The JFK "Head Shot" Paradox

[Craig Lamson]

Kathy,

Giving this matter more thought during lunch, I would bet that Rollie

has been trading upon an equivocation.

D E S P E R A T I O N

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Robert,

As I understand you, the HSCA back-of-the-head photo (showing the flap of skull around his right ear but not any

damage to the back of his head) is "good as gold" and you believe the story told by Boswell, right? So what do

you say to the Harper fragment, the missing mass in frame 374, the reports by the Parkland physicians, and all

that? I of course agree that there were two head shots, which you would know if you had simply read through my

piece at http://www.und.edu/instruct/jfkconference/UNDchapter30.pdf . If you were right, then why did Jackie testify to the commission

that, from the front, he had looked just fine, but that she had had a terrible time trying to hold his skull and brains

together at the back of his head, which would not have been true if you are right? And, if you are right, then why

did the physicians at Parkland report the massive defect at the back of the head but not shattered cranium at the

right-front, as none of them did? Here's frame 337, http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z337.jpg where you can see what

may be the skull flap above his ear or the "blob", but there is nothing at the base of the back of his neck except

his collar. (When you compare it with frame 374, it is apparent that, in 337, too, the defect has been painted over

in black.) The idea that you would accept Boswell's "explanation" simply dumbfounds me. I truly had not thought

anyone on this forum was that gullible. So tell me how you account for the kinds of evidence I have cited in the

several posts I have provided replying to Pat Speer. I will be interested in how you make your case. (And don't

overlook the diagrams and other evidence that I present in the pages I have cited in those prior posts.) We know

there was that skull flap above the right ear. But that was not the blow-out to the back of his head. I worry that

you and he seem to be "picking and choosing" the evidence you cite but not considering it in its totality. Thanks.

Jim

Bob,

Thanks for filling me in on your take on the medical evidence. Until now, I had not realized that anyone still took the second photo in your study seriously, given the extensive and detailed reports by highly qualified physicians at Parkland Hospital that there was cerebellar as well as cerebral tissue extruding from the wound. You really should go back and read--if you have ever read!--the same sources I recommended to Pat. This is simply stunning. Tomas Evan Robinson, in case you have heard of him, give a summary of the wounds to Joe West, which is also included in my presentation, DEALEY PLAZA REVISITED: WHAT HAPPENED TO JFK?, http://www.und.edu/org/jfkconference/UNDchapter30.pdf So if you are agreeing with Pat about the McClelland diagram, then you are also disregarding the Crenshaw diagram on page 357 (which he most certainly did not "disavow"), the visual depictions of the location of the wound on page 358, Mantik's study of the lateral cranial X-ray on page 359, the visible damage to the back of the head in frame 374 and the Parkland physicians' reports on the same page, and Robert Livingston's conclusion about the brain in diagrams and photographs at the National Archives on page 360. The summary of the observations by the mortician who prepared the body for burial observations is on page 363, including that, in addition to a large gaping hole in the back of the head, there was a small wound in the right temple, and a wound on the back, 5 to 6 inches below the shoulder to the right of the spinal column. But he also mentions the bone flap that you and others do not seem to understand which was indeed present and is accurately diagrammed in the photo you like so much (where the hole in the back of his head has so obviously been covered up, just as it has in those early frames of the Zapruder, which the Hollywood experts have reported was painted over in black), which apparently was sprung out when the frangible (or exploding) bullet entered his right temple. So I trust you understand that, for your interpretation to be correct, you have to disavow or "explain away" all of the evidence I have just cited. Could you tell me where you have done that, starting with the multiple and consistent reports from the Parkland physicians? I think you need to go back to the drawing board and reconsider your position. In addition to Aguilar's chapter in MURDER, here is something else for you to consider, where he and Kathy Cunningham clearly explain the mistakes that others like you and Pat have made in the past and--to my utter astonishment!--continue to make to this day.

