Gil Jesus

Good point. What if he tripped and the gun went off ?

Thanks, Ron. I suppose I see more similarities between the hatred for Trump and the hatred for JFK than most researchers. To me, there's no difference except that the haters sit on the other side of the aisle. As an Independent, I don't have a loyalty to either party. I call 'em as I see 'em. While the press back in the 60's were not so rabidly political as they are today, they were certainly not pro-JFK. As you may remember, it was E.M. Dealey, publisher of the Dallas Morning News, who called JFK a coward to his face. Back then, Kennedy's administration was accused of managing the news by withholding information from them and they didn't like that. In fact, in one press conference he was asked about it. You can tell he was stunned by the question but his comeback was classic JFK. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/managed-news.mp4 On the Huntley-Brinkley Report that evening, Chet Huntley made IMO one of the greatest commentaries in network television history when he scolded America for Kennedy's assassination. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/yt5s.com-HUNTLEY_-Hatred-killed-JFK360p.mp4 IMO, the Russians came the closest to getting it right. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/yt5s.com-Soviet-Reaction-to-the-Assassination-of-JFK360p.mp4 People want to know who killed John Kennedy--- America killed John Kennedy. He was killed by his enemies and the security apparatus designed to protect him allowed it to happen. They knew in advance it was coming and did NOTHING to protect him. Then covered up their shame by blaming it on a guy who hadn't fired a rifle in 4 years. Then publishing a Report full of lies figuring no one would ever read the 26 volumes and see how they lied. But they could not have known that we'd have the technology today to do just that: to expose their lies and their coverup.

By Gil Jesus ( 2022 ) https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/dox1.jpg "The detailed autopsy of President Kennedy performed on the night of November 22 at Bethesda Naval Hospital led the three examining pathologists to conclude that the smaller hole in the rear of the President's skull was the point of entry and that the large opening on the right side of his head was the wound of exit. ( Report, pg. 86 ) This was the Commission's conclusion: a bullet entered the President's skull and took a sharp right-hand turn and exited the right side of his head. But this conclusion was not supported by the massive damage seen to the President's skull in the Zapruder film. It was not supported by the Dealey Plaza witnesses who saw the President struck in the right side of his head and a piece of the rear of his skull blown backward. It was not supported by the observations of the Parkland doctors, who described a massive exit wound at the rear of the head and cerebella protruding from the wound, tissue that could not have been seen if the exit wound was as the Commission claimed. And documents released by the Assassination Records Review Board in the mid-1990s showed that it was not supported by witnesses at the autopsy, a fact revealed during the House Select Committee on Assassinations interviews in 1978, but which the HSCA originally suppressed until 2029. In any murder case, the truth is established when each piece of evidence supports another. Putting together a case is like putting together a puzzle and "when it don't fit you must acquit". And here lies the problem: the Commission's x-rays and photographs of the head wound do not fit. They do not fit the description given by the witnesses in Dealey Plaza who saw the President gunned down, the observations of Clint Hill, the Dallas doctors, or the witnesses at the autopsy. In fact the photographs and x-rays do not match each other. And the photographs do not match the results obtained through testing of the Western-Cartridge ammuntion and its effect on a human skull. The Dealey Plaza witnesses There were witnesses in Dealey Plaza who either saw the last shot hit the President in the right side of his head or saw the back of his head come off. One of those witnesses to a shot in the side of the head was Emmitt Hudson, the groundskeeper of Dealey Plaza, who testified that he saw the fatal head shot hit Kennedy "a little bit behind the ear and a little bit above the ear" on the right side of his head. ( 7 H 560 ) Another witness to a shot on the side of the head was William Newman. Newman was probably the closest witness to the President when he was struck by the fatal bullet. He, his wife and their two children were on the north side of Elm St.. He was inteviewed shortly after the murder live on WFAA-TV in Dallas. During that interview, he said, "as the car got directly in front of us a gunshot apparently from behind us hit the President in the side of the temple". https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/william-newman.mp4 Because his observation did not fit the head shot coming from behind, Newman was never called to testify before the Warren Commission. Another witness who the Commission ignored was Charles Brehm, who was standing on the south side of Elm St with his 5 year old son. Brehm told author Mark Lane in 1966 that "I saw a piece ( of Kennedy's skull ) fly over in the area of the curb where I was standing...it seemed as if it came left and back." https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/brehm.mp4 The Commission also ignored Marilyn Willis, who described the head shot from her position on the south side of Elm St.. From her viewpoint, Kennedy was struck in the right temple because his brains "exploded out the back of his head". Her daughter added that "the back of his head came off." https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/willis-women.mp4 But the non-medical witnesss who had the longest look at the President's head wound was Secret Service agent Clint Hill, who saw the head wound on the way to Parkland Hospital. He testified that, "the right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed." He described it as "one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head." ( 2 H 141 ) It's no coincidence that witnesses on the north side of Elm St. saw a bullet enter the right side of the President's head and the witnesses on the South side of Elm St. saw the rear of the President's head come off. The observations of the Dealey Plaza witnesses of a gaping wound at the right rear of the head were exactly what the medical professionals at Parkland Hospital saw. The Parkland Hospital witnesses Perhaps the best witnesses to the President's actual head wounds are the medical witnesses who observed it at Parkland Hospital. Dr. Gene Coleman Akin, Anesthesiology: "The back of the right occipital / parietal portion of his head was shattered, with brain substance extruding." ( 6 H 65 ) Dr. Charles James Carrico, Surgery: "This was a 5- by 7-cm defect in the posterior skull, the occipital region. There was an absence of the calvarium or skull in this area" ( 3 H 361 ) Dr. William Kemp Clark, Neurological Surgeon: "This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed." ( 6 H 20 ) In his report of 11/22, Dr. Clark also stated that "cerebellar tissue was extruding from this wound". ( CE 392, 17 H 3 ) Dr. Ronald Coy Jones, General Surgery: "There was large defect in the back side of the head ...some brain hanging out of this wound .." ( 6 H 53 ) Dr. Robert Nelson McClelland, General Surgery: "...I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted....posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out. ( 6 H 33 ) Dr. Paul Peters, Surgery "I noticed there was a large defect in the occiput ( rear of the skull ). It seemed to me that in the right occipital/parietal area there was a large defect. There appeared to be bone loss and brain loss in the area. ( 6 H 71 ) Dr. Marion T. "Pepper" Jenkins, Anesthesiology: "...noted that a portion of the cerebellum ( lower rear brain ) was hanging out from a hole in the right--rear of the head." ( 7 HSCA 287 ) Dr. Jenkins also stated that "cerebellum had protruded from the wound" in his report of 11/22/63. ( CE 392, 17 H 15 ) Nurse Diana Bowron testified that she saw "one large hole" when she saw the condition of the "back of his head." ( 6 H 136 ) https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/parkland-doctors.mp4 What these medical witnesses were describing is easier understood by knowing the location of the cerebellum. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/cerebellum.png Their descriptions of cerebellar tissue damaged and exposed could not have come from an exit wound in the parietal area of the skull as shown in the autopsy photo. It could have only come from an exit wound behind the right ear. A large, gaping exit wound at the rear of the skull was not only seen by witnesses in Dallas, it was seen by witnesses in the morgue at Bethesda as well. Coming in Part II: Bethesda and beyond

