Michael Clark

On 1/24/2017 at 11:07 AM, John Butler said:

Reading the wrong books?  May be so.  The book is question is:

The Murder of Marilyn Monroe: Case Closed by Jay Margolis  and Richard Buskin.

Monroe claimed she “had been passed around like a piece of meat” by the two brothers.

Bobby Kennedy was no different from his brother.  Internet trash indicates that one of Bobby Kennedy’s lovers was Jackie Kennedy.  It states that at one time the 3 Kennedy brothers were sharing (or, passing around like a piece of meat) Jackie Kennedy mainly at her instigation.  The passing around of Marilyn Monroe as “a piece of meat” seems to have been a family trait. 

Mrs. William Harvey said the Kennedys were scum and they were the worst people.  She did not specify.  Maybe, she was talking about something like that.

If secrets like this were exposed then that would have permanently destroyed the political careers of Bobby Kennedy and Jack Kennedy and, maybe even Ted Kennedy.

I would think that If these things were true, it would have been used to control the Them and they would not have had to be killed. This is not to say that they were clean, only that they didn't have enough to control the Kennedys without murdering them. These accusations look more like an expos-facto, manufactured justifications and a means to keep those so influenced from looking for both the real answers and justice.

3 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

26) The entire Mexico City farce was planned by Guy Banister. Guy Banister knew very well that the paltry resumé of LHO as an FPCC officer would be laughed out of the consulates and Embassies of Mexico City

Do you think this could have been done without David Attlee Phillips being privy to the Mexico plan? I'll read up on that point but it seems unlikely from what I think I know. I think Howard Hunt would have to have known as well, but I will do some re-reading on that as well.

And Paul wrote:

"(28) Why not just wait for the JFK Information Act in October, 2017 and take a rest?  Because, I believe it will be too much of a shock for many Americans to read the truth, unless they are prepared for it."

The problem with waiting is that "The Great Conspracy-Theorist Purge" may come soon, and the records left sealed. It is a race to figure it out before that happens. 

On 1/24/2017 at 10:17 AM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Lance,

I think you just made a big mistake by admitting your family ties to United Fruit. That company is one of the long cherished "bogeymen" in the eyes of many theorists. You may have just gone from researcher to suspect.

It's more of a symbolic than a specific culprit, although UFC has the convenience of tying-in the Dulles Brothers and John Cabot Lodge, who's fingerprints are often claimed to be detected on some of the evidence.

I've also come to think that Francis Ford Coppola is trying to tell us the samething with the oranges that seem to appear in many scenes, especially in the one where Michael is sucking on a half-peeled orange when he is insisting that even the president can be hit if they decided to do it.

Traditionally, the New Orleans mob's main racket was in the fruit business, so that is a convenient place to see a culprit.

Again, and not just to be sensitive to Lance and his families deep ties to death, destruction, and desire for world domination , I note that the UFC angle is largely notional, but it has the Guatemala Coup as a handy reference point.

Mike

Lance Payette wrote:

"The problem being, so many people and groups would have been delighted to see JFK dead that you can (and others have) construct about ten different "plots," each with some level of believability and its own motivation and cast of characters.  What one believes the plot was is inevitably going to determine when one thinks the plot began to unfold - and then we're off to the races.  In the real world, conspiracies inevitably rely on the absolute minimum of participants, the absolute minimum of opportunities for things to unravel.  That would be my starting premise with JFK. "

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

I wrote this in another thread. It it is quite the opposite of Lance's suggested requirements in that it indicts pretty much everyone. Including lover's of peanut-butter-and-banana sandwiches.....

".......I have not yet reached a conclusion. Most recently, however, one realization has led me to see it as an "Organic" (if I may) conspiracy.

That realization came from finally having an answer to a question that I have had for a long time. The question was "why weren't  the Kennedy's more vocal about the the facts surrounding the assassination?" The quick and easy answer is that there was too much dirt on them that would be exposed. Stretch that out a bit, or a lot, a whole lot, and I am seeing that the whole mess of them are really all gangsters. If you cut into someone else's racket, you get whacked. So, RFK, Teddy, Jackie and their throng all understood that it was all just the way things work in the world that they lived in. I think of The Godfather somewhat when it is repeated that it is just "business". They all just move on.