HOW FIVE INVESTIGATIONS INTO JFK’S MEDICAL/AUTOPSY EVIDENCE GOT IT WRONG

Gary L. Aguilar, MD and Kathy Cunningham (May 2003)

http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_tabfig.htm

The shot at 312-313 came from the rear and there was no "paradox". The head was immediately blown forward as is crystal clear in the Zapruder film and fragments of metal and bone were blown forward, striking and causing minor damage to the windshield. No other shot that day is consistent with that damage.

The second headshot was fired a small fraction of a second later, from the front and caused massive damage to the upper rear of the BOH. It is easily seen in frames following 330.

Drs. Mantik, Riley, and Robertson each went to the archives and studied the Xrays. Their conclusion was unanimous, that there were two shots which struck head - one from the rear and one from the front.

The reason that the BOH damage was not seen in some of the autopsy photos was explained by Dr. Thornton Boswell in his testimony before the ARRB. A large piece of skull was blown out and to the rear, which remained attached to the scalp. By simply flipping the scalp and bone back into place, the damage was covered over. Dr. Boswell's hand can be seen, holding the scalp in place to prevent it from falling back and uncovering the damage. This is all explained in the following article.

http://jfkhistory.com/LastShot2/BOHDamage.html

This video also explains the BOH damage, but more visually.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65inNE7dCUE

I'm not sure I understand your position here. Are you disputing my argument that there were two headshots?

Are you suggesting that frame 337 is not an accurate depiction?

The whitish object seen at app. the base of his neck in frames during the 370's is undoubtedly, skull bone. If you read my article, you know that the ugly protrusion seen in the 330's was made up of a large piece of skull that flipped to the rear, taking hair and scalp with it, which wrapped itself over part of the inner surface of that skullpiece.

At 337, the inner surface of that bone was facing upward and outward. It makes sense that that same piece of skull flipped to the rear again, leaving it's inner surface turned inward. Its outer surface or part of its outer surface is what we see in the 370's. Its location is at exactly where we would expect it to be if that explanation is correct.

Edited November 19, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

If you were right, then why did Jackie testify to the commission

that, from the front, he had looked just fine, but that she had had a terrible time trying to hold his skull and brains

together at the back of his head, which would not have been true if you are right?

I always loved this one, when used like you just used it.

So when Jackie said "front" exactly what did she mean? Did she mean viewing JFK directly from the front? Or did she mean the "front" as in viewed from the left side of his head....which is how she was positioned? In turn, does that make the "back", the back viewed from directly in front of JFK, or would it be the part of his head over his right ear, which would be the "back" as she was positioned?

Inquiring minds really want to know Dr. Fetzer.

Edited November 20, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Pat Speer]

If you were right, then why did Jackie testify to the commission

that, from the front, he had looked just fine, but that she had had a terrible time trying to hold his skull and brains

together at the back of his head, which would not have been true if you are right?

I always loved this one, when used like you just used it.

So when Jackie said "front" exactly what did she mean? Did she mean viewing JFK directly from the front? Or did she mean the "front" as in viewed from the left side of his head....which is how she was positioned? In turn, does that make the "back", the back viewed from directly in front of JFK, or would it be the part of his head over his right ear, which would be the "back" as she was positioned?

Inquiring minds really want to know Dr. Fetzer.

Surprise surprise. This is one of those areas, Craig, on which we actually agree. Like most CTs, I accepted the "Jackie said the wound was on the back of the head" factoid, until I created my database of witness statements, and studied what she actually said.

From chapter 18c at patspeer.com;

Let's remember the words of Mrs. Kennedy. While many have used her statement "from the front there was nothing" as evidence the bullet erupted from the back of her husband’s skull, they largely ignore the context of her statements. When describing the fatal shot, she told the Warren Commission “just as I turned to look at him, I could see a piece of his skull, sort of wedge-shaped like that, and I remember it was flesh colored.” (The words "sort of wedge-shaped like that" were in the court reporter's transcript but never published. They are presumably a reference to the bone flap visible in the right lateral autopsy photos.) She then described cradling her husband in her arms, and getting a closer look at the wound. She said: “from the front there was nothing. I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on.” Her words do not describe the wound's exact location, and suggest merely that the gaping wound on President Kennedy's head did not extend as far as his face. They do not detail an exit on the back of his head, as mistakenly purported by Dr. James Fetzer in his January 12, 2010 radio interview of Doug Horne, in which he claimed she had testified that "she had a terrible time holding the back of his head and skull together", an assertion, by the way, to which Horne readily agreed. Still, one might wonder about the exact location of this wound.

