What bullet trajectory created the back-of-head blowout wound?

[Sandy Larsen]

I've long believed that there was a blowout wound on the back of Kennedy's head. Because nearly every Parkland medical professional saw it... one of them at very close range for an extended period of time.

I have taken for granted the idea that a bullet form the grassy knoll entered the right temple/forehead area and exited at the right-rear of the head. I took it for granted because I've never seen anybody say it was impossible.

But by looking at frame 312 (below), I can't for the life of me figure out how such a thing took place. It seems to me that a bullet to the right forehead (at or above the hairline) would have exited the left-rear of the head. For it to exit on the right side, the entrance would have had to be in the left temple/forehead area. Or so it appears to me.

Am I wrong? Am I missing something? Why isn't this a huge issue?

I've had multiple arguments with Pat Speer over the location of the blowout wound (he says it's at the top of the head on the right side), and IMO I've always gotten the better of him. Why didn't he simply ask me how a rear blowout wound could possibly have occurred? That question would have shut me up real fast.

Edited December 13, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[David Von Pein]

My thoughts from 2006....

Quote

"As a firm believer in Lee Harvey Oswald's sole guilt in the assassination of
President John F. Kennedy in November 1963, I cannot deny that I'm puzzled
and concerned by the number of witnesses (mostly Parkland Hospital witnesses)
who have gone on record to say they saw a gaping hole in the back of
President Kennedy's head that day back in '63:



But I'm also curious as to HOW so many people at Parkland Hospital in
Dallas were of this singular opinion when JFK was in a prone (supine)
position, flat on his back, the entire time he was in the emergency
room? It seems to me as though Kennedy would have been literally lying
on the wound that so many people said was in the very back part of his
head. Very strange.

But in order to believe the several back-of-the-head ("BOH") wound
witnesses, we are also (at the very same time) being forced to DISbelieve
and completely disregard an enormous amount of the official, documented
evidence in the JFK murder case (and at the same time assume that a large
number of people, within various organizations, told numerous lies with
respect to the facts surrounding Kennedy's death and also faked evidence
to support a Lone-Assassin conclusion).

I ask -- Is that type of conspiratorial belief any MORE logical than
the LNers who disbelieve the witnesses who support a large wound in the
back of JFK's head?

If JFK had a massive hole in the back of his head at Parkland and at
Bethesda Medical Center on the night he was autopsied, then we must
totally trash the official autopsy report (signed by all three primary
doctors who performed that post-mortem exam on the President). In such
a conspiracy-favoring scenario, all three of those doctors MUST be
scheming, low-life liars, who didn't hesitate to sign off on the most
important document any of them would ever sign, even though they had to
know the report was nothing but a pack of lies.

And if there really was a big hole in the back of JFK's head, it would also
have to mean that the official autopsy photos and X-rays of President
Kennedy's wounds have been faked or altered, even though the
House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded that those materials
"had not been altered in any manner".

As we can see, there's no great-big hole in the BACK (occipital) portion
of John F. Kennedy's head here:






And....

If there had actually been a large hole at the back of JFK's head,
we've also got to swallow the notion that a large amount of the ballistics
evidence in the case is dead wrong and was deliberately falsified by an
unknown number of people who served the "cover-up" very well.

Or, short of believing that theory, we'd have to believe that a "magical"
thing occurred just after JFK was shot from the front, and that all of
those frontal-shot bullets (however many there might have been that
struck President Kennedy) just vanished on their own without the aid of
any conspirators' handiwork.

In order to believe in a JFK conspiracy, we'd probably also have to
believe that every member of the Warren Commission panel was up to no
good, with all of these guys rigging the Warren Report to paint Lee
Oswald as a sole assassin (and the lone killer of Dallas city policeman
J.D. Tippit as well).