Are you suggesting the government doesn't lie to its people ? Ever hear of the Tuskegee experiments ? The Gulf of Tonkin incident ? The sinking of the USS Maine in Havana harbor ? Saddam Hussein's possession of "weapons of mass destruction" ? MK-Ultra use of mind altering drugs on unsuspecting military personnel ? Today the drug companies have people like you and me to experiment their drugs on --- with the blessing and power of the federal government and its mandates behind them. And with no liability whatsoever. And we still don't know what the long term effects of these "vaccines" are. "Vaccines" that neither protect you from getting it or spreading it. Meanwhile, healthy young people are suddenly dying at a rate never seen before. People who won't go to a restaurant if four people give it a bad rating on GOOGLE are the same people who will ignore thousands, including doctors, who say that the "jab" is bad. They'll keep going back for a "booster" and even take their kids. I certainly hope you're not naive enough to think that the American government has a history of being squeaky clean. Because it doesn't.

Evidence he can't respond to is "silliness". In his world, cops don't frame people for crimes they don't commit. They don't construct lineups that are unfair. They don't deny suspects legal representation. They don't continue to question a suspect after he's "lawyered up ". They don't plant evidence. There are no such things as coverups. Investigators don't pressure witnesses to change their stories. The US government is honest and would never lie to its people. Conspiracies don't exist and political murders are carried out by one person. But in the real world, Henry Wade sent 19 innocent people to prison for crimes they did not commit, convictions that were overturned years later on DNA evidence. Richard Nixon resigned the Presidency because he got caught trying to coverup the Watergate break-in. The government lied to the people when it said that Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election. Finally, the assassination of Lincoln was a conspiracy and not the work of one man. David Von Pein lives in his own little world where anyone who questions the official version of any event is considered a "kook" and a candidate for ridicule and scorn. People like him don't research the evidence. They wait for the next "Oswald-did-it" book to come out and are the first ones to buy it so they can use someone else's work to "win" their "arguments" and post them on their blogs. You'll notice as I have, that they always refer to Bugliosi, Myers, Posner or any other author's book that supports the Warren Commission. They thrive on the work of others, they don't do any research themselves. Perhaps they don't have the time or perhaps they're just lazy, I don't know. As I've said before, I don't consider myself a "conspiracy theorist" in as much as I don't see conspiracies under every rock. But I have a problem with the evidence in this case and how it was handled. I believe the evidence does NOT support the Warren Commission's conclusions of a sole assassin and that the assassin was Oswald. I will continue to present the evidence in support of my position and if that makes me a "kook" in the eyes of the Von Peins of the world, then I will wear that badge with honor. I personally find the opinions, insults and comments of Commission apologists to be of no value so I have him ( and others ) on ignore. Anyone who reads my posts can double-check my sources as they're always provided, unlike those who support the Commission's fantasy. I provide testimony, documents and exhibits from the government's own files. I also provide witness videos so researchers can see what they said in their own words and not what the government said they said. Those who deal in truth have nothing to hide. And the Commission hid a lot. Lying by omission and suppression of evidence is no less a lie and in the end we'll see who the "kooks" really are: those who exposed the lies for what they were, or those who blindly supported them.