Fortunately, only a week after the assassination, in a conversation with historian Theodore White, Mrs. Kennedy was far more descriptive. According to White's published notes, she said: “I could see a piece of his skull coming off…this perfectly clean piece detaching itself from his head; then he slumped in my lap.” This would seem to be a reference to the detachment of skull seen in frame 314 of the Zapruder film, and can be taken as an indication of the film's legitimacy.

But that's not all she had to say. For his 2007 book Brothers journalist David Talbot located and read the rest of White's notes and discovered that Mrs. Kennedy made several additional references to her husband's wounds. According to these notes, while describing the immediate aftermath of the shots, she said: "All the ride to the hospital, I kept bending over him saying, 'Jack, Jack, can you hear me, I love you, Jack.' I kept holding the top of his head down trying to keep the..." These notes further detail that when discussing her husband's condition at the hospital, Mrs. Kennedy said "From here down"--and here she made a gesture indicating her husband's forehead--"his head was so beautiful. I'd tried to hold the top of his head down, maybe I could keep it in...I knew he was dead." Thus, according to White, she said "top" and not "back" not once but twice...

That the descriptions of Kennedy’s head wound by the First Lady and the earliest descriptions of the wound and/or impact location by Newman and Zapruder and so many others match the wound seen in the Zapruder film, autopsy photos, and X-rays leads me to suspect that the large head wound observed at Parkland was on the top of Kennedy's skull in front of his ear, and not on the back of his head as suggested by the Parkland witnesses.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

So you are taking the word of an historian over the detailed and specific reports of the physicians

at Parkland who actually observed the wound? That you would dismiss their report is shocking. That

Gary Aguilar, M.D., has collated the descriptions of the back of the head wound, but you discount his

work, too, similarly tells me you are using the method of selection and elimination, selecting the data

that conforms to a predetermined point of view and eliminating the rest. That is very bad, Pat, since

it means you are violating a basic principle of scientific reasoning, the requirement of total evidence,

which asserts that scientific reasoning must be based upon all of the available, relevant evidence.

When he had his earlier television program, "Jesse Ventura's America", on msnbc, he did a segment on

JFK that featured Beverly Oliver, Aubrey Rike, and me. Beverly explained how she had seen his brains

blown out the back of his head. Aubrey explained that, when he helped life the body into the coffin,

his hands could feel the massive blow-out at the back of his head And I explained how the X-rays had

been altered to conceal the blow-out at the back of the head, which, of course, we can actually see in

frames like 374, where you want to distort even the observable evidence! I am sorry, Pat, but you are

a massive disappointment to me. Disregarding and dismissing relevant evidence is very unprofessional.

If you were right, then why did Jackie testify to the commission

that, from the front, he had looked just fine, but that she had had a terrible time trying to hold his skull and brains

together at the back of his head, which would not have been true if you are right?

I always loved this one, when used like you just used it.

So when Jackie said "front" exactly what did she mean? Did she mean viewing JFK directly from the front? Or did she mean the "front" as in viewed from the left side of his head....which is how she was positioned? In turn, does that make the "back", the back viewed from directly in front of JFK, or would it be the part of his head over his right ear, which would be the "back" as she was positioned?

Inquiring minds really want to know Dr. Fetzer.

Surprise surprise. This is one of those areas, Craig, on which we actually agree. Like most CTs, I accepted the "Jackie said the wound was on the back of the head" factoid, until I created my database of witness statements, and studied what she actually said.