And in such a "conspiracy mindset", it would also almost assuredly mean
that many, many members of the House Select Committee On Assassinations
in the late 1970s were also no-good, lying SOBs too -- because that
committee came to the same basic conclusion that the Warren boys did in
1964, when it came down to the question of: "How Many Bullets Struck
The Victims; And Who Fired Those Shots?" .... With the answers being:
only 2 shots hit any of the victims in the President's limousine; both
of those bullets came from behind the vehicle; and Lee Harvey Oswald
fired those shots from the Texas School Book Depository Building.

Does any pro-conspiracy book or any conspiracy theorist really trump the
hard, physical evidence in the JFK case? Because if it truly does, then a
whole bunch of OTHER STUFF sure worked out in perfect apple-pie order
for these unidentified conspirators who mapped out that amazing
multi-shooter plot to kill the President.

Did the "real assassins" really get THAT LUCKY with respect to all of
the physical evidence (i.e., guns, bullets, shells, and fingerprints),
which ALL adds up to ONLY Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt in the murders of
Jack Kennedy and J.D. Tippit?

Is it even remotely possible that a group of plotters could have
pre-arranged such a perfect "It Was Only Oswald" plot (save for those
"BOH" wound witnesses), while at the same time utilizing multiple
gunmen hidden throughout Dealey Plaza?

The number of people who needed to be "in" on such a massive
after-the-shooting cover-up operation must have been staggering. ....
Extending from the Dallas Police, to the FBI, to the Secret Service, to
the Dallas doctors who attended both JFK and wounded Texas Governor
John Connally (doctors who must have hidden some of the bullets from
view, surely!), to the scumbags at Bethesda doing the botched autopsy
and then faking the official autopsy report (a report which states,
unequivocally, that Kennedy was shot twice from behind....no mention of
any frontal shots at all striking the President). .....

"It is our opinion that the deceased died as a result of two
perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high-velocity projectiles fired
by a person or persons unknown. The projectiles were fired from a point
behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased." -- Via Page 6 of
John F. Kennedy's Official Autopsy Report

People who wish to believe that President Kennedy received the fatal
blow to his head as a result of a gunshot from the Grassy Knoll in
Dealey Plaza should ask themselves a thought-provoking question
regarding the above paragraph I just provided from the 1963 autopsy
report.

That question being ----

Is it reasonable to believe that all three of those autopsy physicians
would have possessed a desire to attach their signatures to an
incredibly-important document like the official autopsy report of the
President of the United States, all the while knowing full well that
the conclusions they reached within that document they had just signed
were complete, outright lies? Is that truly a "logical" thing to
believe with respect to Drs. Humes, Finck, and Boswell?

What a perfect all-inclusive "Let's Frame Oswald" plot it must have
been (per many conspiracists) -- to have been able to wangle signatures
out of ALL THREE of those autopsy doctors....even though the doctors
KNOW what they're signing isn't true at all; and they know without
question that that "Report" they've signed-off on would probably be
more at home on a roller in their bathrooms!

And then (as if signing and fully endorsing an obviously-inaccurate
autopsy report isn't bad enough) -- All of these doctors then must have
been forced to follow up their initial falsification of the autopsy
report by lying about the true nature of JFK's wounds whenever they
spoke of the matter to anyone .... for years and years on end,
including during their sworn testimony in front of the WC, the HSCA,
and the ARRB. An amazing and comprehensive decades-long cover-up that
is still continuing to this day evidently.

And that's precisely one of the biggest reasons to know why such a
large-scale JFK conspiracy never could have possibly happened (or have
been covered-up so beautifully) in the grandiose fashion that many
CTers champion. Because only Houdini could have masterminded such
sleight-of-hand magic and such indomitable powers of unrelenting
influence and domination over so many different people (within various
official and unofficial capacities) in 1963, and for all eternity thereafter."

David Von Pein
February 2006

More:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JFK-Head-Wounds

 

Edited December 13, 2017 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

Thanks for responding David. But this question is for people who believe there was a blowout wound on the back of the head.