JFK didn't really accept that, and believed that the world could be made better, more fair, and more just. That threatened a lot of rackets. Wars and the businesses that wars support were threatened. Corporate slavery in the Bananna Republics and business prospects in non-aligned nations were potential sources for vast wealth. 

It all just became an organic movement and a decision that the body was not really interested in having a good heart. Hearts are replaceable in such an organism, I guess.

This realization makes me reflect on the Civil War. Forigive me if I skip the attempt at making the relationship explicit since it is just a place I wander to in relation to this discussion. I am of the mind that slavery was the reason that the Civil War was fought. It seems to me that Slavery would have ended soon enough in The South, perhaps 20 years? I am starting to think that the hate and ugliness that Slavery represents, perhaps persist longer than it would have, and runs deeper than it might have, if the war were delayed, or separation was accepted; and we may have come back together again soon enough, in peace.

JFK's vision was radical, and a lot of people felt threatened. The body seems to have rejected it's own benevolent heart transplant on its own. Without truth and reconciliation, the pain and ugliness and the death and fear, that still rolls in the wake of that experience will continue."

"George Bush and the Secret Service were registered at the Dallas Sheraton Hotel (400 Ri8-6200) on November 21-22, 1963. (20)

Possibly more significant is that is where on November 21,1963 the White House Security Agency (WHSA) set up a radio communications center and secure trunk lines that the president, Secret Service and other security personnel used when the president was in town."

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-southland-center-revisted-w-new.html?m=1

As I mentioned earlier, Ruby and George Senator went to a cafe called the  Southland Hotel cafe in the pre dawn hours of 11-23-63. Earlier in this thread, Jack White says that it needs to be sorted out where that cafe was.

If I were a cop I would assume a couple things.

-Other cops are going to be right behind me, so the the front door will be covered in short order.

-The bad guy is not going to be headed towards the front door.

-The bad guy is going to be leaving from the rear or side, if he is leaving.

-I am going to have to knock people around, pretty severely, to get through that mess of  People.

I believe it started  with the Nixon - Kennedy debate. Kennedy warned of forces that wanted to enslave half of the world in the manner that United Fruit Company overthrew the elected Guatemala government, and enslaved it's people. Kennedy saw this as the model that was to be perpetuated throughout Latin Anerica, Africa, Asia and who knows where it would stop, if it would stop. If the takeover was not possible than a continuous war would suffice to enrich the MICC, and also act as a form if population control.

So I place it at that debate and certain events thereafter solidified the determination of the conspirators.

I hate say what I am going to say because I get pegged as a Trump supporter, which I am not. That said....... IMHO.......

-There is a lot of potential for Trump since he is essentially unaligned. Some of his views and actions jibe with the right, but he is not a right-winger

-He appears to be clean. I don't know how a guy like Trump can do what he has done in NY, and NYC, and not be tied-up with the mob, run afoul with labor and not generally be embroiled in serious scandal. I don't even see him being pegged by truthers as having a hand in, or benefiting from, 9-11.

-I'm kind of repeating here, or summarizing, but he does not appear to be owned, by anyone.

-Referencing the Healthy scepticism of Intelligence services thread... It seems, in that thread, that there is no healthy skepticism of intelligence services. There is only scepticism of Trump. Suddenly intelligence services have become the victim of Trump. That obviously has much to do with the election scandal, but who knows how that truly played-out.

-I think trump wants to be a hero. He may know how to do that. We'll have to see.

-Once Trump has made a show of repudiating the Obama Administration, and satisfying the true, far and alt-right, we may see some things happen that we never dreamed. Maybe he will shed light on the JFK assassination, the nefarious intelligence activities of the previous 3 or 4 decades, or, (if your a truther) 9-11.

Perhaps I am optimistic out of desperation. If so then God help us!

Cheers, Mike

Old thread but I saw a correction that should be made...

Ted Kennedy's plane crash was also survived by Birch and Marvella Bayh. Birch was US Senator from Indiana.

Kathleen Kennedy (sister of JFK) also died in a plane crash, in 1948

I define Facism as Party-rule. Where there really is no other party. Soviet and Chinese Communism were basically Facism. At least it always looked the same to me. The economics from Nazi Facism were different but it was still Party-Rule.

Cheers, Mike

23 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Michael,

I completely understand and appreciate your approach -- that the important things are not the details of the assassination and cover-up, but rather who the perpetrators were and what their motive was.