From chapter 18c at patspeer.com;

Let's remember the words of Mrs. Kennedy. While many have used her statement "from the front there was nothing" as evidence the bullet erupted from the back of her husband’s skull, they largely ignore the context of her statements. When describing the fatal shot, she told the Warren Commission “just as I turned to look at him, I could see a piece of his skull, sort of wedge-shaped like that, and I remember it was flesh colored.” (The words "sort of wedge-shaped like that" were in the court reporter's transcript but never published. They are presumably a reference to the bone flap visible in the right lateral autopsy photos.) She then described cradling her husband in her arms, and getting a closer look at the wound. She said: “from the front there was nothing. I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on.” Her words do not describe the wound's exact location, and suggest merely that the gaping wound on President Kennedy's head did not extend as far as his face. They do not detail an exit on the back of his head, as mistakenly purported by Dr. James Fetzer in his January 12, 2010 radio interview of Doug Horne, in which he claimed she had testified that "she had a terrible time holding the back of his head and skull together", an assertion, by the way, to which Horne readily agreed. Still, one might wonder about the exact location of this wound.

Fortunately, only a week after the assassination, in a conversation with historian Theodore White, Mrs. Kennedy was far more descriptive. According to White's published notes, she said: “I could see a piece of his skull coming off…this perfectly clean piece detaching itself from his head; then he slumped in my lap.” This would seem to be a reference to the detachment of skull seen in frame 314 of the Zapruder film, and can be taken as an indication of the film's legitimacy.

But that's not all she had to say. For his 2007 book Brothers journalist David Talbot located and read the rest of White's notes and discovered that Mrs. Kennedy made several additional references to her husband's wounds. According to these notes, while describing the immediate aftermath of the shots, she said: "All the ride to the hospital, I kept bending over him saying, 'Jack, Jack, can you hear me, I love you, Jack.' I kept holding the top of his head down trying to keep the..." These notes further detail that when discussing her husband's condition at the hospital, Mrs. Kennedy said "From here down"--and here she made a gesture indicating her husband's forehead--"his head was so beautiful. I'd tried to hold the top of his head down, maybe I could keep it in...I knew he was dead." Thus, according to White, she said "top" and not "back" not once but twice...

That the descriptions of Kennedy’s head wound by the First Lady and the earliest descriptions of the wound and/or impact location by Newman and Zapruder and so many others match the wound seen in the Zapruder film, autopsy photos, and X-rays leads me to suspect that the large head wound observed at Parkland was on the top of Kennedy's skull in front of his ear, and not on the back of his head as suggested by the Parkland witnesses.

Edited November 21, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

So you are taking the word of an historian over the detailed and specific reports of the physicians

at Parkland who actually observed the wound?

Snip the rest...

Nice try at a dodge and direction change Jim. Smells like desperation to me. So you gonna deal directly with your claims about Jackies statement or will you just continue to duck and cover?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

I have discussed Jackie's testimony before, so why would I avoid it now?

What troubles me is that some, like Pat Speer, are picking and choosing

their evidence when it comes to the blow-out at the back of JFK's head,

which has been corroborated by Beverly Oliver, Aubrey Rike, and many

qualified physicians at Parkland, not to mention frame 374 and all that.

Let's see if we can agree on what it was she told the Warren commission.

On the one hand,I have this extract of a crucial part of Jackie's testimony:

"I was trying to hold his hair on. From the front there was nothing --

I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see,

you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on. ....

I could see a piece of his skull sort of wedge-shaped, like that, and

I remember that it was flesh colored with little ridges at the top."

Then I have this link to what is supposed to be her complete testimony:

http://www.awesomestories.com/assets/mrs-kennedys-testimony-to-the-warren-commission

where instead (as the closest approximation to that report) we find this

passage, which appears to have been "tidied up" to excise certain details:

"And just as I turned and looked at him, I could see a piece of his skull

and I remember it was flesh colored. I remember thinking he just looked

as if he had a slight headache. And I just remember seeing that. No blood

or anything."

