Robert Harris

Great god, what a nutcase. That was obviously a mistake, just as when soldiers are killed by friendly fire. Israel paid over three million dollars to the families of the American men who died in that attack. Why would Israel deliberately attack their greatest ally and supporter? That would be suicidal. I keep thinking that someday you will write something that makes a tiny bit of sense, but I guess I need to be a lot more patient. Robert Harris

No, it isn't. But it should have been. Hence the laughter. Perhaps you could help him out, Jim, by vetting his posts on the subject? That way he could get to say what you think he should, instead of mangling things hopelessly. Paul, what I actually said, seems to settle the issues here, since you did not even attempt to dispute anything I said, other than the "gruesome" part. We have all seen the Zapruder film a zillion times and have forgotten how it affected us the first time we saw it. But I cannot think of an image I have seen on television or in the newspapers throughout my entire life, that is more "gruesome" than the frames following 312. But on 11/26/63, only a handful of people had seen it and the WC deemed it unfit for public viewing. Obviously, that was wrong, but as a matter of taste, and by the standards of 1963 it was not unreasonable. Have you ever watched the Geraldo show in which Groden brought in a bad copy of the film. Did you hear the crowd's response? Seeing blood blown out from the President's head in the Muchmore film was certainly "gruesome" at the time. In fact, I cannot remember EVER seeing a movie or newsreel back then, in which the audience saw a real-life murder being committed - NEVER, not even once.

Duncan this video explains what happens during that time, with a considerably clearer copy of the film. I hope you will make the effort to study it.

At least you're original, Robert. Now these " sparks" What is your source for this, to me, new information. Duncan you should try reading the Warren Commission testimonies. WC testimony of Mrs. Donald Baker Mr. LIEBELER. As you went down Elm Street that you saw this thing hit the street--what did it look like when you saw it? Mrs. BAKER. Well, as I said, I thought it was a firecracker. It looked just like you could see the sparks from it and I just thought it was a firecracker and I was thinking that there was somebody was fixing to get in a lot of trouble and we thought the kids or whoever threw it were down below or standing near the underpass or back up here by the sign. Mr. LIEBELER. Would they have been as far down as the underpass or somewhere near the sign to have thrown a firecracker in the street? Mrs. BAKER. It was near the signs. Mr. LIEBELER. How close to the curb on Elm Street was this thing you saw hit; do you remember? It would have been on the curb side near the side away from the Texas School Book Depository Building on the opposite side of the street; is that right? Mrs. BAKER. Yes. Mr. LIEBELER. How close to the opposite curb do you think it was? Mrs. BAKER. It was approximately in the middle of the lane I couldn't be quite sure, but I thought it was in the middle or somewhere along in there could even be wrong about that but I could have sworn it that day.

It makes no sense that he was hit in the neck prior to 223. Look closely at JFK at 193. He has spun to his right and is clearly shielding his face with his right hand, which suggests that he was spattered by debris from a shot that struck the pavement to his right, generating the "sparks" that were seen then. THAT is what he was reacting to. There was no plausible exit point for an entry wound in the neck and a rising trajectory exiting at the back wound makes no sense at all at that point during the attack.

With pleasure: Was Muchmore’s film shown on WNEW-TV, New York, on November 26, 1963? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=12216 Muchmore’s FBI interview, 4 December 1963: “…she advised she did not obtain any photographs of the assassination scene.” http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/witnessMap/documents/wcd_hsca/wcd_hsca_0080a.gif Is this some kind of a joke?? One or two newspapers failed to mention the name of the person who shot the movie, and some other paper showed frames from the Muchmore film but mistakenly said they were from the Zapruder film?? Yoohoo Paul!! Where in hell do you think they got those Muchmore frames?? You just proved that the film was on the air by the 26th, otherwise they would never have had them. And why do you cite Muchmore telling the FBI that she had no "photographs" of the shooting?? Of course she didn't take photographs. She filmed the assassination. And you have to remember that "gruesome" is a relative term. To people who hadn't yet seen the Zapruder film and were still in shock and mourning, seeing blood being blown out from the President's head was undoubtedly more gruesome than they could handle. Is this a sample of the kind of logic you guys use to promote alterationism? Robert Harris