.....................

Sorry for rambling on.

Not at all, thanks for the reply. I have not yet reached a conclusion. Most recently, however, one realization has led me to see it as an "Organic" (if I may) conspiracy.

That realization came from finally having an answer to a question that I have had for a long time. The question was "why weren't  the Kennedy's more vocal about the the facts surrounding the assassination?" The quick and easy answer is that there was too much dirt on them that would be exposed. Stretch that out a bit, or a lot, a whole lot, and I am seeing that the whole mess of them are really all gangsters. If you cut into someone else's racket, you get whacked. So, RFK, Teddy, Jackie and their throng all understood that it was all just the way things work in the world that they lived in. I think of The Godfather somewhat when it is repeated that it is just "business". They all just move on.

JFK didn't really accept that, and believed that the world could be made better, more fair, and more just. That threatened a lot of rackets. Wars and the businesses that wars support were threatened. Corporate slavery in the Bananna Republics and business prospects in non-aligned nations were potential sources for vast wealth. 

It all just became an organic movement and a decision that the body was not really interested in having a good heart. Hearts are replaceable in such an organism, I guess.

This realization makes me reflect on the Civil War. Forigive me if I skip the attempt at making the relationship explicit since it is just a place I wander to in relation to this discussion. I am of the mind that slavery was the reason that the Civil War was fought. It seems to me that Slavery would have ended soon enough in The South, perhaps 20 years? I am starting to think that the hate and ugliness that Slavery represents, perhaps persist longer than it would have, and runs deeper than it might have, if the war were delayed, or separation was accepted; and we may have come back together again soon enough, in peace.

JFK's vision was radical, and a lot of people felt threatened. The body seems to have rejected it's own benevolent heart transplant on its own. Without truth and reconciliation, the pain and ugliness and the death and fear, that still rolls in the wake of that experience will continue. 

Cheers, Mike

8 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

You have to wonder who was in that crowd. How could any serious person cheer when he starts bragging during such a serious event and in these dangerous times?

I saw a lot of sweaty heads. The adulation recalled, for me, Saddam Hussein's purge of Parliament video.

Than

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Michael Clark,

There were far too many witnesses to the back-of-head gaping wound to deny its existence. Roughly twenty medical professionals at Parkland hospital testified to it. See Dr. Aguilar's List of head wound witnesses if you want confirmation or more information.

Clearly the back-of-head wound was edited out of the Zapruder film. Removing such a wound would have been a trivial matter. Enlarge the affected frames, darken the BOH wound, and draw in "the blob" that is supposed to be the real wound on the side of the head. Then photograph the enlargements onto 8 mm film and replace the old frames with the new.

This is not a big deal. I've watched a photographer remove acne scars with a pencil, directly on the negative without enlargement.

If you -- like Michael Walton -- believe the Z film was not altered, then you must necessarily also believe that twenty medical professionals merely imagined the BOH wound. Even the doctor who held Kennedy's head and was able to look down into the wound. And who saw cerebellar material oozing out.

Regarding the neck wound, again you have to ignore many medical witnesses at Parkland who saw the wound, if you don't believe it existed. Even the autopsists at Bethesda were aware of the wound at the autopsy, though they denied it. (They said they learned about it the following morning.) I had a thread on this topic and was able to make a long list of witnesses who said the wound was known about at the autopsy.

You should read some of Robert Prudhomme's threads about frangible bullets if you are wondering what happened to some of the bullets, like the one that his the back and then seemingly disappeared. He and I have participated in a number of threads that discuss the different bullet wounds and how they can be explained.

This gif made by Ashton Gray pretty much proves that the neck wound was behind the collar knot, not above it:

 

Somehow a projectile went through the shirt behind the tie, but not through the tie itself.

Robert and I independently came up with pretty much the same hypothesis that explains how that wound was made. Both are based to a large extent on the testimony of Lt. Richard Lipsey, who was a witness at the autopsy. But others' testimonies support our theories as well.

A bullet from behind tangentially hit the skull near the external occipital protuberance (EOP). It penetrated the scalp, but not the bone. Instead it tunneled between the scalp and bone, and skidded down into the neck. (This tunneling was testified to by the doctors, but was taken off the record.)

For this to happened, I believe the bullet must have fragmented into two or more pieces upon impact. Each piece would then be carrying less kinetic energy and thus be less likely to break the bone.