Paul R. Gregory is the son of Peter Paul Gregory, who was contacted by the Secret Service on Saturday, November 23rd to act as an interpreter for their interrogation of Marina Oswald ( 2 H 344 ) during her illegal incarceration at the Inn of the Six Flags. The senior Gregory was a leading member of the anti-Communist "White Russian" community in Dallas and was an oil geologist by occupation. He was also a part-time instructor in the Russian language at the Fort Worth Public Library. Gregory Sr. testified that he recommended Oswald in June 1962 to be a translator. ( 2 H 338 ) Like his father, Paul R. Gregory testified before the WC. His testimony can be found in Volume 9. Most of his testimony involves what Oswald told him about life in the Soviet Union. Among the interesting things he testified to was that Oswald was an admirer of JFK and that he couldn't imagine Oswald being violent. But to your point, the Gregorys were connected to the oil industry and the government or why would the Secret Service have chosen the father to interpret over other White Russians ? And why didn't the senior Gregory protest the illegal detainment of Marina and instead agree to be a party in the her interrogation ? Because he wasn't a part of the deep state ? Of course he was. The government knows who to go to when they want certain results and on this occasion, the man they went to was Peter Paul Gregory.

I believe that the assassination would have proceeded as it did without Oswald because Oswald had nothing to do with it. IMO, The plan "B" would have been to kill the anti-Castro Cuban gunmen and portray them to the world as having been agents of Castro. I believe the gunmen were Cubans because of the descriptions of the witnesses who saw "dark-skinned men" in the sixth floor before the appearance of the motorcade. Add to that the Walter telex warning that a "militant revolutionary group" was planning to kill Kennedy in Dallas and coded military messages sent in advance that depicted the killer as " a Communist or a Negro". I believe it was in 1971 when the CIA had just such a plan to kill Castro in Venezuela. The plan was to have anti-Castro Cubans pose as TV cameramen. In those cameras were guns. They were supposed to kill Castro after he started giving a speech. They were told they'd be arrested by Venezuelan authorities and then released. But they got cold feet and never made the attempt. It's a good thing they didn't. What they didn't know was that the CIA had betrayed them and planned with the Venezuelan police to kill them before Castro's security could take them alive. This would have erased any evidence of the CIA's involvement. I believe that this is what would have happened to the Cubans who pulled the trigger in Dallas. They never would have been captured. They would have been killed, those who killed them would have been heroes and history would have shown that Castro killed Kennedy. It would have been the "Northwoods" operation the CIA and military could only dream of. As a result, there would have been a "second invasion" of Cuba at the end of November ( as was the talk in the Cuban community at the time ). How Khrushchev would have responded to that is anyone's guess.

Who cares ? How does "no police car in that alley" prove your case that Oswald killed Tippit ? It doesn't. What it does do is allow you to take a shot at those, ( as you call "researchers" ) who believe there was a police car in an alley, but unless there is evidence that someone in that car killed Tippit or was somehow involved in the killing, whether or not it was in the alley has no relevance to the case.

She wasn't interviewed by the FBI until 1975 so I'm guessing that she was a witness for the Church Committee. Here's the link: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62472#relPageId=56

IMO, an excellent post. I find the alleged meeting with Hosty "a day or two" before the assassination interesting because this is either at the same time or right after two rifles were brought into the TSBD by Warren Caster. I've always felt that the gunmen were members of the Dallas chapter of the violent anti-Cuban group the DRE. I base this on the descriptions that witnesses gave of "dark-skinned" men at the sixth floor window prior to the shooting. At least one DRE member was mentioned in Frank Ellsworth's investigation of stolen weapons from Fort Hood. Coincidently, that member was a student at North Texas State University, the location Caster claimed as an alibi on November 22nd. I believe that Oswald came into the crosshairs of the DRE when he encountered Carlos Bringuier in New Orleans. Everything he did in New Orleans was reported to the 112th Military Intelligence Unit in San Antonio, the same group that ( for one reason or another ) failed to provide protection for the President but just happened to have 8-12 of its members in Dealey Plaza during the shooting. I also believe that Marrion Baker encountered one of the gunmen on either the third or fourth floor ( according to his affidavit ), a man he described as wearing a tan jacket. Witnesses also described a man on the sixth floor wearing "khaki" colored clothing before the shooting. This was not Oswald. But Roy Truly told Baker the man worked there, so Baker let him go. If Truly intentionally vouched for one of the gunmen, then he had a role in the assassination and that role was to vouch for any shooters caught in the building. According to William Manchester, Mr. Truly was anti-Kennedy. Then there is the account of Elizabeth Cole, who claimed to have overheard a Cuban student tell another one on November 8th that an attempt to assassinate Kennedy would take place in Dallas and that a "book publishing" building was involved. Caster worked as a assistant manager of the Southwest Publishing Company, whose Dallas office was located in the Texas School Book Depository. She claimed to have reported it to the FBI, but like the telex seen by William Walter in New Orleans, the bureau had no such report in its files. And there lies the motive for the coverup: the security apparatus that was in place to protect the President not only knew in advance that an attempt would be made on his life in Dallas, they did everything in their power to see that it was successful. I admit, there's a lot of smoke here. Whether there's a fire or not is anybody's guess. But it should have been investigated out to its logical end.