There is really no doubt that the limousine slowed. Alvarez did a frame-by-frame study and concluded it went from 12 to 8 MPH. And did they also "fabricate" the Nix and Muchmore films to make them sychronize, as even Dr. Mantik has admitted? That was fast work on the Muchmore film since it was on television on 11/25/63. And when they fabricated those other films, how exactly did they do it in way in which there were no improperly spaced gaps between the frames in which images were removed? And were frames removed during the time that Clint Hill was running? How did they manage to make his motions appear unbroken? Since Kodak will stop processing movie film for Zapruder's camera at the end of this year, why don't you guys shoot a simple movie in DP and then alter it the way the perps did, using only 1963 technology? Then you can do more than just tell us that they did it, you can at least PROVE that it was possible. Yes. Jack, I guess you misunderstood my questions. I didn't ask if they did it. I asked HOW they did it. Why don't we start with the details and the evidence you have which demonstrates that the perps fabricated totally new Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films. Please be very specific. Robert Harris

There is really no doubt that the limousine slowed. Alvarez did a frame-by-frame study and concluded it went from 12 to 8 MPH. Jim, Did you know that Phil Willis appears in the Bell film? He also shows up in Muchmore. How long does it take for him to get from point A to B where we see him in Z. Did you know Dale Myers was wrong in his syncing of multiple films and why? Did you discover the "blue dress lady" in Dorman actually appears in the Martin film? How about "shadowman" in Dorman? Who would have to be Croft, yet the timing doesn't work realistically. And, there's Charles Hester out of the shadows in Bell? Have you tried syncing/stabilizing any of the other films, using independant sync points to verify what might and might not be valid. My list can go on. The point being, Please don't tell me what is useless to study. I do my own research. Period!!!! If it's valid, it will stand the test of time. If not, other's will point out the shortcomings. Your comment is akin to me saying: All of Dr. Costella's work is useless because it's done on the same version of the Z film. I don't believe that one bit. chris Chris, you seem to be making a series of unsupported assertions here. Are you suggesting that all these other films were altered or fabricated as well? Why don't you take these claims one-at-a-time and explain them in detail? And it would be helpful if you posted the relevant frames in which you believe that people are out of place. Before challenging people to deal with your conclusions, don't you think it would be helpful to show us why your conclusions are correct? Robert Harris

Dean, would you agree that Mrs. Connally at least thought she heard a shot between the time she saw JFK react and the explosive head wound, and that she spun around to tend to her husband, beginning at 291-292? And would you agree that she reacted at the same time that Mrs. Kennedy, Kellerman, and Greer reacted? No and No Dean, you seem to have a habit of making statements that you are unable or unwilling to support. Do I actually have to cite Mrs. Connally stating that she thought her husband was hit after she saw JFK in distress and before the explosive head wound? Have you listened to her statements in the interview which is at the beginning of the video presentation I linked? Why don't you cite the testimony she gave which convinced you that this was not what she said? And if you do not agree that she turned to her husband and pulled him back to her at 291-292, then when do you see her doing that? What frame number? Robert Harris The film has been altered Robert You know my stance Well then, just go with what she said. It really doesn't matter because what she said, matches perfectly with what we see her do in the Zapruder film. But tell me. Do you think that's really Mrs. Connally we are seeing in the film? Or is it an actress playing the part? And if you think it really was Nellie, then do you think they drew in an artificial head to make it appear that she looked back at JFK? How did they go about creating the false impression that she did exactly what she said she did?? Robert Harris

