shot on Elm Street while the car was moving away from the Book Depository, when he turned backward to wave at the crowd".

Paul Mandel,"End to Nagging Rumors:" The Six Critical Seconds."

Life, Dec.4/63.p.52F,col 2.

"That was dropped in turn when films of the assassination showed that the President was facing forward at the strategic time.On site tests were conducted on Dec.5,1963 by the Secret Service-----presumably with the autopsy report in hand,Com.doc.at the NA consists of a receipt for various items ,including ""one copy of autopsy report and notes of the examing doctor"", turned over to Robert I.Bouck of the Secret Service Research Section by the White House physician on November 26,1963. The tests were conducted for the acknowledged purpose of determining how the President was shot in the front from behind."

The New York Times, Dec.6/63..p.6

"The experiment was not successful".

About 4 weeks after the assassination it became known that the SS had interviewed the Parkland doctors and informed of the autopsy findings.

(St.Louis Post-Dispatch,Dec18/63.)

A new version of the wounds was made public, which mentioned for the first time that the Pres. had been shot in the back.

(New YorkTimes,Washington Post,& St.Louis Post-Dispatch,Dec 18/63)

Some stories also said that the bullet that had struck his back "was found deep in his shoulder"

One story said the bullet had entered"five to seven inches below the collar line".

( Washington Post.Dec18/63 and May29/66 )

others said "several inches below the collar line"(The Washington Post said on May 29/66 that the information had been confirmed by the FBI before publication.)

It was now reported that the Parkland doctors now agreed that the entrance wound at the Adam's apple was now in reality an exit wound.

St.Louis Post-Dispatch,Dec.18/63..

Some reports of the autopsy findings that were leaked to the press contradicted each other as well as the official autopsy report ultimately published..

The New Tork Times stated on Dec.17/63,that the FBI report of Dec.9/63

revealed that one bullet had struck Kennedy where the right shoulder joins the neck and another had struck his RIGHT TEMPLE..

NY Times Dec.17/63.p31.cols 7-8.

The next day The NY Times published another report,from a "source fully acquainted with the results of the autopsy."

Now there was a small neat wound in the back that had penetrated two or three inches, and according to " the pathologists at Bethesda." the wound at the Adam's apple had been caused by a metal or bone fragment from the fatal head shot..

NY Times.Dec.18/63.p27,cols 4-6.

Within 24 hrs.The NY Times gave stillanother account, in which the pathologists were said to have found that the bullet in the back had lodged in Kennedy's body and that a second bullet had hit the RIGHT REAR of his HEAD...

NY Times.Dec 19/63, p23,col.1

The story added that a fragment of the bullet had passed out the front of the neck. More than a month later the Times was still reporting that a bullet had lodged in Kennedy's right shoulder.

NY Times.Jan 26/64,p.58,col.4

Thus for more than two months after the assassination the press asserted repeatedly that the first bullet to strike the President had entered several inches below the collar line and had lodged in the body. The same stories gave a variety of versions of the head wound: that a bullet had gone in and out of the back of the head according to Dr.Kemp Clark:

NY Post,Nov.24/63.p 2,col 3.

that a bullet struck the back of the head to the right;

NY Herald-Tribune,Nov.27/63.pp1 & 9.

that a bullet struck the right temple.

NY Times,Dec 17/63.p31,cols.7-8.

the back of the skull.

NY Times.Dec18/63.p.27,col5.

and the right rear of the head

NY Times Dec.29/63.col 1

The autopsy report, with it's presumably authoritative data, was not published: Dr.J.J. Humes, the chief autopsy surgeon, said that he had been forbidden to talk.

NY Times.Dec.6/63,p.18,col.7

"As one version of the wounds succeeded another with dizzying speed and confusion, only one constant remained: Oswald was the lone assassin and had fired all the shots from the sixth floor of the Book Depository. When facts came into conflict with that thesis ,the facts and not the thesis changed .Critics of the already implausible case against Oswald concluded from this that the truth was being suppressed and perverted in order to persuade the public, at all costs, to accept his sole guilt. Nothing that came to light later presented grounds for altering that conclusion..".

In Sept. 64 the WR provided the official version..According to the Report.

(1) President Kennedy was first struck by a bullet which entered at the back of his neck and exited through the lower front portion of his neck,causing a wound which would not necessarily have been lethal.The President was struck a second time by a bullet which entered the right-rear portion of his head,causing a massive and fatal wound.