Nobody ever reported a car broken down on Patton Ave. 90 seconds before the shooting. Are we to believe that it wasn't there as well ?

Thank you for that clarification. It shall be noted.

( There's no right or wrong answer, just looking for opinions ) Would Kennedy have still been assassinated ?

The head wound in the autopsy photos doesn't match the x-rays, which doesn't match the head wound in the Zapruder film, which doesn't match the head wound that the Dallas doctors saw. Usually, the autopsy answers all questions, like how many shots and from which direction they were fired. But in this case the autopsy does nothing but create more questions than it answers. So from the standpoint of the autopsy being a false representation of how the President was murdered, your guess is as good as mine. I believe that there's enough evidence to conclude that there was more than one shooter and the President was shot from both the front and the back. There's also evidence to support the Dallas doctors' observation of a large gaping hole in the rear of the head from William Newman, who in a video interview mistakenly described the President's ear flying off, which I believe was the piece of skull which later became the Harper Bone fragment. There's also enough evidence to support a shot from the right front. Not only is the head moving "left and to the rear", the location of fragments in the President's skull support that theory. Bullet fragments are usually deposited more near the entrance site than the exit. X-rays showed that most of the fragments in the President's skull were on the right side. Further evidence involves the last-minute changes to the motorcade by the Secret Service at Love Field. General McHugh was removed from the front seat of the limo, the Press were relegated to convertibles further back in the motorcade rather than on a flatbed truck in front of the President's limo and the DPD motorcycle officers were told to remain behind the limo's rear wheels and to hold their positions "no matter what happens". This tells me that the Secret Service knew in advance the positions of the shooters and from which direction the bullets were going to be coming from and made an effort to keep certain people out of the line of fire. And when the firing did start, Bill Greer slowed the limo down to facilitate the murder of the President. When the shooting started and agents jumped off the follow-up car, Emory Roberts ordered them to stop. No, the Secret Service didn't pull the trigger, but they did everything they could to make sure the attempt was successful. Now to the picket fence. The picket fence area offered a good place to shoot and get away. A gunman could shoot, jump into the trunk of one of the cars parked there and be driven out later on. He didn't even have to run. There was an unsubstantiated written letter attributed to Lee Bowers in which he said he saw a Dallas policeman fire from the picket fence. But the person who claimed to have received that letter has never been able to produce it. If there WAS someone firing from that direction, Bowers HAD to have seen it. The closest he ever came to publicly admitting it was that he saw "smoke or flash of light or something peculiar" in that area. His fear to clearly express what he saw is understandable when you consider that witnesses were dying under peculiar circumstances and by 1966 those who were still alive were afraid to some forward with their stories. Another possibility of a source in the right front comes from the storm drains. Although some didn't produce an immediate escape, they offered the shooters protection from stray bullets. One characteristic a professional assassin needs is patience. Patience to sit tight until dark to make his escape. I've always suspected that the drains at street level especially presented an excellent cover and put the shooters at nearly point blank range to the limo. It would not have been a difficult shot from either the south drain or the north drain at street level. If you look up at your right, you'll see the storm drain where the picket fence connects to the railroad overpass. ( behind the larger tree ) It also provides an excellent firing position for a shot from the right front. It's the location where most of the people ran to after the shooting stopped and where the police were commanded to go to. The only problem I see with this position are the trees and the road sign. IMO, it doesn't offer much room for error, especially in leading a moving target. In any event, I'm shocked that the storm drains weren't immediately searched by police. I've never been to Dallas, I'm just going by photos. But others have been there, like Joseph McBride and from his posts he believes that at least one shot was fired from this position. To me it looks like a difficult shot but it's entirely possible. I don't rule out a shot from the picket fence, but I believe that there were alternatives more beneficial to the shooters than to be standing out in the open where they could be seen.

A final point on this if I may: How the HSCA medical panel could have given such a far-out opinion on the roundness of the "exit" wound is puzzling in light of the tests done for the Warren Commission that showed that the Western Cartridge bullet was unstable on exit. In other words, the tests showed that a bullet travelling through the President's neck would have been already tumbling before it exited. The expert who gave the testimony was Dr. Alfred Olivier, the Chief of the Wounds Ballistics Branch of the Dept. of the Army. His group fired rifle CE 139 using Western Cartridge 6.5 ammo lot # 6000. They simulated the President's neck by using 13 1/2 to 14 1/2 centimeters of horsemeat and/or goatmeat. They covered that with goatskin to simulate the President's skin and covered that with a suit coat, a tie and a shirt over the entrance side only. ( 5 H 77 ) Commission Exhibit 850 is the result of the 6.5 ammo's effect on entering and exiting skin. In its Report, the Commission concluded that "the exit holes, especially the one most nearly round, appeared similar to the descriptions given by Dr. Perry and Dr. Carrico to the hole in the President's throat." ( pg. 91 ) Of course, this is a lie. Dr. Olivier could not and did not testify to this because his testimony was given 12 days before the depositions of Drs. Perry and Carrico. And Drs. Perry and Carrico were never shown the goatskins and asked if the exit holes were similar to the hole they saw in the President's throat. The footnotes refer to the testimony of Perry and Carrico, but only where they said the wound was round. At no time was anyone asked to compare the exit holes in the goatskin with the hole in the President's throat. Why not ? Because they knew better. Therefore, the Commission's conclusion that the exit holes in the goatskin were "similar" to the hole seen by Drs. Perry and Carrico is not based on any evidence or testimony. As you can see, the exit holes were much larger than the entrance holes, regardless of their shape, further evidence that a 3-5 mm hole in the throat could not have been made by this ammunition which made a 7 mm entrance hole in the back ( or back of the neck, for that matter ). It also disproves the HSCA's theory that the shirt and tie offered enough resistance to prevent the skin from punching outward upon the bullet's exit. The bullets started tumbling BEFORE they exited and the shirt and tie used in the test had NO EFFECT on altering the exit hole. When the US Army did the wound testing, they found that the 6.5mm Western Cartridge ammunition started tumbling BEFORE it exited the simulated neck of the President, causing elongated exit wounds. They also found that the ammunition left LARGER wounds upon exit. This totally destroys the Single Bullet Theory and the theory that the throat wound was a wound of exit. All of this evidence indicates that the throat wound was not an exit wound. Dr. Perry was right. It was a wound of entry.