Tell me Mr. Fetzer, was the whole thing only a revision of the original Zapruder film or did they bring in a Hollywood crew, replete with actors and extras, to create a new Zapruder film? And did they use that same crew to create new Muchmore and Nix films as well, so that all three would remain in synch? Who played Jackie? Who played JFK? Did they have to murder everyone afterward to keep them quiet? And if you think they overlayed the foreground onto the background, where did the bogus background come from? Was it filmed in Dealey or at a Hollywood movie set?? And where did they get the one-legged extras and the dwarf sized Mary Moorman? Were they hired because they worked cheaper?? Mr. Fetzer, have you ever tried sitting down at a computer and cutting out the foreground of one frame of the Zapruder film? It's hard as hell, because the periphery of the people is not a clean edge. The edges often blur into the background and contain a mix of hair color and background color. So, if the background of your bogus copy is different, perhaps containing a Brehm stand-in or whomever, than the real background, you have to go in and recolor the edges which are mixed in with the hair. Otherwise, your people are going to look artificial. To do a good job on my Mac, on nearly 500 frames, would take me months. And you have to account for the fact that the limo was traveling on a curved path. So, if you pickup the limo from more than a few frames before or after, it will look like a car hitting a frozen patch of road in January in Minnesota. It will not be oriented properly and the result will look preposterous. How did your perps get the job done with 1963 technology, in four days? Isn't that why none of you have been able to duplicate what you claim the forgers did? Isn't that why none of you can simply shoot some footage in DP and then alter it the way you claim the Zapruder film was altered?? You talk a lot about anomalies in the blurry frames, but you don't talk much about the nuts 'n bolts of how this was done. Tell us Mr. Fetzer. For starters, I would like to hear about the part that was made from scratch. Where was it shot and how did they manage to keep all the extras quiet? Robert Harris

Dean, would you agree that Mrs. Connally at least thought she heard a shot between the time she saw JFK react and the explosive head wound, and that she spun around to tend to her husband, beginning at 291-292? And would you agree that she reacted at the same time that Mrs. Kennedy, Kellerman, and Greer reacted? No and No Dean, you seem to have a habit of making statements that you are unable or unwilling to support. Do I actually have to cite Mrs. Connally stating that she thought her husband was hit after she saw JFK in distress and before the explosive head wound? Have you listened to her statements in the interview which is at the beginning of the video presentation I linked? Why don't you cite the testimony she gave which convinced you that this was not what she said? And if you do not agree that she turned to her husband and pulled him back to her at 291-292, then when do you see her doing that? What frame number? Robert Harris

There is really no doubt that the limousine slowed. Alvarez did a frame-by-frame study and concluded it went from 12 to 8 MPH. And did they also "fabricate" the Nix and Muchmore films to make them sychronize, as even Dr. Mantik has admitted? That was fast work on the Muchmore film since it was on television on 11/25/63. And when they fabricated those other films, how exactly did they do it in way in which there were no improperly spaced gaps between the frames in which images were removed? And were frames removed during the time that Clint Hill was running? How did they manage to make his motions appear unbroken? Since Kodak will stop processing movie film for Zapruder's camera at the end of this year, why don't you guys shoot a simple movie in DP and then alter it the way the perps did, using only 1963 technology? Then you can do more than just tell us that they did it, you can at least PROVE that it was possible. Yes. Where are you guys getting this stuff? Could you post the link? I went to Wikipedia and looked up the article in her name, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Muchmore It said she sold the film on the 25th and then it was aired on the 26th. And yes, I was one day off. But there was no mention about her claiming she never made the movie. This is from the article, She set up her 8 mm Keystone movie camera near the northwest corner of Main Street and Houston Street and awaited the president’s arrival. The Muchmore film consists of seven sequences: six before the assassination, and one during the shooting. Muchmore began filming the presidential motorcade with her movie camera near the northwest corner of Main Street and Houston Street as the motorcade turned into Dealey Plaza. She then turned and went a few yards west to photograph the President's limousine as it went down Elm Street. After the car turned on Elm Street, the three gunshots were heard. Her film captures the fatal head shot, seen from about 138 feet (42 m) away.[5] The film ends seconds later as Secret Service agent Clint Hill runs to board the limousine.