The fragments went down the neck. (Some of these fragments were seen by one of the techs on the neck x-ray. I forget which.)

This is where my and Robert's theories differ. In my version, one of the fragments hits the transverse process of one of the vertebrae. (This damage is seen in the chest x-ray). This splinters off a piece of bone, and this splinter exits the front of the throat. It tears through the shirt and hits the back of the tie, nicking it there. It has little kinetic energy left at this point... all it does is pull the tie away from the body and then stops.

Another of the bullet fragments continues down and bruises the apex of the lung. (This wound was testified to.)

In Robert's version, a special frangible bullet is used, one that has a plastic piece at its tip. It is this plastic piece that exits the front of Kennedy's throat.

One day I plan on formally presenting this theory, complete with diagrams showing the bullet trajectory. As of now it is scattered among a number of threads related to the throat wound. Because I was developing the theory during our many discussions.

 

Thanks Sandy,

Naturally, for many years I thought I was seeing the real head shot in Zapruder. Since  a few months ago I know know that that is doubted and disputed by many. I am sure you will allow my complete doubt about everything at this point.

Regarding your comments on the neck wound. I assume you are saying that the Bethesda doctors were aware of the neck wound, apart from the tracheotomy incision.

The rear head blowout. I may be confused but it seems that many people see that wound in Zapruder. I don't. It's crazy, but it almost seems like we all end up looking at different videos even when we click on the same link. People comment that they see things that I just don't see. It's bizarre, and I have perfect vision.

I have other questions, but I'll just put them away and read, and sort things out as best I can. The trouble is that there is just such an enormous amount that has been written about it all. It's unwieldy.

In general, for me, it all really doesn't matter. Their was a conspiracy. Oswald didn't do it. And the important, identifiable participants are higher up. Dealing with bullets and Windows and shodowy figures on stoops are not going to identify the major players, uncover the cover-up, reform the misinformers, enlighten the blind, encourage the fearful or raise the dead.

Again, thanks for your reply 

Michael

33 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Mark,

So, what is your conclusion?  You don't believe that writers can include autobiographical situations in their works of fiction?   

Or is your conclusion really that you would prefer to believe that David Atlee Phillips was part of a CIA conspiracy to assassinate JFK, and you won't consider any other alternatives?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

I know that you did not address me, but I'll chime in.

You are posing an equivalence, and you pose it is a necessary equivalence. The first part is ridiculous because it's truth is a law of logic to bolster your argument.

Of course it is POSSIBLE that autobiographical situation CAN be imbedded in works of fiction.

It does not follow that DAP was part of any illegal domestic conspiracy.

It is also possible, and probable in most any case that fictions can and are imbedded in many purportedly factual autobiographies. Everyone is liable to and capable of believing their own BS and personal myth.

1 hour ago, Alistair Briggs said:

Here is an excerpt from Bugliosi's book Four Days In November in regards to that;

"Oswald is suddenly intrigued by Agent Kelley.
"Are you and FBI agent?" he asks.
"No, I'm not," Kelley tells him. "I'm a member of the Secret Service."
"Oh, I see," Oswald says, nodding his head. "When I was standing in front of the Depositry, about to leave, a young crew-cut man rushed up and said he was from the Secret Service, showed me a book of identification, and asked where the phone was."
"Did you show him?" Kelley asks.
"Well, I pointed towards the pay phone in the building," Oswald says, "and he started toward it, and then I left."

On the assumption that the veracity of what was said there was accurate, perhaps Oswald is adding in the bit about 'said he was from the SS, showed me a book of identification' in an attempt to show 'trust' towards Kelley and the SS, like, 'I helped you lot out - I'm a good guy - trust me - help me', an after the fact attempt at a 'quid pro quo'(ish) thing... Just a thought!

The 'official' story is that it was actually reporter Pierce Allman that Oswald had the encounter with. Paul has already highlighted an 'issue' on that count...

*Note, Allman actually said it happened approx. 3 minutes after the shots, not 'within seconds'.