I agree. The CIA's excuse for continuing to stonewall release of the remaining documents is to protect their sources and methods. It's been 60 years and the sources are long gone. IMO, what they're protecting are methods and that's scary when you consider that they may be protecting them because they plan to use them again in the future. I wanted this to be a narrative on Dr. Perry and the enormous pressure he faced ( as did other witnesses ) by telling the truth. Because of that, I didn't even get into the other physical evidence like the lack of a bullet track through the President's body, a track that should have been there if the throat wound had been caused by a transiting bullet on exit. It's not possible to have a transiting bullet through a body without a bullet track. I believe it's important for future generations to understand that this was not a normal homicide investigation but rather an investigation to gather evidence against Oswald. And to that end, witnesses were harrassed, evidence disappeared and statements were altered. Never in my life have I seen a case where all of the main evidence was initally misidentified as something else. Cops are human, yes and humans makes mistakes. But you'd think that at least they could have gotten one piece of evidence right the first time. And in spite of all of these errors, the same officers who couldn't correctly identify evidence that was clearly marked were sharp-witted enough to capture the right guy. Yeah, right.

Shored gunshot wound of exit is produced when the outstretched skin is impaled, sandwiched, and crushed between the outgoing bullet and the unyielding object over the exit site, thus leaving an abrasion collar on the wound margin. In contrast to the entrance wound, the supported exit wound shows a scalloped or punched-out abrasion collar. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6637946/ This wound, as described by Dr. Perry, was not "punched out". Dr. Perry described it as "roughly spherical to oval in shape, not a punched out wound, actually, nor was it particularly ragged. It was rather clean cut.." ( 6 H 9 ). This was NOT a shored exit wound.