(2) Goveror Connally was struck by a bullet which entered on the right side of his back and traveled downward through the right side of his chest,exiting below his right nipple.This bullet then passed through his right wrist and entered his left thigh where it caused a superficial wound.

WR.19

Elsewhere the Com expressed the view that the bullet had struck the Presdient first and exited through the front of his neck and then struck the Governor..and inflicted all his wounds.The Governor himself did not agree with that view, convinced he was hit by a second bullet after an earlier bullet struck the President.

Autopsy Report.

VOL.4.CE.387.. is Undated.

Chief Autopsy Surgeon: Commander J.J. Humes, burned his "preliminary draft notes"and handed over all other papers related to the report to "higher authorities",in a certificate dated Nov.24/63....but according to to his testimony he burnt the first draft of the autopsy report .(Vol.2.H 373)..He states all working papers had remained in his personal custody at all times: that his notes and handwritten draft of the final report were handed over to the commanding officer of the U.S.Medical School at 5pm.Nov.24/63.and that no papers remained in his possession.(Exh.CE 397.p48) Again conflict between the certification and the testimony: Humes told the Com.that the drawings of the wounds had been prepared on the basis of his memory and notes of the autopsy.(Vol.2H 349-350).These certificates suggest the official autopsy report was completed and handed over to the authorities two days after the death of the President.The document begins with a description of the circumstances of the assn.based,it is explained on "available information" and newspaper reports..

1.Absence of a date on autopsy report.

2.Unauthorized release of it's supported contents in Dec.63.

weeks after it was completed and handed over according to Dr.Humes.

3.Findings that were leaked, are completely inconsistant with the actual contents of the autopsy report.

4.On site tests by the SS.Dec.63,were based on findings different from those in the published autopsy report.

5.The certificates read as if they had been written, after a passage of time,as if to account for the disposition of documents at an earlier time.

Whether authentic or not,the evidence that the autopsy report was completed on Nov. 24/63..fails to account for the leaking of different autopsy findings on Dec.17 & 18th/63.or for the conduct of on site tests on Dec.5th. by the SS on the basis of findings other than those in the final document..

*******************************************

Information from "Accessories After The Fact"..Sylvia Meagher..

*******************************************

You may be interested....in seeing some of these...

Master set of Medical Exhibits ARRB

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...et/contents.htm

Medical reports Doctors of Parkland.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...eport_0270b.htm

B........

[Bernice Moore]

FIRST REPORTS MICHAEL PARKS....

From: bhart@cyberramp.net (Michael Parks)

------------------------------------------

First Reports, The Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 4/4/77

All emphasis is my own..............Michael Parks

Start quote

ASSASSINATION DAY BULLET PIECES REPORTED

DALLAS (AP) - A Texas patrolman says he recalls seeing more than three bullet fragments taken

from the wounds of former Texas Gov. John Connally the day President John Kennedy was

assassinated, according to the Dallas Morning News.

In a copyright story yesterday, the News said Patrolman Charles W. Harbison, who guarded

Connally’s room at Parkland Hospital, as saying he recalls turning over to an FBI agent more

than three fragments.

Connally was wounded in the same shooting spree that killed President Kennedy here Nov. 22,

1963. The Warren Commission identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the assassin and asserted that he

alone was responsible.

The News said Harbison’s story is doubly significant when coupled with the recollection of

Miss Audrey Bell, operating supervisor at Parkland at the time of the assassination.

Harbison was interviewed by the News Saturday. However, yesterday morning he said he “can’t

testify to the number of fragments,” and is not about to be “pinned down” as to the exact

number.

“I was standing there in the hall and someone, I don’t know who handed me the fragments,”

Harbison said yesterday. “I glanced at them, then turned and gave them to another man. And a

second man told me to go down the hall where they were taking the governor.”

Harbison said he wasn’t sure who he gave the fragments to, but surmised it was a federal

agent SINCE THEY WERE THE ONLY PERSONS OTHER THAN AUTHORIZED MEDICAL STAFF PERMITTED IN THAT

PARTICULAR PART OF THE HOSPITAL.

Miss Bell last week said she recalls that she was given FOUR OR FIVE OTHER BULLET FRAGMENTS

taken from Connally.

The News said the two separate groups of fragments now MAKE A TOTAL OF AT LEAST EIGHT

FRAGMENTS PURPORTEDLY FOUND IN CONNALLY FROM WHAT THE WARREN COMMISSION DESCRIBED AS A “NEARLY

WHOLE BULLET” THAT ALLEGEDLY FELL ONTO CONNALLY’S STRETCHER WITH ONLY A FRACTION OF ITS WEIGHT

MISSING.

