Bill Miller

So Hoffman told the FBI, in a letter in 1977, and Bill Sloan through a professional interpreter in 1992, that the two men ran away. Yet Hoffman demonstrated in TMWKK (which I believe was produced in the late 1980s), and told Dateline:Dallas in 1992, that the two men walked casually away. Which was it? I would add that it makes no sense to me that the railroad man would run away as Hoffman told Sloan and the FBI. The man is dressed like a railroad worker presumably not to draw attention to himself. So what does he do? He starts running, which would naturally draw attention to himself. I would like to believe everything Hoffman said that he saw (including his description of JFK's head), because by all accounts he was responsible, hard-working, likeable family man. But like Dr. Grossman with his drastically changing head wound, Hoffman can't have what he saw both ways. Ron, you apparently think you know all about Hoffman, which you do not ... and it seems you are going to make exuses to the point of splitting hairs to hang on to what I believe is an absurd theory based on a poor understanding of the facts. I personally walked with Ed, while having us filmed, as he told me everything that happened. His interpreter was his daughter who knows Ed better than anyone. What most people do not know is that Ed has a poor understanding of the English language. By this I mean ... Ed knows what he is trying to say, but uses incorrect words in describing what he saw. I even heard his daughter and him going back and forth on what Ed was trying to say at times because Ed didn't feel as though he was getting his message out correctly. So it's not because Ed is telling various stories, but rather his interpreter hears Ed use a word that he or she believes means one thing while Ed thinks he said another. This is why Turner, just as I did, had Ed act out the movments he saw going on behind the fence (often using words that Ed doesn't see a difference in their useage) right down to the speed at which these individuals were moving. But regardless of all this crap about whether Ed said to someone that the guy walked fast - ran slow - hurried - ran - walked - or what ever, he was telling his story to his family and friends from the very beginning and those who know him claim he has never wavierd. Out of frustration, Ed had even wanted to take a polygraph and was told that as a deaf mute that he could not be tested. When I heard this and told him this wasn't so, he again wanted to be tested so to prove himself honest because it was important for him to do so. I started the process and when it was discovered that Ed takes a certain heart medication ... his chances of being tested acccurately became an issue, thus the institution said they would not conduct the test under the current circumstances. I can tell you this ... one of the questions was to concern Ed seeing JFK's head as he dscribed it on TMWKK interview. The Zapruder film had not been publicly shown until 1978 and Ed had told of seeing the Prsident's head wound from day one according to his family. One might ask themselves how else could he have described what the Zfilm shows and what other witnesses had seen if he hadn't really seen it first hand. I think when one selectively picks at certain things that have been written concerning Ed, then they can spread doubt about his credibility. However, when one takes the time to learn more of the facts so to apply them to better descern fact from fiction .... they will probably concluded that Ed saw the opened skull just as he claimed. Bill

I see you are still a chicken s__t David. Still afraid to comment on Whites work. Such a coward. I guess when you actually have put your neck on the line rather that simply read a few articles in a book and then do a book report you just chicken out. So like all of you BS artists from Fetzers horde..cut and run when it heat is on. Chickens..the whole lot of you. Craig, in all fairness to David ... he has stated that he has not seen any evidence of photo and film alteration, thus he is saying that Jack's claims have not convinced him of anything. He hasn't come right out and said Jack's claims are unfounded ... probably for the very reason you suggest, but he has said it in another round-about-way as I just described. I also hope that you aren't expecting David to ever debate the evidence of the case with you for he knows that for him it would be like taking a knife to a gun fight. David is a mouth piece ... anyone doing a search and compiling his responses on this forum has no choice but to see this. Put youself in his place ... he wrote a piece on the possibilty that the Zapruder film might be altered by way of using an optical printer and it ended up in a book full of some of the most outlandish claims and blunders one could imagine, thus making him look guilty by association. Even his optical printing alteration probablity claim has been shown IMO to be weak for it failed to consider the other things needed to occur to make his chapter in the "TGZFH" seem plausible. It would take a fair amount of character for someone to stand up and admit they were in error .... that's why no one should expect the participants in Fetzer's last book (TGZFH) to ever admit they were wrong. Bill