Wound of Entry:Dr. Malcolm Perry's journey into darkness by Gil Jesus ( 2022 ) https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/coughing_0002_0001.jpg At the news conference, Dr. Perry answered a series of hypothetical questions and stated to the press that a variety of possibilities could account for the President's wounds....Dr. Perry said his answers at the press conference were intended to convey his theory about what could have happened, based on his limited knowledge at the time, rather than his professional opinion about what did happen.....Commenting on his answers at the press conference, Dr. Perry testified before the Commission: I expressed it [his answers] as a matter of speculation that this was conceivable. But, again, Dr. Clark [who also answered questions at the conference] and I emphasized that we had no way of knowing. ( Report, pg. 90 ) The truth is that Dr. Malcolm Perry was NOT answering a hypothetical question and he did NOT speculate. The question was direct and the doctor's response was direct. The bullet wound he saw in the front of the throat was a wound of entry. The first press conference On November 22, 1963, after the President had been pronounced dead, the Parkland doctors held a press conference to advise what the President's wounds were and to describe the treatment they used in trying to save his life. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/parkland-press-conf.jpg Dr. Clark attended to the President's head wound and Dr. Perry attended to his throat wound. During that press conference, Dr. Perry was directly asked about the throat wound three times and three times he indicated that it was an entrance wound and its direction had been one of coming at the President. In the 1990's, the Assassination Records Review Board released as part of its master medical records a White House transcript of that press conference: https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Dallas-Doctors-Press-2.jpg As you can see, there was nothing hypothetical about the questions and Dr. Perry's response was not one where he was speculating what was conceivable or discussing a variety of possibilities. Perry flat out stated that "there was an entrance wound in the neck". Further proof of his comment was published in the November 23rd edition of the New York Times. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/NYT-article-11.23.63.jpg The point is that Dr. Perry's description of the throat wound to the press was unambiguous and more importantly the testimony he gave in his deposition for the Warren Commission was exposed by the transcripts of that press conference as being less than truthful. In other words, he perjured himself. So we're left with asking what caused Dr. Perry to lie about what he said on November 22, 1963 ? The second press conference In his deposition of March 25, 1964, Dr. Kemp Clark described a second press conference held on the morning of Saturday, November 23, 1963. During that testimony, Dr. Clark said that although he attended the conference, Dr. Perry "said very little". ( 6 H 22 ) Dr. Perry was shying away from providing information to the press. According to Dr. Clark: "Dr. Perry stated that he had talked to the Bethesda Naval Hospital on two occasions that morning and that he knew what the autopsy findings had shown and that he did not wish to be questioned by the press, as he had been asked by Bethesda to confine his remarks to that which he knew from examining the President and suggested that the major part of this press conference be conducted by me." ( 6 H 23 ) Dr. Perry had been "asked" to not give his opinion on the throat wound, but to only report what he observed upon examination. In other words, Dr. Perry was being censored. Witness tampering The pressure on Dr. Perry to change his opinion on the throat wound started almost immediately after the body arrived at Bethesda. Dr. Perry's description of the throat wound is found in the notes of autopsist Commander James J. Humes, who consulted with Perry on the night of the assassination regarding the size of the wound. Those notes can be found in Commission Exhibit 397 ( 17 H 29 ) and describe the wound that Perry told Humes he saw as 3-5 mm. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/humes-notes.jpg Humes knew this was too small a hole to have been a wound of exit so the debate went back and forth between Dr. Perry and Bethesda. Parkland nurse Audrey Bell was the supervising nurse of the Operating and Recovery Rooms. She told the ARRB in 1997 that the morning after the assassination, Dr. Perry told her that he had been up almost all night with the autopsy doctors and they were trying to get him to change his mind about the throat wound being a wound of entry. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/audrey-bell-arrb-3_20_97.mp4 But the pressure to have Dr. Perry change his opinion didn't stop there. He was visited by the Secret Service, according to his testimony, "at least three times". ( 6 H 17 ) The Secret Service agent whose responsibility it was to get Dr. Perry to change his mind about that he saw was Elmer Moore. In May 1970, Moore was the hot-tempered head of the Seattle office of the Secret Service. A graduate student named James Gochenaur was interested in the Kennedy assassination and had contacted him about obtaining a photo. Moore invited Gochenaur to come by his office. Once there, Gochenaur claimed that Moore went into a tirade that frightened him. Moore admitted that he was ordered to "badger" Dr. Perry into changing his testimony about the throat wound. Armed with the autopsy reports and photographs, Moore was able to get Perry to back down and say that the wound Perry saw could have been either an entrance wound or an exit wound. On March 30, 1964, five days after his initial testimony, Dr. Perry was deposed a second time and testified that the wound he saw could have been either an entrance or an exit wound. By the time he testified before the House Select Committee on Assassinations, Dr. Perry's estimation of the size of the wound had grown from 3-5mm in 1963, to 6-7 mm. ( 7 HSCA 94 ) By going along with the faked autopsy record, Perry had testified under oath to something he knew was not true. The problem with making false statements under oath is that it is punishable by law and once you commit to those falsehoods, there's no going back. So Perry was forced to publicly tow the line while privately expressing his real opinion. More on that in a little bit. But the witnesses were not the only thing tampered with. The Secret Service collected ALL of the video from the doctors' press conference to hide the fact that Dr. Perry had publicly described the throat wound as a wound of entry. That video evidence, like much of the evidence exonerating Oswald, has vanished into eternity. Dr. Perry wasn't the only one who the Secret Service took an interest in. According to Dr. Clark, he "talked to a member of the Secret Service approximately a month after the assassination. I talked to him on two occasions, once by phone, and he asked me if I had a copy of a written report by Dr. Ronald Jones and I told him I did not." ( 6 H 27 ) The Secret Service had reason to worry about that written report because in that report, Dr. Jones described the throat wound as an "entrance wound". https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/WH_Vol20_333-jones-report.gif A public explanation, a private conviction Dr. Perry publicly stated under oath that the wound could have been either an entrance or exit wound and that remained his public stand. But privately, he gave a different opinion. On December 1, 1971, noted researcher and author Harold Weisberg interviewed Dr. Perry at the Southwest University School of Medicine. Weisberg noted that during this interview, Perry "let a few things drop then tried to cover". Perhaps the most important of those was his repeated statement that when he first saw the wound in the throat, he took a quick look, wiped it off and started cutting. He added that the edges were bruised "as they always are." https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Perry-Malcolm-Dr-07_0000.jpg The importance of this slip of the tongue is that only an entrance wound would leave an "abrasion ring" on the edges around it. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/abrasion-ring.jpg Weisberg asked Perry of he was ever asked about this signifcant fact. Perry blushed and then "tried to cover" by saying, "there was blood around the edges." Weisberg then notes that he didn't press Perry, that what he said was clear: if blood on the edges had initially prevented Perry from seeing them, it certainly didn't after he had wiped it off.Another person he expressed a different opinion to was Dr. Donald Miller, who served with Dr. Perry at the University of Washington, beginning in 1975. Dr. Miller was interested in the JFK assassination and asked Dr. Perry on several occassions about the throat wound. Each time Dr. Miller tried to probe for information, Dr. Perry was not interested in talking about it. Then one day, after a long surgery, the two were in the doctors' lounge having coffee, Dr. Miller once again pressed Perry about the throat wound. This time Perry said, "it was an entrance wound, definitely an entrance wound." It's obvious that on the weekend of the assassination, Dr. Perry was sure what he had seen was an entry wound in the throat. Every description he gave was indicative of an entry wound. He was pressured from the time the President's body arrived at Bethesda to the time he was deposed on March 25, 1964 to change his story. In the end, they got Perry to back down publicly and at the same time destroyed any copy of the press conference video. Scripting the answers The Commission dealt with the Dallas doctors by pre-interviewing them before their depositions. Dr. Perry was one of those who sat down and talked "about the purpose of this deposition and the questions I would be asking you on the record", with none other than Arlen Specter, the father of the Single Bullet Theory. ( 6 H 18 ) As I have mentioned in other