I have read it several times and don't find the other paragraph there. Am

I missing something? PLUS if the car did not stop, how could Jackie have

climbed out onto the trunk without being pulled off simply as a function

of her mass when it accelerated? I find it very interesting that she does

not recall having done that, yet she had a chunk of Jack's skull and brains

in her hand, which she held to Parkland and gave to Pepper Jenkins, M.D.

So you are taking the word of an historian over the detailed and specific reports of the physicians

at Parkland who actually observed the wound?

Snip the rest...

Nice try at a dodge and direction change Jim. Smells like desperation to me. So you gonna deal directly with your claims about Jackies statement or will you just continue to duck and cover?

Edited November 21, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

I have discussed Jackie's testimony before, so why would I avoid it now?

Thats a very good question, WHY are you avoiding it now?

Lets go backwards and bypass the fetzering....

I always loved this one, when used like you just used it.

So when Jackie said "front" exactly what did she mean? Did she mean viewing JFK directly from the front? Or did she mean the "front" as in viewed from the left side of his head....which is how she was positioned? In turn, does that make the "back", the back viewed from directly in front of JFK, or would it be the part of his head over his right ear, which would be the "back" as she was positioned?

Inquiring minds really want to know Dr. Fetzer.

[Robert Harris]

If you were right, then why did Jackie testify to the commission

that, from the front, he had looked just fine, but that she had had a terrible time trying to hold his skull and brains

together at the back of his head, which would not have been true if you are right?

I always loved this one, when used like you just used it.

So when Jackie said "front" exactly what did she mean? Did she mean viewing JFK directly from the front? Or did she mean the "front" as in viewed from the left side of his head....which is how she was positioned? In turn, does that make the "back", the back viewed from directly in front of JFK, or would it be the part of his head over his right ear, which would be the "back" as she was positioned?

Inquiring minds really want to know Dr. Fetzer.

Surprise surprise. This is one of those areas, Craig, on which we actually agree. Like most CTs, I accepted the "Jackie said the wound was on the back of the head" factoid, until I created my database of witness statements, and studied what she actually said.

From chapter 18c at patspeer.com;

Let's remember the words of Mrs. Kennedy. While many have used her statement "from the front there was nothing" as evidence the bullet erupted from the back of her husband’s skull, they largely ignore the context of her statements. When describing the fatal shot, she told the Warren Commission “just as I turned to look at him, I could see a piece of his skull, sort of wedge-shaped like that, and I remember it was flesh colored.” (The words "sort of wedge-shaped like that" were in the court reporter's transcript but never published. They are presumably a reference to the bone flap visible in the right lateral autopsy photos.) She then described cradling her husband in her arms, and getting a closer look at the wound. She said: “from the front there was nothing. I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on.” Her words do not describe the wound's exact location, and suggest merely that the gaping wound on President Kennedy's head did not extend as far as his face. They do not detail an exit on the back of his head, as mistakenly purported by Dr. James Fetzer in his January 12, 2010 radio interview of Doug Horne, in which he claimed she had testified that "she had a terrible time holding the back of his head and skull together", an assertion, by the way, to which Horne readily agreed. Still, one might wonder about the exact location of this wound.

Fortunately, only a week after the assassination, in a conversation with historian Theodore White, Mrs. Kennedy was far more descriptive. According to White's published notes, she said: “I could see a piece of his skull coming off…this perfectly clean piece detaching itself from his head; then he slumped in my lap.” This would seem to be a reference to the detachment of skull seen in frame 314 of the Zapruder film, and can be taken as an indication of the film's legitimacy.

But that's not all she had to say. For his 2007 book Brothers journalist David Talbot located and read the rest of White's notes and discovered that Mrs. Kennedy made several additional references to her husband's wounds. According to these notes, while describing the immediate aftermath of the shots, she said: "All the ride to the hospital, I kept bending over him saying, 'Jack, Jack, can you hear me, I love you, Jack.' I kept holding the top of his head down trying to keep the..." These notes further detail that when discussing her husband's condition at the hospital, Mrs. Kennedy said "From here down"--and here she made a gesture indicating her husband's forehead--"his head was so beautiful. I'd tried to hold the top of his head down, maybe I could keep it in...I knew he was dead." Thus, according to White, she said "top" and not "back" not once but twice...