So you have stated. Repetition doesn't strengthen an argument. This hanging bone plate that you assume Newman saw (and I agree it all fits IF that's what he saw, but remember that Newman himself has said his memory has possibly been influenced over the years by what he has seen and read) – this flap seemed to disappear faster than you can go through an underpass. Yeh - that is about how long it took for Jackie to put it back into place. Do you remember Ed Hoffman saying that when the car passed below him that the top of the head was open and that it wiggled like jello? Do you recall him placing his hand on the top right side of the head in TMWKK to show where the large opening was that he saw? I remember it! Bill

Scott, I think you are perhaps confusing the photo of Lovelady from Groden's book showing Billy in a striped shirt. On the day of the assassination, Billy was photographed and/or filmed wearing a plaid shirt (red). If I come across a transparency overlay I created showing this ... I will post it for you. Bill

I'm basing all I say here on evidence, not to be argumentative or to advance any agenda. The case for authenticity could be helped, perhaps even closed, if there is evidence of a massive flap opening up in Nix, Muchmore, or any other film besides the Z film. Is there? As you must surely know ... Zapruder was the only person filming from the same side of the street that the bone plate was hanging down from. The 'white' that the Newman's saw had to be the flash of the bone plate being overturned and with the moisture of the watery substance on its underside as the sunlight would have glared off of it. The key that you seem to be missing is that Newman thought JFK's ear had been shot off ... now why do you think that is??? It's because in less than 2/18s of a single second - Newman went from looking at JFK's dark hair and ear to seeing a large flesh colored area that he thought was a hole when in reality it was the bone plate hanging over the President's right ear. Bill

"I still feel that the guy in the doorway with the half opened shirt and white tee shirt is LHO, wasn't Lovelady photographed with a wide striped shirt that he said he was wearing that day?" Scott, I think you are perhaps confusing the photo of Lovelady from Groden's book showing Billy in a striped shirt. On the day of the assassination, Billy was photographed and/or filmed wearing a plaid shirt (red). If I come across a transparency overlay I created showing this ... I will post it for you. Bill

Hi Bill. I would agree after a limited fashion - I have many scans which I have done from multiple sources. Tell you what - as opposed to your suggestion, how about if I source a blow-up directly from World press? Then we can take a close look at it and determine whether or not the area is devoid of detail. We may be able to get a better view of the dark complected individual as well, which I believe would be worth the money. Thougts? - lee You can try, but you really need to view the original negative or a print made from it. While prints can be lightened, they can only offer what ever quality within the image that was there when the print was created. Many times even the setting of exposure on a negative can offer a beter view into these shaded areas. Bill

And none of this explains why some of the folks in the doorway, as photographed by Altgens, had their facial features deliberately removed - again, that is my opinion - I have nothing to corroborate or substantiate such a claim. The photo was apparently marred in this specific area upon it's first public release. Just another amazing and fantastical coincidence. - lee I had never heard it said before that people who were standing in shadow or being shaded from the sun were equivalent to having their images suspiciously removed. If by chance that you ever get to the 6th floor Museum ... make an appointment with Gary Mack to view some of the photos they have on file there ... you may be surprised that while these shaded areas look black on the prints we see circulated in books and such - the actual prints or high resolution scans from them are lighter and many times we can see into these shaded areas. Bill