essays of mine, in an ordinary court proceeding, where there is an adversarial format and witnesses are allowed to be cross-examined by defense counsel, this would be normal. Prosecutors need to know what the witness is going to say under cross-examination. But in this format, the intent of pre-interviewing of witnesses before they go on the record can only be to control or "coach" what they're going to say. They go over what questions will be asked and how the witness is to answer. Since there is no court reporter or stenographer present, only the Commission's counsel and the witness, the witness may also be given notes by which to refer to during his answers. And Dr. Perry wasn't the only one pre-inteviewed by Arlen Specter. He pre-interviewed Dr. Charles Baxter ( 6 H 44 ), Dr. James Carrico ( 6 H 7 ), Dr. Ronald Jones ( 6 H 57 ) and nurse Margaret Henchliffe ( 6 H 142 ) as well. In fact, anyone who described the wound in the throat as an entrance wound or a small smooth wound, was pre-interviewed by Specter. Talk about a conflict of interest. Specter's hypothetical The Warren Commission had a big problem with the throat wound. Most of the doctors had described the wound consistent with a wound of entry. So Specter devised a 180-word hypothetical question to get them to say that the bullet was a wound of exit. With some variation, this is the question he put to each of the Dallas medical witnesses who saw the throat wound : "Assuming some factors in addition to those you personally observed, what would your opinion be if these additonal facts were present: First, the President had a wound of entry on the right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula with the wound measuring 7 by 7 mm in oval shape, being 14 cm from the tip of the right acromion and 14 cm below the tip of the right mastoid process---assume that this is the set of facts that the wound just described was caused by a 6.5mm bullet fired from approximately160 to 250 feet away from the President, from a weapon having a muzzle velocity of 2,000 feet per second, assuming as a third factor that the bullet passed through the President's body, going in between the strap muscles of the shoulder without violating the pleura space and exited at a point in the midline of the neck, would the hole which you saw on the President's throat be consistent with an exit wound, assuming the factors I have just given you ?" In other words, if the bullet had exited Kennedy's throat, would the wound you saw in the President's throat be consistent with an exit wound ? Well, duh !! Clues in the testimony "....entry wounds are generally smaller and more regular than exit wounds. Entry wounds show invagination of tissue into the wound, while exit wounds show outward beveling of tissue." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK556119/#:~:text=Entry%20and%20Exit%20Wound&text=These%20are%20entry%20wounds%20and%20show%20outward%20beveling%20of%20tissue. Adding to the evidence that the wound was NOT an exit wound, Drs. Baxter ( 6 H 42 ), Perry ( 6 H 9 ), Carrico ( 6 H 3 ) and Jones ( 6 H 54 ) all described in testimony a wound whose size was smaller than the diameter of the bullet that the Commission alleged had made it. After a bullet enters through the skin, the skin retracts due to its elasticity and thus will make the wound appear smaller than the bullet that has passed through it, but this only applies to entrance wounds. Exit wounds are generally larger than the entrance wound because as the round moves through the body of the victim it decelerates and shatters the tissue and surrounding muscle. The exit wound normally looks larger and significantly more destructive than the entrance wound. Its edges are ragged and seem everted or "punched out". https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/entrance_exit.jpg In other words, the wound could not have been an exit wound and at the same time, smaller than the bullet that made it. Dr. Baxter described the wound as "spherical" and "did not appear to be jagged." ( 6 H 42 ) Dr. Carrico testified that the wound was "fairly round" and "had no jagged edges". ( 3 H 362 ) Dr. Perry described it as "roughly spherical to oval in shape, not a punched out wound, actually, nor was it particularly ragged. It was rather clean cut.." ( 6 H 9 ). Dr. Jones described the wound as "no larger than a quarter of an inch in diameter" with "very minimal disruption or interruption of the surrounding skin." A wound with "relatively smooth edges around the wound". A " very small, smooth wound". ( 6 H 54 ) Nurse Margaret Henchcliffe told the Commission that the hole "was as big around as my little finger" and that it was "an entrance bullet hole". When pressed by Specter if the hole could have been an exit wound, she said that she could not remember ever seeing an exit bullet hole "that looked like that". ( 6 H 141 ) Their descriptions in testimony indicate that the wound they saw was a wound of entry. And their descriptions of the wound under oath weren't the only evidence that the wound they saw was a wound of entry. Written statements that the doctors made 2-3 hours after attending the President are of immense significance. Not only are they the first accounts of trained medical professionals regarding the President's wounds, they are pure medical data, devoid of any "single bullet theory" or other factors that would affect opinions. Clues in the initial notes We need to look no further that Dr. Carrico's initial statement that the wound in the throat was a "small penetrating wound in the anterior neck in lower 1/3." https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/WH_Vol17_4-carrico-lg.jpg Penetrating trauma is an open wound injury that occurs when an object pierces the skin and enters a tissue of the body, creating a deep but relatively narrow entry wound. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penetrating_trauma#:~:text=Penetrating%20trauma%20is%20an%20open%20but%20relatively%20narrow%20entry%20wound. Dr. Carrico, within a few hours of attending the President, was describing the President's throat wound as a "penetrating wound" or wound of entry. There was another doctor in Trauma Room 1 that day, who was ignored by the Commission and described the type of throat wound he saw that afternoon as a wound of entry. The ignored doctor One of those witnesses the Commission chose to ignore was Dr. Charles Crenshaw, who was mentioned eight times in testimony as having been in attendance in Trauma Room 1. ( 15 H 761 ) Dr. Crenshaw claimed that the wound he saw was a wound of entry. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/crenshaw-entrance-in-throat.mp4 The HSCA circus In the 1970's the House Select Committee on Assassinations took up the issue of the clean edges of the throat wound. Its Medical Panel gave an opinion that defies every known fact regarding bullet exit wounds. You have to read it for yourself: https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/HSCA_Vol7_95.gif That's right: the President's tie and shirt offered enough resistance to prevent the outward exploding of the tissue of the neck as the bullet exited. But the Medical Panel did not address the FBI's spectrographic tests of the holes in President's shirt and tie which showed that no excess copper was in those locations and no copper was found that "could be attributed to projectile fragments." ( 20 H 22 ) If the shirt and tie were sufficient to shore, buttress or reinforce the skin ( as the Medical Panel said ), there should have been traces of the copper jacket of CE 399 left on the shirt and tie. There were none. Conclusion Dr. Perry correctly identified the throat wound as an entrance wound on the afternoon of the assassination. The transcript of the press conference released by the ARRB proves that both Dr. Perry and the Commission lied about his response to questions. There were no hypotehtical questions about the throat wound and Dr. Perry was not expressing possibilites. The questions were direct and his answers were direct. For that very public opinion, he was repeatedly harrasssed by the authorities at Bethesda and the Secret Service to the extent that his participation in any subsequent press conferences were, by his choice, minimal. He was convinced to change his opinion that he didn't get a good look at the throat wound and it could have either been a wound of entry or exit. He was deposed and went on the record testifying under oath to something he knew was not true. As a result, he was forced to repeat it time and time again over the years. When you lie about something under oath, you own it. You can't go back and change it because you're admitting you lied and regardless of the reason, you're under the penalties of perjury. Those who were behind Perry's backpedalling didn't realize that while you can change someone's mind about their opinion, you can't change their description of what they saw. And there lies the truth. Dr. Perry's original opinon that the throat wound was an entrance wound was buttressed by the medical professionals who saw the wound before the tracheostomy and gave descriptions consistent with an entrance wound. Dr. Perry told Harold Weisberg that the edges of the wound were bruised, consistent with the abrasion ring made by an entering bullet. He told Dr. Donald Miller that the wound, "was an entrance wound, definitely an entrance wound." It becomes obvious that Dr. Perry DID examine the wound before he made the tracheostomy incision, that he had a clear indication of whether the wound was one of entrance or exit and that he based his opinion on the evidence he saw. It also becomes evident that since he made his opinion public he was badgered into changing that opinion and lying under oath. And it bothered him to do that to the extent that he refused to talk about the wound except in rare occasions. At some point, Dr. Perry had to realize that he, like many of the witnesses in this case, was a victim of a coverup. Like Seymour Weizman and other witnesses who surrendered the truth to the lie, his descent was into a darkness that would cling to him for the rest of his life.