 

Edited December 13, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Pat Speer]

FWIW, Sandy, the late Sherry Fiester, a professional blood-spatter analyst, came to that same realization (that the grassy knoll was out of line with a shot entering the right front of the head and exiting the back of the head), and came to conclude the fatal bullet was fired from the south knoll. You might want to take a look at her stuff.

[Micah Mileto]

44 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

My thoughts from 2006....

The factual EOP wound is just as dangerous to the official story as the theoretical occipital blowout. 

[Sandy Larsen]

8 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

FWIW, Sandy, the late Sherry Fiester, a professional blood-spatter analyst, came to that same realization (that the grassy knoll was out of line with a shot entering the right front of the head and exiting the back of the head), and came to conclude the fatal bullet was fired from the south knoll. You might want to take a look at her stuff.

 

Thanks Pat. I will take a look at it.

A related possibility is that a shot was taken from ABOVE the south knoll. A few days ago someone posted a photo of some guys standing over there, and it looked like there would have been a clear shot from where they were standing. I sure wish I would have bookmarked that post. They were up pretty high, but I don't know if it was high enough to be on the roof of a high-rise building.

 

[Ray Mitcham]

For a shot from the South Knoll to enter the President at his right eye socket and exit back of the head would have needed the President to be turning his head  to his left as the shot hit him. 

A shot from the drain outlet on the North side of Elm Street, would meet the correct criteria for a shot through the temple and exiting the back of the head. As Tom Wilson said.

Edited December 13, 2017 by Ray Mitcham

[Richard Price]

After happening across a post which included the Cabluck photo showing the policeman at the bridge/fence area having an alteration, something came to mind that I had wanted to comment on before.  I found a "hopefully" scale drawing of the entire plaza (attached below).  I have added a line from the fence area near the railroad bridge to the impact point shown for Z313.  I would like those of you more knowledgeable about the measurements/angles/slopes to comment.  I'm sure this is a rehash of something that has been commented on before, but I  have trouble trying to keep up with the enormity of information and piecing it all together.  A quick synopsis of my thoughts:  1) A shooter positioned near the far corner of the fence has almost an identical line of fire as one positioned near the "badgeman" position. 2) With my totally visual calculations, I have the angle from the shooter to JFK to be about a 45 degree angle.  3) With JFK's head tilted downward slightly and approximately 45 degrees to his right (again visual interpretation) at Z313.  This would present a direct line from JFK's right temple to the rear of the head area which was blown out.  It would also be very close to tangential and should definitely throw him back and somewhat to the left.  Thanks for any thoughts or input.  I particularly would like to know what Chris thinks of this, since I think he has a good grip on the math, angles, slopes and distances.

[Chris Davidson]

Richard,

Is the sewer close enough to your position?

I didn't put the "x" there.

I did include the red arrow.

 

[Richard Price]

Yes, I think it would be very close to the locations shown in your pictures.  I thought I had seen something on this before.  I think it is close to the area where the supposed wisps or puffs of smoke were seen/photographed.  Whether it was someone down in the sewer as depicted or standing on top of it, I have no opinion.  I suppose with the distances involved, it would be difficult to draw any absolute proof one way or the other given that the level of the gun barrel would only change some 3 ft. +/- probably.  As a side note:  Have you ever seen the unaltered Cabluck photo showing the area?  I have not found one that i could pull up on my computer.

[Chris Davidson]

Disregarding Jackie's position, the sewer LOS would look something like this.

 

[Roger DeLaria]

6 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

For a shot from the South Knoll to enter the President at his right eye socket and exit back of the head would have needed the President to be turning his head  to his left as the shot hit him. 

A shot from the drain outlet on the North side of Elm Street, would meet the correct criteria for a shot through the temple and exiting the back of the head. As Tom Wilson said.

I've never been one for a shot from the South Knoll, as I think the matter trajectory would have gone over the right rear of the limo and toward the sidewalk.