Unless you're following what the government wants you to follow. I'm follwing the photographical record, combined with what the witnesses had to say ... Bill Newman whom had no CIA or Government ties that I am aware of, saw the overturned bone plate and thought he was looking into the side of JFK's skull. JFK was leaning forward which made a bone plate from the top of his head hang towards the front, but it still came from the top of his skull just as the witnesses had said. It makes a difference because both he and Baxter bring Clark into their stories. Clark is therefore the key. Quoting Ken Hoffman in the Houston Chronicle 11/14/03: And here's Baxter (who perjured himself by reading aloud his own words "temporal and occipital" as "temporal and parietal," unless the WC made him a perjurer by changing the transcript) to Arlen Specter: Baxter is saying Clark saw this, "Clark examined this," Clark had to see this bone plate laid outward to the side that Baxter says was there. So having heard from Baxter and Grossman on Clark, let's let Clark speak for himself: “I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed” (WC testimony). It is worth noting that Specter changes Clark's testimony before him (it seems everyone tries to speak for Clark) by saying, "Now, you described the massive wound at the top of the President's head, with the brain protruding; did you observe any other hole or wound on the President's head?" Clark had described no such thing, but let's Specter get away with it by saying, "No, sir, I did not." Clark is saying he saw only the one head wound that he described. And comes back later to set the record straight despite the despicable Specter. Referring to the back wound, Clark says, "Such a wound could have easily been overlooked in the presence of the much larger wound in the right occipital region of the President's skull" (emphasis added). I recall a Parkland doctor saying that the alleged bullet entrance wound on the back of JFK's head could have been overlooked in the presence of the larger opening in the skull. I think Specter purposely tried to leave the doctor's statements a bit unclear, but it makes no sense that Grossman would be trying to cover one thing up while mentioning the large wound on the back of JFK's head. So regardless of whether someone tried to change their story or not ... it doesn't mean the wound was not visible - seen by some witnesses who took the time to examine the head more closely - and was on the top of the head while entending into the temporial parietal regions of the skull. Has Newman said that he saw this bone plate flip over? I'd like to see that quote. It's easy to see why he thought the "ear flew off" when he saw JFK hit in the side of the head, with blood and gore immediately flying forwards and backwards (in the case of backwards, faster than a camera can see). I don't think you are paying attention ... the bone plate flipped over so fast that it made Newman think JFK's ear had been shot off. We know JFK's ear wasn't blown off, so is it that hard to understand that Newman was looking at the undeside of the bone plate and thinking he was looking into JFK's skull where the ear would have been? BTW, Newman has seen the Zapruder film many times over his life ... have you ever heard him say that the bone plate flipping over wasn't what made him think the side of JFK's head had opened up ... of course not! I haven't read Aguilar yet, so I didn't selectively read it. But I have read Greer's Gomer Pyle WC testimony, and I don't believe a word that came out of his mouth about anything. How this xxxx and/or borderline idiot got a job with the Secret Service is mindboggling. BTW where was Greer during LBJ's swearing-in? Everyone who is said to have been there is accounted for in the Stoughton photos of the swearing-in on AF1 except William Greer. Where was he on the plane and what was he doing? More on this in a separate thread. Regardless if Greer is a xxxx in your mind ... he still described something indepentently of other witnesses concerning the wound to the top of the President's head and is why Gary cited it. Bill

Jackie “holding the top of his head down” can certainly refer to her holding down the flap seen in the film. But it can also refer to her holding down the hair and scalp that is seen hanging over the avulsion in the back of his head in Z338. Indeed she said that there was nothing (wrong) from the front (which would reasonably include any big flap in the temple), but from the back she was trying to hold his hair on. I guess one can say that Jackie could have been talking about holding Connally's hair down, but that is not the case. The avulsion was where the bones were sprung opened on the "REAR" of the head. The bone plate was on the top of the head, which if one flips the bone plate back up and into place it would be on the top of the head. Never have I seen so many things made hard that were basically so easy to follow. Grossman changed his story. He told the ARRB that he saw two head wounds: “one was a circular puncture in the occipital region (which he characterized as an entry wound), approximately 2 cm in diameter . . . the second was a larger wound in the right parietal region (which he characterized as an exit wound) that was not an open hole in the cranium, but rather a plate of bone, about 6 cm in longest dimension, lifted up from the inside, which could really only be seen when Dr. Clark lifted up some of the President’s hair” (4/14/97 Meeting Report, in Parker p. 170). How interesting that Grossman found a flap you could open just like in the Z film, and apparently he found it with Clark, yet Clark has never once mentioned it. What difference does it make who Grossman was with when he saw the bone plate? It's the same bone plate that Bill Newman saw flip over in less that 2/18s of a second which made him think JFK's ear flew off. It's like putting a lid back on a pumpkin ... cover it will blood soaked hair and seal it with dried clotted blood and it would be near impossible to see unless someone examined it closely. The WC failed to call Drs. Grossman, Crenshaw, Selden, and Zedelitz, though all were named as attending JFK in WC testimony (Specter: “Doctor Who?”), but it calls an intern who, in one of the shortest interviews conducted, says that he was on JFK’s left side and noticed all the damage on the right side, after which Specter thanked him for his time. You’re getting pretty desperate when you start quoting William Greer on anything. That said, his description that the head was “all shot” and covered with blood proves zilch except that JFK was in bad shape. Actually it was Gary L. Aguilar, MD who quoted Greer because it supported what the other witnesses stated. I can see that you are a selective reader and missed where Greer confirmed for Specter that he was talkng about the' top and right rear side' of the head Bill