There is really no doubt that the limousine slowed. Alvarez did a frame-by-frame study and concluded it went from 12 to 8 MPH. And did they also "fabricate" the Nix and Muchmore films to make them sychronize, as even Dr. Mantik has admitted? That was fast work on the Muchmore film since it was on television on 11/25/63. And when they fabricated those other films, how exactly did they do it in way in which there were no improperly spaced gaps between the frames in which images were removed? And were frames removed during the time that Clint Hill was running? How did they manage to make his motions appear unbroken? Since Kodak will stop processing movie film for Zapruder's camera at the end of this year, why don't you guys shoot a simple movie in DP and then alter it the way the perps did, using only 1963 technology? Then you can do more than just tell us that they did it, you can at least PROVE that it was possible.

There is really no doubt that the limousine slowed. Alvarez did a frame-by-frame study and concluded it went from 12 to 8 MPH.

Greer slowed the limo because he was startled by a very loud noise, exactly as Dr. Luis Alvarez said. Watch him spin around to the front and back, so fast that some alterationists thought his turns were humanly impossible. That happened at exactly the same instant in which he slowed the limo. He was very obviously panicked. And he was panicked by the 130 decibel shock wave of a passing bullet at frame 285. That's why he said he felt the bullet's "concussion".

Dean, would you agree that Mrs. Connally at least thought she heard a shot between the time she saw JFK react and the explosive head wound, and that she spun around to tend to her husband, beginning at 291-292? And would you agree that she reacted at the same time that Mrs. Kennedy, Kellerman, and Greer reacted?

In an article I wrote some time ago, I described Nellie Connally as the "Rosetta stone" of the shooting in Dealey Plaza. I said that because she confirmed beyond all doubt, that a shot was fired at Zapruder frame 285. There are four reasons why this is a certainty. 1. She testified that she heard a noise and then looked back to see JFK in distress, after which she heard a shot which she believed, hit her husband, provoking her to turn toward him and pull him back to her. She also stated that he began to shout prior to that shot, and that she never again looked to the rear after he was hit. She looked to the rear twice after frame 223 but never again after 291. Now, we might wish to just label her as confused and mixed up, except for reason number 2. 2. We see Mrs. Connally in the Zapruder film, react exactly as she described, turning to her husband and pulling him to her, beginning almost exactly 1/3rd of a second after 285. In fact, we would know when she heard that shot, even if she had never said a word about it. Now, we might argue that she was delusional and had a problem with reacting to nonexistent gunshots, except that reasons number 3 and 4 pretty much lays that possibility to rest. 3. Every other nonvictim in the car reacted at the same time she did. And each of those reactions were consistent with startle reactions as defined by experts in the field. Mrs. Kennedy's and Zapruder's began at 290. Kellerman's and Greer's began at 292. All five began within the same 1/6th of a second. 4. Mrs. Connally's story was consistent with those of the other nonvictims in the limousine and most other witnesses in DP that day. Roy Kellerman said the last two were much closer together than the first shots and likened them to a "flurry" and to the closely spaced noises from a sonic boom. Greer said the second and third shots were nearly simultaneous. Like Nellie, Mrs. Kennedy heard two shots after Governor Connally began to shout and clearly reacted to the same shot. You can verify her reactions and the others in any good copy of the Zapruder film. A handy tool is this stablized animation that will loop continuously in your browser. Just ask yourself when she heard the shot that she believed, struck her husband. I realize how hard it is for people to accept that such a trivial issue, about a shot that didn't even hit anyone, could settle the conspiracy question. But it does. To date, not one person, including experts for the FBI and the HSCA, have been able to duplicate the speed and accuracy required to have fired the shots at 285 and 312, using a rifle like the alleged murder weapon. For more information and a complete presentation on this subject, please go to this url: Robert Harris

Well then, time is running out for the alterationists to do what they've never done before. Using the same model camera that Zapruder used, film a car driving down Elm street and then proceed to modify it they way they claim it was modified in 1963. It would be a bitch of job using 2010 technology. I would like to see somebody do it using purely 1963 technology. Maybe Mr. Fetzer or Mr. White would like to accept the challenge??