That the descriptions of Kennedy’s head wound by the First Lady and the earliest descriptions of the wound and/or impact location by Newman and Zapruder and so many others match the wound seen in the Zapruder film, autopsy photos, and X-rays leads me to suspect that the large head wound observed at Parkland was on the top of Kennedy's skull in front of his ear, and not on the back of his head as suggested by the Parkland witnesses.

I really do feel like I'm listening to a debate at the mad hatter's tea party.

First of all, Jackie could not have seen anything being blown out from JFK's head at 314 because she was looking down and away from her husband from before 312 to about 323.

In all likelihood, it was that piece being blown out that provoked her to rise and reach back across the trunk to retrieve it. But why are we still debating about the existence of massive damage to the BOH, when we can see that damage quite clearly in the Zapruder film? Believe me, it's not going to go away no matter how much you ignore it or Fetzer makes ludicrous claims about it being "painted".

Much more importantly, we know that damage was not inflicted at 313. It did not appear until well after the explosion of the head had completely subsided. Drs. Mantik, Robertson and Riley ALL went to the national archives and studied the Xrays and they concluded independently and unanimously that JFK was hit the the head twice - once from the rear and once from the front. And they were right.

You REALLY need to read this article and educate yourself on this issue, Pat.

http://jfkhistory.com/LastShot2/BOHDamage.html

Edited November 22, 2010 by Robert Harris

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Robert Harris appears to be one of the least informed members of this forum. Jackie held Jack in her arms all the way to Parkland.

She was describing what she observed, which is that, from the front, there was nothing--he looked just fine--but that she had had

a terrible time trying to hold his skull and brains together at the back of his head. What is there about this you don't understand?

In BLOODY TREASON, Noel Twyman cites Roderick Ryan, an expert on special effects, that in frame 302 the limousine is standing

and in frame 303 it is moving. More importantly, he told Noel that the bulging out of brains to the right-front (often called the "blob")

had been painted in. That's on pp. 159-160 of his book. Ryan received the Academy Award for his contributions to cinema in 2000.

In INSIDE THE ARRB, Vol. IV, Doug Horne explains that a group of Hollywood film restoration experts has been studying the Zapruder

and discovered right away that the back of JFK's head in frames 313-316 had been painted over in black. That's on pp. 1360-1361.

Noel's book, of course, was published in 1997. Doug's book was published in 2009. In the meanwhile, other developments occurred.

In THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX, which I edited, the color-photo section highlights my discovery that, in frame 374, we can see

the blow out to the back of the head. What that means is the film itself contains proof of its alteration, since the blow out is visible

in 374 but is not visible in frames 313-316. That book was published in 2003 and presents many proofs that the film is a fabrication.

I simply don't understand why someone like Harris would take strong stands and condemn me when he has no idea what he is talking

about. I have published many articles about the film, such as "New Proof of JFK Film Fakery", "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman

JFK Polaroid", and "US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication". I suggest that he would do himself a favor by reading them.

If you were right, then why did Jackie testify to the commission

that, from the front, he had looked just fine, but that she had had a terrible time trying to hold his skull and brains

together at the back of his head, which would not have been true if you are right?

I always loved this one, when used like you just used it.

So when Jackie said "front" exactly what did she mean? Did she mean viewing JFK directly from the front? Or did she mean the "front" as in viewed from the left side of his head....which is how she was positioned? In turn, does that make the "back", the back viewed from directly in front of JFK, or would it be the part of his head over his right ear, which would be the "back" as she was positioned?

Inquiring minds really want to know Dr. Fetzer.

Surprise surprise. This is one of those areas, Craig, on which we actually agree. Like most CTs, I accepted the "Jackie said the wound was on the back of the head" factoid, until I created my database of witness statements, and studied what she actually said.