Scott, I think the person you are talking about was holding a child and standing next to a woman (possibly his wife). What looks like a defect on the picture is the child's stocking cap .... the little puff-ball can be seen on the top of the stocking cap if you look close. Bill

"I know the argument that Jackie must have closed the flap on the way to the hospital, but she doesn't say she did, she says (as best I can interpret her words) that she was trying to hold his hair down over the hole in back, and when she said she saw a piece of his skull and it was flesh-colored and not bloody, she may have been talking about a piece that flew from his head (perhaps the piece she tried to fetch on the trunk) and not the flap." JOHN F. KENNEDY'S FATAL WOUNDS: THE WITNESSES AND THE INTERPRETATIONS FROM 1963 TO THE PRESENT by Gary L. Aguilar, MD San Francisco, California, August, 1994 " Given Mrs. Kennedy's recollection of "holding the top of his head down" it may well be that the wound did extend more anteriorly than was apparent to Parkland witnesses. This might be explained by a blood clot forming en route from Dealey Plaza to Parkland while Mrs. Kennedy held "the top" of JFK's "head down" causing the more anterior extent of the wound to be unappreciated by the emergency personnel." "ROBERT GROSSMAN, MD: had just joined the staff of Parkland at the time of the assassination as an Instructor in Neurosurgery. He never testified to the Warren Commission or the HSCA. Authors Groden and Livingstone, however, claim, "He (Grossman) said that he saw two large holes in the head, as he told the (Boston) Globe, and he described a large hole squarely in the occiput, far too large for a bullet entry wound...". (HT-I Groden and Livingstone, p. 51)-& also "Duffy & Ricci, The Assassination of John F. Kennedy--A Complete Book of Facts, p. 207-208.) " "KENNETH EVERETT SALYER, MD: was an intern at Parkland at the time of JFK's death. In a Warren Commission interview with Arlen Specter, Salyer stated, "...(JFK) had a wound of his right temporal region...I came in on the left side of him and noticed that his major wound seemed to be in his right temporal area, at least from the point of view that I could see him, and other than that--nothing other than he did have a gaping scalp wound-- cranial wound" (Warren Commission-V6:81) Salyer reported to author Aguilar that the wound was right sided but extended both posterior to and anterior to the ear. He repeated a claim made to Robert Groden that the photographs appeared to have been tampered with." "SECRET SERVICE AGENT WILLIAM GREER: described the President's wounds upon arrival at Parkland to Arlen Specter of the Warren Commission: "His head was all shot, this whole part was all a matter of blood like he had been hit." Specter, "Indicating the top and right rear side of the head?" Greer: "Yes, sir; it looked like that was all blown off."(WCV2:124) " You may find more about this and what the doctors saw by going to .... http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm Bill

Excellent Bill, thank you. I do like it when what looks like a major flaw in my analysis is pointed out.. This one if I cannot explain is one that would send me back to basics (again) I'll reply soon. Did you look at the diagram of limo direction. I think the limo in 313 314 is curving to the right, not only negating the rotation as you describe but reversing it after 313. You're welcome, John. I will do a clip shortly showing the limo. The car was said to be traveling 11" per Zframe as it was coming down the street, but by the time of the head shot the car had slowed to a near crawl, thus the limo's movement may be next to nill in that 2/18ths of a second between Z312 and Z314. Bill

John, I would have to disagree with what you state (in bold above) and I will argue that experienced MD's will not be confused about the location of any given victim's wounds, especially rather soon after the event. They all consistently stated occipital parietal, and well along the general area as I have summarized here: clearly towards the back and well behind the right ear, a grape fruit sized defect. I do not understand what the confusion is all about. Has not anyone ever had a wound where they cut themselves and by merely holding both sides of the inscision together with a little pressure that the blood hardened and worked like an adhesive. JFK's hair was extremely blood soaked and Jackie had held the bone plate back in place for a four plus minute ride to Parkland. I personally thought that the Parkland doctors made it quite clear that they were frantically trying to stabalize JFK's condition and had no time to closely examine his wounds ... to add support to this - did they not miss the back wound as well. I might add that the skull flap wound did not go totally unnoticed by all the Parkland doctors for I believe it was Kemp Clark who's job it would have been to repair the head had JFK's condition had been stabalized who noticed the flap wound. Baxter says to the Commission ... Mr. Specter - Now, will you describe in as much particularity as you can the nature of the head wound Dr. Baxter - The only wound that I actually saw--Dr. Clark examined this above the manubrium of the sternum, the sternal notch. This wound was in temporal parietal plate of bone laid outward to the side and there was a large area, Bill