I think we always have to be skeptical of such things. I've long lost count of the number of times I've been fooled by optical illusions in photos and films. But if these are illusions then it is certainly a strange coincidence that they would appear in the same pane of each of two adjoining windows. Perhaps more importantly, we see very unusual and dramatic reactions by JFK, just as the limo pulled in front of those windows. Although it was done before I discovered the apparent damage in the other window, this video explains those reactions and focuses on the possible breakage in the one on our left.

Never been refuted? That's comical, and delusional. Well, don't be bashful Michael. Tell us who refuted it and give us a link to the refutation. How comical of you to ask after all your posts were removed from Duncans place. This ridiculous theory is hardly worth another glance. Michael, I did not refute the shot at 285, so it doesn't matter that my posts were erased. Show us a link to the posting by whoever it was that put me in my place. Why are you having such a hard time with this? You should be eager to tell us about my comeupance!

Never been refuted? That's comical, and delusional. Well, don't be bashful Michael. Tell us who refuted it and give us a link to the refutation.

This article which I posted at jfkhistory.com/forum presents the case for a shot at Zapruder frame 285. To date, there has never been a refutation, but I would hope that at least one or two of you will try. More importantly, it is not just a "theory". It is a question that no honest person can ignore. Why did those five people all react within the same 1/6th of a second? I have seen people state an opinion that Jackie was just checking her husband or that Kellerman was reaching for the radio (and sticking the mike in his ear??), and if one of them was the ONLY one to react, this would never have been an issue. But the probability that all of these dramatic reactions would begin in perfect unison with one another, due to sheer coincidence is beyond ludicrous. http://jfkhistory.com/forum/index.php?topic=21.0 I will respond to intelligent replies in this or the other forum. Robert Harris

I hadn't heard about Myers suing Bugliosi or getting a settlement. That's almost as hilarious as Posner hiring Mark Lane. Is there an article about that at your site or elsewhere?