I believe that the shooters in Dealey Plaza were members of the DRE in Dallas. There's a connection between the DRE and North Texas State University and a connection between North Texas State University and Warren Caster, the man who brought the rifles into the TSBD two days before the assassination. If you remember, it was the DRE that Oswald was trying to infiltrate when he approached the New Orleans branch's secretary, Carlos Bringuier, and offered to train exiles. I believe two members of that 4-man Cuban hit team that was headed for Chicago were captured and later released. The other two evaded capture. I wouldn't be surprised if the two that got away were the same two who dumped a drunken Rose Cherami on a Louisiana road. But I can't prove it. I also believe that Off. Baker encountered a man on the 3rd or 4th floor landing in "a light brown jacket" that Roy Truly vouched for as an employee. Baker's original affidavit said exactly that ( https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337201/ ). Truly had the power to allow gunmen to escape the building just by vouching for them. And according to William Manchester in The Death of a President, Roy Truly "violently disapproved of the Kennedy Presidency" ( pg. 447 ). There are some characters here that the FBI should have taken a closer look at and I'm sure that they would have in a normal investigation. But this was an investigation to gather evidence against OSWALD, not neccessarily to find the truth.

I would add to that: Plan to end Vietnam commitment. Test Ban Treaty Wheat sale to Russia Ending Cold War Promise not to invade Cuba

I've never heard of a bullet reversing itself and falling UPWARDS out of a wound. Maybe because it's impossible. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Connally-doc_bullet-still-in-thigh.mp4

No, before the limo was shipped to Hess & Eisenhardt in Cincinnati, it was flown to Detroit. The witness was George Whittaker of the Ford Motor Company. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/weldon_whittaker.mp4

No amount of turning is going to put an impact mark on the windshield on the right.

When you put the windshields side-by-side, you can see the difference in the damage. I'm sorry, but these are NOT the same windshields.