Maybe I am stupid about this, but I believe a more likely version of this episode is that there is a break in the filming by Zapruder, or there is a section missing, because I don't see anyway for those folks on the South side to get into position within half a second, and certainly not for the limo to get around that corner that fast. Something doesn't add up for me. Trent ... you are not stupid. Jack posted a frame before Zapruder stopped filming and another frame after Zapruder had started filming again ... I simply overlooked that fact. If I remember correctly - Z133 starts with the limo now on Elm Street. The earlier frame was taken from the lead cycle footage. Jack has periodically laid claim that the people along the north side of Elm were motionless. A simple overlay of frames show that his claim is incorrect. I guess Jack thought that those people should have been doing jumping jacks as they waited for JFK to pass by them, but never-the-less they were moving. It was between Z130 and Z138, with a film stoppage in between that allowed people along Houston to pour into the upper end of Elm Street. Bill

"I have grown suspicious of the big flap that opens up on JFK's head after Z313. Ditto the blackened-out back of JFK's head with nary a trace of all the brain matter that shot out the back and hit those riding behind. I know the argument that Jackie must have closed the flap on the way to the hospital, but she doesn't say she did, she says (as best I can interpret her words) that she was trying to hold his hair down over the hole in back, and when she said she saw a piece of his skull and it was flesh-colored and not bloody, she may have been talking about a piece that flew from his head (perhaps the piece she tried to fetch on the trunk) and not the flap. I know the argument that the back of JFK's head is in shadow and that we don't see the debris shooting out the back because it was too fast for the camera, but I intuitively question there not being the slightest fleeting trace of it, particularly when we have no trouble at all seeing all the blood and debris that comes out of the front." I guess when this was addressed in the past that all that was said was understood, but I see that was not the case. I am constantly hearing questions raised about what should have been seen on the Zapruder film and in each instance it is a lack of knowledge as to the natural causes that leads one to jump straight to film alteration. Yes, JFK's hair was dark and in silhouette even before the head exploded. I have seen this occurence in photos of the President at Love Field when photographed from just a few feet away. I think that if one wishes to think that Jackie held the back of JFK's together on the way to Parkland, then let me remind them that SS Agent Clint Hill described seeing the hole on the back of the President's head as they raced for the hospital, thus it wasn't the back of JFK's head that Jackie was holding together, IMO. The "bone plate" as Dr. Baxter called it was in place at the time that JFKwas wheeled into the O.R. and treated ... so much so that the treating doctors didn't even notice the wound. It wasn't until the Neurosurgeon studied the head damage that the bone plate was noticed. This tells me that it was the bone plate that Jackie most likely held into place as she cradled her husbands head on the way to Parkland. This bone plate would have tissue clung to it, but the brain doesn't sit in blood - it sits in a cranial fluid that is like a type of watery substance that has traces of blood in it. Blood spatter expert "Sherry Gutierrez" has detailed how cranial blood spatter can be seen on the Zapruder film. The actual cranial fluid spatter that pelted Connally, Kellerman and so forth cannot be seen on the Zfilm because it moved too fast between the exposures of Z312 and Z313. The same watery substance which we call the 'mist cloud' moved much slower because it was cast upward into a stiff breeze that drifted it back over the President. "I did not question the authenticity of this episode in the film until I recently began looking harder at the medical evidence, and I have trouble understanding how the Parkland doctors failed to see such a massive wound in the side of the head even if Jackie closed it as best she could. Not even when nurses Bowron and Hinchcliffe washed JFK's hair did they see one trace of this wound that was open so graphically in the Z film. " Read Baxter's WC testimony. "McClelland has described looking down into a hole while JFK was on his back, and after several readings I still don't know what he's talking about, since the others didn't see such a wound to look down into, and McClelland drew a picture showing nothing but a hole in the back of the head, which he was in no position to look into while standing over JFK's face." Are you assuming that JFK's head was always facing upwards and never laid over on its side? "The other factor contributing to my doubt of the flap's authenticity is the strength of the body alteration theory (two documented casket entries at Bethesda plus a third attested to by witnesses), which involves the wound in the back of the head at autopsy moving around to become parietal and temporal and not just occipital. It is possible that at the same time it was decided to create such a wound, by taking a hammer to JFK's head or whatever, it was decided to put a corresponding wound in the Z film, and hence this massive flap that even Clint Hill didn't see when he was right there over the president on the ride to Parkland, nor was it seen by doctors attending him. " Look ... this is silly. Bill Newman thought the head opened up and the ear came off because of the speed at which that bone plate flipped over. Where do you think all that craqnial fluid came from other than a large hole in the top of JFK's head. "Which brings me to the question of when or if there was in fact any opportunity for the Z film to be altered to include this flap. I believe that some say yea and some say nay. I have not yet had time to look into that question. But if there is one thing in the film that does look artificial and inconsistent to me, it is the flap in the side of the head." Sherry Gutierrez made an observation that it seems impossible for someone to have altered the head wound on the Zfilm which would be exactly what would show a frontal shot by way of blood spatter science 40 years later. Then there is what Groden said about the processes in attampting such an alteration on Kodachrome II film by transfering the images to 35MM to do any alterations qand then back again to 8MM film. The color tones would weaken, along with the contrast. Robert said that such forgery would not escape close scrutiny. Bill