I've always leaned heavily toward a North grassy knoll shot, and while it has a good, somewhat oblique angle from the right front, it is also a bit of a downward angle. While that could account for a back and to the left, I think it would have driven Kennedy more down into the seat. Instead, we have a bit of a lift and back to the left, suggesting an upwards trajectory, pointing to the sewer drain, just as Ray mentioned with Tom Wilson's statement. I'm not completely sold on it, and am also considering the other storm at the confluence of the fence and overpass.

Edited December 13, 2017 by Roger DeLaria

[Eddy Bainbridge]

An almost complete unknown  is the direction of a bullet after it hits a solid object at an angle. The best we have is the autopsy Xray showing a scatter pattern of debris, but I think that only gives a 2D approximation of bullet trajectory. If you are willing to postulate the Z-film has been altered then another unknown is the angle of Kennedy's head when he was hit.

Some witness evidence suggest matter flew forcefully up and back and cascaded onto the car front passengers. That suggests the rear blowout may have been somewhat upwards (Brigioni said so) with Kennedy facing downwards. At Z312 he is moving forwards (probably due to braking). If in reality he fell forwards, was shot in the temple, and then was forced back, then perhaps removed frames answer Sandy's question?

 

[David Josephs]

I took the position of JFK's head and enlarged it for this graphic...  

He was looking left with his head turned...

As Sherry once mentioned, a South Knoll shot either over the windshield or thru would indeed leave the kinds of injuries described at Parkland

Depending on where within that red area a shot originated, the "blowout" to the right/center rear (or what was left of it after HUMES' work) is more easily imagined.

The removal of McHugh from the center/front of the limo opened a clear firing lane...

The overpass railing height is over 8 feet higher than JFK's head at z313... plus the 1 foot difference due to the length of the limo.  

A South Knoll shot was very doable and very realistic... just ask Tosh...

 

 

Edited April 12, 2018 by David Josephs

[David Josephs]

16 minutes ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

The best we have is the autopsy Xray showing a scatter pattern of debris

If this is the best we have and from which conclusions are formulated...

None of the medical evidence is worth a pile of spit....  It was altered, changed, redone, etc...

You were aware that Ebersole tells us the Secret Service had him retake all the xrays... 

The initial films showed the usual metallic fragments in the skull but no evidence of a slug, a bullet. This was a little bit disconcerting. We were asked by the Secret Service agents present to repeat the films and did so Once again there was no evidence of a bullet.

Dr. BADEN. But there was no clear impression that you had that somebody in that room was in any way giving orders as to how the autopsy should be done?
Dr. EBERSOLE. Absolutely not. If I may add now, there was a specific Secret Service agent who did ask me to repeat some of these X rays when the first set showed no bullet.

Dr. EBERSOLE. But to the best of my recollection there was no such pressure on us. I felt a little bit of personal pressure when the first X rays did not show a bullet and I was asked by the Secret Service agent to repeat but a little bit of pressure, certainly nothing overwhelming. I knew what he was after but I didn't feel myself in repeating the X rays would show the bullet but we did it.
Dr. BADEN. Now you repeated the X ray specifically because what you were after was to find a bullet?
Dr. EBERSOLE. A bullet.

Dr. PETTY. Then as I understand it there was a quandry where was the bullet and somebody suggested taking a second set of X rays.
Dr. EBERSOLE. Yes. That suggestion came from a non- medical person, a Secret Service agent.
Dr. PETTY. All right. So a second set of X rays were taken.
Dr. EBERSOLE. Yes.

This next bit is quite interesting...  It confirms a whole bunch of stuff:  Bethesda was aware of the exit wound that night.  Ebersole takes this second set of xrays well after the autopsy officially ended - the actual and official count of xrays then is completely false...

Dr. EBERSOLE. We can put this back on when we get the tape on but somewhere during the course of the evening the input came in from Dallas about the wound exit in the neck. That I think stopped the problem from my aspect of taking the X rays. I cannot tell you what time that was. The time is rather vague that night but it was quite late in the evening.