Yes it was 3 weeks later that Allman made the connection between the person he asked where the phone was and it being Oswald. Paul posits that such a delay implies a case of 'mistaken identity'. It could just be that in the heat of the moment, with Allman's thoughts primarily on trying to phone his story in (quicker than other reporters, to get a 'scoop') he did not pay that much attention to who he asked for directions to the phone... and although he saw Oswald's face in the media many times in the days that followed he just never made the link until it was pointed out to him that Oswald, in interrogation, had claimed that when he was leaving the TSBD someone asked for directions to the phone - at which point Allman made the connection and came to the conclusion that it was Oswald he had encountered.

*All of this does tie in quite nicely with the thinking that Oswald left the TSBD approx. 3 minutes after the time of the shots. Alas, it is not overly helping in working out where Oswald had been in the minutes before, and as such doesn't rule him out as being 'Prayer Man' and it doesn't rule him out as being the '6th floor shooter', and it doesn't rule him out from being anywhere else in the building at the time.

Happy to hear your thoughts on this Michael.

Regards

Thanks for all that Allistair. I have to hand it you you and folks like you who are willing to sort this thing out, down to the second, after so many years. My mind just doesn't work that way, I lack the imagination that it can be sorted out to such a minute level after so long.

14 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said:

Michael, sorry, I did mean to respond to this when I first saw it, apologies if you thought it had been unseen...

... just wanted to say that I like your thinking there - I had never thought of it that way before, a proverbial 'get out of jail card' - an interesting thought.

Regards

Thanks for the reply Allistair... 

I noticed a mistake I made when Paul Replied. Ozzie directed a reporter to the phone, not a cop.

Cheers, Mike

50 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Yes Michael Clark, Ruby was usually placed at the Dallas PD at that time.

This Harry Olsen character seemed like he was lying his head off during his WC testimony.

Couldn't remember names of people he was personally interacting with during the JFK event time period just months later? 

And much too close to Ruby.

 

When I try to map-locate the Carousel Lounge, I get 2 locations, for some reason. Going with the Carousel location near the corner of Field St. and Commerce St., the garage is just behind the Carousel at Field St. and Jackson St. This Jibes with what I recollect to be the testimony of George Senator and Larry Crafard.

In my readings, I have focused in on the goings-on at the Carousel between Friday Morning and Saturday at around Noon. The Cast of characters are, Crafard, Ruby, Senator, Armstrong, perhaps the guy in the garage, and an anonymous girl who calls in to the club, asking about a job on Friday night at around 11PM.

I am not sure, as yet, how to bring a patient reader around to seeing what I am, and I am not really prepared yet, to try. In the context of this thread, however, I'll say (tentatively) that Ruby's presence at the Friday night press conference was manufactured, with some video that could have been taped during quite a few other opportunities. This was done to hide his presence, elsewhere; some of that time being at the garage. Long (and as yet incomplete) story short, at 3 AM, Ruby, Senator and Crafard, make the strange picture taking trip around town, and get home at around daylight. Crafard later wakes-up, quits his job, and hitch hikes to a remote farmhouse in Michigan. Senator can't recall what he did until 8PM on Saturday. 

There are other strange details, or lies. Something very nefarious happned that night, between the Carousel, (incidentally with a phone busy for 4 hours), the garage, and Crafard's trip to Michigan, possibly with Senator giving him a head-start with a drive out of town. 

I am curious if the WC noted and tried to resolve the conflict of Ruby's presence on Friday at Midnight.

Cheers, Mike

Bumping because it is interesting, and because it references another thread that I just posted to.

The original thread is in the JFK online seminars forum.

The testimony above, places Ruby at the Jackson and Field St. garage at midnight Friday, 12-22. Ruby is usually placed at the DPD at that time, using camera footage as evidence.

The timeline that opened this thread is gone or is just not appearing on my device. 

BK's October 27th post with timeline is missing most of October and all of November of 1963.

Here is an interesting thread with some info. The WC testimony of officer Harry Olson places him at the Jackson at Field st. garage (behind the Carousel?). Olson says that he is at that garage at midnight on 11-22-63, with Jack Ruby. Ruby is usually placed at the police station at that time.

Mr SPECTER. What was the purpose of going to a garage at Jackson and Field?

Mr OLSEN. We knew the man who worked there.

Mr SPECTER. What was his name?

Mr OLSEN. Johnny is all I know him by.

Mr SPECTER. What sort of work did he do at that garage?

Mr OLSEN. He was an attendant.

Mr SPECTER. Why did you want to go see him?

Mr OLSEN. To talk.