David, Boswell's ARRB testimony is simply unreliable. One of Horne's great errors, IMO, is to take snippets of Boswell's testimony and twist them to support his theory, when he knew full well that Boswell, if asked point blank "Was there a large defect missing scalp and bone on the back of Kennedy's head at the beginning of the autopsy?" would have told him to get stuffed. I discuss this in chapter 18c at patspeer.com: "Now the use of Dr. Boswell as a "back of the head" witness is a bit bizarre on its face, seeing as he signed off on the autopsy report in which no scalp lacerations on the back of the head were noted, and seeing as he never ever said anything indicating he'd seen an entrance wound on the front of the head. But when one looks at his statements to the ARRB it becomes even more bizarre. Here is one of the key statements used by back-of-the-head wound theorists to sell Boswell as a "back of the head" witness: A. There was a big wound sort of transverse up like this from left posterior to right anterior. The scalp was separated, but it was folded over, and you could fold the scalp over and almost hide the wound. When you lifted the scalp up, you could really lay it back posteriorally, and there was a lot of bone still attached to the scalp but detached from the remainder of the skull. And I think these parts back here probably reflect that. And here is Boswell's response to a follow-up question by Jeremy Gunn: Q. When you say the left posterior, what do you mean? A. The left occipital area, and that wound extends to the right frontal area. And what I meant was that the wound in the scalp could be closed from side to side so that it didn't appear that there was any scalp actually--scalp missing. Yep. That's right. Those pushing Boswell as a witness for the wound described by the Parkland witnesses--a gaping EXIT wound of both scalp and skull on the RIGHT back of the head--are using Boswell's recollection of a scalp LACERATION on the LEFT side of the head, (a scalp laceration that could be closed from side to side so that one could not tell any scalp was missing, mind you), as evidence. Now, even if one were to accept the ridiculous notion that his statements support there was a gaping wound missing both scalp and skull on the right back side of the head, how reliable are Boswell's recollections? Not remotely, as it turns out. More from his ARRB deposition with Gunn: Q. Do you recall whether there were tears or lacerations in the scalp? A. Right across here and-- Q. Approximately across the midline? A. What I previously described, post-occipital, and on the left, across the top, and then down to the right frontal area, and then the laceration extended into the right eye. Q. Okay. Could you make another drawing--and we'll put Line No. 2 on this--to show the approximate direction of the large laceration that you just referred to? A. Well, it's not a--I can't say what direction, but--and then this came on down like so, and--actually, I think it came right into here. Q. Okay. I'm going to put a 2 in a circle right next to that line, and the 2 will signify the approximate direction and shape of the large laceration. Would that be fair? A. Mm-hmm. Q. Just so I'm clear--and we'll be looking at the photographs in a few minutes, and you can maybe clarify it there. But at least with some of the photographs, is it your testimony that the scalp was pulled in a way different from how it was when you first saw it in order to better illustrate either wound of entry or exit? A. Yes. The scalp was essentially loose. In the usual autopsy, you have to cut underneath the scalp in order to reflect it. In this case, the scalp was mobile so that you could pull it forward to obscure the wound or pull it back to make the wound completely lucid. Q. Okay. Was the hair cleaned in any way for purposes of the photographs? A. No, I don't think so. There was not a lot of blood, as I remember, and I think he had been pretty well cleaned up in the operating--in the emergency room. And I don't think we had to do much in the way of cleansing before we took photographs. Well, wait right there. Boswell spoke to the ARRB in 1996. When asked the preceding questions by Jeremy Gunn he had not been shown the autopsy photos since 1977, and had not been shown the establishing shots taken at the autopsy--the photos showing Kennedy lying on the table before an inspection of his wounds had begun--since 1967. Clearly, he had forgotten that these first shots show the President's hair to be matted with blood and brain. His response then shows that he lacked a clear recollection of Kennedy's original appearance when interviewed by the ARRB. He was in his seventies, after all, discussing something he'd seen more than 30 years before. So why should we believe his latter-day recollections are accurate? We shouldn't. The scalp laceration stretching to the left occipital region suddenly recalled by Boswell 33 years after performing the autopsy was not only not mentioned in the autopsy protocol, it was specifically ruled out by Boswell in his 9-16-77 interview with the HSCA pathology panel. When asked about the red spot the HSCA panel presumed to be the bullet entrance, and which Dr. Humes presumed was dried blood, Boswell replied: "It's the posterior-inferior margin of the lacerated scalp." When one of the HSCA panel, Dr. Petty, expressed doubt about this, Boswell then repeated: "It tore right down to that point. And then we just folded that back and this back and an anterior flap forward and this exposed almost the entire--I guess we did have to dissect a little bit to get to." If, in Boswell's mind, the scalp laceration