Investigators for the House Assassinations Committee say they believe the bullet, which

supposedly struck Kennedy in the BACK and then passed through Connally’s body, WOULD HAVE

WEIGHED TOO MUCH IF MORE THAN THREE FRAGMENTS WERE REMOVED, the News said.

The newspaper said investigators have already interviewed Miss Bell and concluded her

testimony, if proven true, COULD DISCREDIT “THE VERY CORNERSTONE OF THE ENTIRE WARREN COMMISSION

REPORT.”

Miss Bell, however, in a television interview, said she did not weigh the bullet fragments

and had no way of proving other than her recollection that there were more than three fragments

given her in the operating room. She said she later turned them over to two men she believed to

be FBI or Secret Service agents.

NEITHER MISS BELL NOR HARBISON WERE INTERVIEWED BY THE WARREN COMMISSION.

End quote

Had Bell and Harbison told stories that backed the WC Report, I guarantee their testimonies

would have been heard. Through selective evidence, I could prove Hoover was not a crook, LBJ

was honest and Helms was honorable. Heck, I probably could even prove that Oswald killed

Kennedy and Tippit. Well, maybe not. No one could believe that much crap.

Michael Parks

[Bernice Moore]

three patients at parkland....

http://www.jfklancer.com/3Patients.html

[Bill Miller]

First question: Is it the case that Altgens #5 (taken at Z 255) shows damage to the windshield? Or is it the case that no discernible damage to the windshield is present in Altgens #5?

Second question: Would you agree that Altgens #6 shows damage to the windshield in the approximate spot where Frazier's notes and photo show damage to the windshield? Can you discern any difference between the damage shown in Altgens #6 to the windshield and the later damage to the windshield memorialized in Frazier's notes and photo?

Josiah Thompson

I cannot believe that some still think they see a hole in the windshield in Altgens 6, but if all they have is the less than sharp image Jack posted, then I can understand the mistake.

In the full Betzner photo there was a black woman holding what looks to be a rolled up newspaper in her hand as she is waving at the President passing by. JFK had not yet been hit when Betzner took his photo. As the car rolled passed and as the woman lowered her newspaper - Altgens took his photo at a time that at least two shots appear to have been fired. A good quality Altgens 6 photo shows no hole/nebula, but rather the black woman's hand holding onto the newspaper she had with her.

When Altgens took his 7th photo, the windshield was obviously damaged by that point. If one does a hi-res scan of that damage and reverses the image so to be compared to the White House Garage photo of the windshield, then in my view they cannot be the same windshield. The damage in Altgens 7 shows a good size frosted area of glass that the sunlight is illuminating. That frosted appearance can be from nothing else than the many cracks in the glass from a projectile hitting it. The White House Garage photos show only a small chip in the glass and no multitude of cracks that would pick up sunlight as what happened in Altgens 7.

Somewhere between this forum and Lancer's there should be images that were created showing what I have just said to be true.

Bill Miller

[Pamela Brown]

I'm just curious. How long has this nebula in that Altgens been an issue. How much stuff needs to go back to basics in the sense of a complex derivative possibly has as paes of its foundation a fundamental flaw. What does it change/mean?

Actually, it changes very little. For some thirty or forty years, it was obvious that the windshield had not been penetrated by a bullet although it had been hit by a bullet fragment from the rear. At some point, David Lifton became interested in the issue because his body alteration theory was sympathetic to any claim of windshield alteration. But David never thought the "spiral nebula" thing had anything to it. Actually, it may have been Fetzer who first gave currency to the notion back in 2000 when he published Doug Weldon's article in one of his books. He published a copy of Altgens #6 and circled the "spiral nebula" region of the windshield as "Circle 1." Fetzer's caption for the photograph ran: "The Altgens photograph. Circle 1. The apparent through-and-through hole in the windshield..."

That's typical of Fetzer to illustrate arguments with unqualified captions that turn out to be fictitious. Apparently, Doug Weldon himself is staying far away from the claim since he won't say anything about it.

So once again we've used up a fair amount of energy and time debunking something that apparently grew still-born from Fetzer's imagination. It won't be the first time... and probably not the last... that this kind of effort has proved necessary.

Josiah Thompson

Wasn't the 'spiral nebulae' concept from another researcher originally? Seems to me there was something about it in Fetzer's video program.