Mr SPECTER. For any special purpose?

Mr OLSEN. No, sir.

Mr SPECTER. Do you recollect about what time you arrived at that garage?

Mr OLSEN. Oh, 12, approximately.

Mr SPECTER. Did you see Johnny when you were there?

Mr OLSEN. Yes, sir.

Mr SPECTER. Did you see anybody else while you were at that garage?

Mr OLSEN. Yes, sir.

Mr SPECTER. Who else did you see?

Mr OLSEN. Jack Ruby

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/3497-dpd-officer-harry-olsen/

Cheers, Mike

And George, how can we accept any analysis based on Zapruder if we know or believe that it has been altered?

Cheers, Mike

George, I know that the Tague injury is often considered a ricochet, but if all things are open to speculation and analysis, given how many things are deemed altered or tampered with, I find it dufficult to let go of the idea that the bullet that hit the curb and injured Teague was actually a direct miss. I'll speculate that the curb bullet had too much residual energy to chip the curb, as it did, if it was a ricochet. If it was a Dal Tex bullet, it need not have been a ricochet to have hit where it did. If it was I ricochet, it would be remarkably unlikely to have, by chance, maintained an elevation that remained consistent with that of a bullet coming from the Dal Tex building and passing through JFK's approximate location. I don't know if that is clear, but I am essentially saying that a ricochet, upon hitting its deflector is a hare's breath from being stopped or deflected in any direction. To maintain any plane on its intended trajectory would seem to be a miracle.

I have seen very little analysis regarding a Dal Tex shooter so I necessarily have little to go on. I did see one analysis that shows a direct line of fire from Dal Tex, through JFK's approximate location to the curb.

To be sure, I am not arguing for anything. I am just indicating, more or less, what I haven't been able to take off the table.

I find it unfortunate that Ashton Gray strayed from his initial "no neck shot" assertion to the conjecture that someone created the small neck wound. That could have been left for a separate argument.

Cheers, Mike

I just looked into the density of some metals, and I am very surprised at how dense mercury is.

Mercury: 13.69 per cubic cm

lead:        11.34 "

Coppeer:  8.96 "

iron:          7.87 "

James Files claim of the use of a mercury round in the JFK head shot makes a lot of sense, even if his claim to being the shooter is bogus. His claim to have made mercury rounds seemed suspect to me because it would seem that one would want a carefully engineered round for such an operation. You would want a mercury round designed to have a jacket with minimal materials, such that it would deliver the round to the target, yet be obliterated on impact. 

To be sure, I am not supporting the story of James Files. He could, however, have specific knowledge, from who knows who, as to where the grassy knoll shooter was situated, and what kind of round was used.

I think the right temple shot just fragmented, with no exit. Or as James Files claimed, a Mercury round that imparted tremendous force and dissipated. Or, as Oliver Stone-Jim Garrison claimed, a sabot round that was small but very high speed caused the explosive force.

I am a hunter and am very impressed with what sabot rounds can do, both in power and accuracy, in both my muzzleloader and my rifled 12 gauge.

My take is constantly changing. I don't believe the SBT. I think Jim Tagues injury proves a Dal Tex shooter, it lines-up well. Very little interest is paid to the Dal Tex shooter and the building itself. Ashton Gray eliminates a throat shot which, like I said, resolves the problem I had with the overpass shooter, a neck shot would have passed straight through. Regardless of the ejecta from the front of JFKs head (front right) I can still accept a grassy knoll-stockade fence shot to JFK's head. I also see both JFK and Conally react simultaneously as soon as they come out from behind this sign, but that could still be two shots.

thats kind of where I am at. I don't really accept a neck wound in Dealy plaza so I have to accept a lying Doctor and Nurse who claim to have seen it; then they did the tracheotomy.

I never talk about this much because it seems irresolvable to me, but all the people at Parkland see a massive rear head wound that I just don't see on Zapruder. All I see in Zapruder is front right head damage. Others, here, YouTube etc. seem to say that they see a rear head blow out that I don't see.

Understood Michael. His theory resonated with me because I just can't see how anyone could get a shot off from the front, into JFK's neck. I never had an answer for that unless everyone on the overpass was a conspirator, and none were caught.  I have always thought that the Zapruder film was correct but there is so much doubt that I don't know what to think of the film.

Cheers, Mike

deleted. Duplicate