ended at the red spot, high on the back of the head on the parietal bone, in 1977, there was no way it could possibly have stretched all the way to the occipital bone 19 years later. It seems clear, then, that Dr. Boswell was seriously confused. But those pushing Boswell as a back of the head witness will never admit this. Let's take, for example, Doug Horne. Horne had fed Gunn questions during the ARRB's questioning of Boswell. On page 111 of his opus, Inside the ARRB, Horne, who by his own admission had pursued a job with the ARRB in hopes of proving fraud in the medical evidence, quotes Boswell's response after being asked if his 17 by 10 measurement for the large skull defect reflected missing bone or fractured skull. Boswell responded: "Most of that space, the bone was missing. There were a lot of small skull fragments attached to the scalp as it was reflected, but most of that space, the bone was missing, some of which--I think two of which we subsequently retrieved." Now look what Horne says but four pages later, when discussing Dr. Boswell's approximation of the borders of this defect on a skull model: "The 3-D skull drawing by Boswell was critical, because his autopsy sketch of the top of the skull had by its very nature not shown the condition of the rear of the head. Boswell's 3-D skull diagram completed the rest of the picture. And he wasn't depicting fragmentation or areas of broken bone, he was depicting areas of the skull denuded of bone. It was electrifying." What? Where does Horne get that Boswell wasn't depicting fragmentation? Boswell had just told him that part of the area depicted was where small fragments attached to the scalp. Why does he ignore this? Here's why: Q: Just one last point that I would like to just clarify in my one mind is: On the piece for the markings for the 10 by 17 centimeters that were missing, would it be fair to say that when you first examined the body prior to any arrival of fragments from Dallas, the skull was missing from approximately those dimensions of 10 by 17? A. Yes. Problem: the word "approximately" is, in this instance, unduly vague. NONE of the other back of the head witnesses described so much skull missing. Clearly Boswell had no idea how big the hole on the skull was before the scalp was peeled back. Clearly he measured the skull defect after the scalp had been pulled back and skull had fallen to the table. Clearly, the best indicator of the size of the hole on the back of the head, then, would be the x-rays, which depict no large hole on the back of the head where Horne and others presume there was a hole...where the Parkland witnesses told them there was a hole... But, wait, Horne's found a way to undermine the credibility of the x-rays...provided, not surprisingly, by Gunn's questioning of Boswell: Q. Were any skull fragments put back into place before photographs or before X-rays? A. I think before we took the--the ones that came from Dallas were never put back in except to try and approximate them to the ones that were present. But I think all the others were left intact. Q. So, for example, was there a fragment that had fallen out at any point that you then put back into its place before a photograph or X-ray was taken? A. Yes. Q. What size fragments and where did you place them at the-- A. Well, the one that's in the diagram on Exhibit 1, that 10-centimeter piece I'm sure was out at one time or another. And I think maybe some of these smaller fragments down at the base of that diagram also were out at one time or another. But those were all put back. So, from leading the clearly elderly and confused Boswell through a series of strange questions designed to support or refute the body alteration theory of David Lifton, Gunn got Horne the answer he was looking for...that bone was put back in the skull BEFORE x-rays were taken. Never mind that Boswell at first specified that the large pieces of missing bone were not put back in the skull, and only relented after being asked the same question a second time. Never mind that the bone Boswell thinks they are talking about did not arrive until the end of the autopsy, and that NOT ONE witness recalled a skull x-ray being taken after the beginning of the autopsy. I mean, let's get serious. One can not honestly propose, a la Horne, that Boswell's confused testimony suggests that the 10cm fragment recovered from the floor of the limo was placed back in Kennedy's skull to hide a hole on the back of his head, unless one is willing to propose this bone was occipital bone. And no one of whom I'm aware, even Horne's colleague Dr. Mantik, believes such a thing. So why play with Boswell's words to suggest such a thing?" Pat, I don't know what Boswell meant in his side-by-side statement either but what I do know is, that we can easily see the damage that he described. The broken piece of skull at the top of the skull was blown to the rear sometime prior to the 330's. We can easily see the indentation at the top of the head where it used to be, and the missing hair and scalp that was forward of it, but was still in place as late as frame 317. This was one of my early presentations and production values are admittedly a bit shabby:-) Most of the analysis of that damage is in the second half of the video.

The Secret Service, including Clint Hill reacted very quickly after they heard what sounded like a real gunshot. But most of the early shots weren't heard by anyone, which is why the large majority of witnesses only recalled one shot prior to the end of the attack. And the one that was heard, didn't sound at all like a gunshot. This video explains in detail, what happened, and why.