Yeh, David ... you're right ... you and your photo expert(s) only had to be told that you knuckle-heads were using the wrong film frame to correspond with N90 beacuse MPI misnumbered them ... but hey, you clowns are the experts ... RIGHT? guess its about time to ask where ALL these photo experts ARE that you theorize about? All this noise you spout, what I see from you in particular is undeclared "opinion", IOW, empty bandwidth -- get those so-called "phot/film experts" over here, have 'em bring their credentials, too! Again, I think it was this non-photo expert who had to tell you where to find the information about the average running speed of the Nix camera, but again what do I know ... you guys are the experts ... RIGHT? If there's consistency between the Nix/Zapruder films, then after three + years, why haven't we seen a motion presentation displaying such? Should be a piece of cake... then again, high technology has a tendency to throw film purists off a bit.... Let's reverse that ignorance ... IF THERE IS INCONSISTENCY, THEN LET THE "INCOMPETENTEURS" LIKE YOURSELF SHOW US WHERE IT'S AT ... should be a piece of cake as you say. You also made the ridiculous remark the other day by saying, "Clue: forget about Z-313, there a much better sync point re NIX and Zapruder." If there is one point in the entire assassination sequence that all the films caught - it was the head exploding. It is a fact that the head exploded when a bullet smashed in to it - thats indisputable. One merely needs to take each film at the precise moment JFK's head explodes on film and count forwards or backwards one frame at a time in each film to see if the frames do or do not correspond. Now getting back to your remark, other than the head shot ... what point on the assassination films were you talking about as being a much better sync point ... I cannot wait to hear this one! Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator

Expressing an opinion may be valuable, but it is not research. Show me the frame. That is research. Stick to facts. Mention of persons is unnecessary. Facts exist regardless of personalities. Show me that my interpretation of facts is wrong and I will quickly admit if I am wrong. Thanks for your interest. Jack (No, you are not one of the provocateurs. Everyone knows who they are.) This is to you, Jack - one of the "incometentuers" ... have you corrected your example and got the correct Zframe to compare to Z90 ... I look forward to seeing your correction and findings at that time. You wrongly used an MPI frame that was misnumbered ... one would think that getting the correct numbered frame to compare to N90 would be a prioroty to someone who claims to only deal in facts - you better get on it, Jack! Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator

John - how can JFK's head cast a shadow when all shadows are cast towards Zapruder from where JFK is seated between those frames? I think that we are seeing the shaded part of the lower face because I have yet to find a logical answer for it being anything else. I say this because for it to be a shadow, then there has to be something solid for it to fall upon and there is nothing between JFK and Zapruder's camera. I wish I could be sure, but it does appear to possibly be JFK's lower face in silhouette against Jackie. That is not to say that JFK's head does not turn, but how much of that turn (if we are seeing part of the chin in silohouette in Z313) was merely due to the rotation of the limo and it's occupants ? Bill

John, Here are some more animations for your study. Connally's head turn is pronounced as he starts to rise up out of Nellie's lap when JFK's head exploded. I just cannot be so sure about JFK's head at this time. Bill

Altgens photo gives us a frontal view and Jackie's hands are no where near JFK's head. Bill