From chapter 18c at patspeer.com;

Let's remember the words of Mrs. Kennedy. While many have used her statement "from the front there was nothing" as evidence the bullet erupted from the back of her husband’s skull, they largely ignore the context of her statements. When describing the fatal shot, she told the Warren Commission “just as I turned to look at him, I could see a piece of his skull, sort of wedge-shaped like that, and I remember it was flesh colored.” (The words "sort of wedge-shaped like that" were in the court reporter's transcript but never published. They are presumably a reference to the bone flap visible in the right lateral autopsy photos.) She then described cradling her husband in her arms, and getting a closer look at the wound. She said: “from the front there was nothing. I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on.” Her words do not describe the wound's exact location, and suggest merely that the gaping wound on President Kennedy's head did not extend as far as his face. They do not detail an exit on the back of his head, as mistakenly purported by Dr. James Fetzer in his January 12, 2010 radio interview of Doug Horne, in which he claimed she had testified that "she had a terrible time holding the back of his head and skull together", an assertion, by the way, to which Horne readily agreed. Still, one might wonder about the exact location of this wound.

Fortunately, only a week after the assassination, in a conversation with historian Theodore White, Mrs. Kennedy was far more descriptive. According to White's published notes, she said: “I could see a piece of his skull coming off…this perfectly clean piece detaching itself from his head; then he slumped in my lap.” This would seem to be a reference to the detachment of skull seen in frame 314 of the Zapruder film, and can be taken as an indication of the film's legitimacy.

But that's not all she had to say. For his 2007 book Brothers journalist David Talbot located and read the rest of White's notes and discovered that Mrs. Kennedy made several additional references to her husband's wounds. According to these notes, while describing the immediate aftermath of the shots, she said: "All the ride to the hospital, I kept bending over him saying, 'Jack, Jack, can you hear me, I love you, Jack.' I kept holding the top of his head down trying to keep the..." These notes further detail that when discussing her husband's condition at the hospital, Mrs. Kennedy said "From here down"--and here she made a gesture indicating her husband's forehead--"his head was so beautiful. I'd tried to hold the top of his head down, maybe I could keep it in...I knew he was dead." Thus, according to White, she said "top" and not "back" not once but twice...

That the descriptions of Kennedy’s head wound by the First Lady and the earliest descriptions of the wound and/or impact location by Newman and Zapruder and so many others match the wound seen in the Zapruder film, autopsy photos, and X-rays leads me to suspect that the large head wound observed at Parkland was on the top of Kennedy's skull in front of his ear, and not on the back of his head as suggested by the Parkland witnesses.

I really do feel like I'm listening to a debate at the mad hatter's tea party.

First of all, Jackie could not have seen anything being blown out from JFK's head at 314 because she was looking down and away from her husband from before 312 to about 323.

In all likelihood, it was that piece being blown out that provoked her to rise and reach back across the trunk to retrieve it. But why are we still debating about the existence of massive damage to the BOH, when we can see that damage quite clearly in the Zapruder film? Believe me, it's not going to go away no matter how much you ignore it or Fetzer makes ludicrous claims about it being "painted".

Much more importantly, we know that damage was not inflicted at 313. It did not appear until well after the explosion of the head had completely subsided. Drs. Mantik, Robertson and Riley ALL went to the national archives and studied the Xrays and they concluded independently and unanimously that JFK was hit the the head twice - once from the rear and once from the front. And they were right.

You REALLY need to read this article and educate yourself on this issue, Pat.

http://jfkhistory.com/LastShot2/BOHDamage.html

Edited December 1, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Lew Rockwell has now published

"The JFK 'Head Shot' Paradox"

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/fetzer1.1.1.html

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Sometimes I have no idea where Pat Speer comes up with some of this stuff. There is a nice copy of the diagram

attributed to Robert McClellan in HEAD SHOT on page 94 with a note dated January 24, 1994, in which he writes,

"Brad, the drawing below is an exact copy, in regard to location and dimensions, of

the drawing I made for Josiah Thompson in 1966. Best wishes, Robert N. McClelland".

So much for Pat's dismissal of his own diagram! There seems to be a pattern here where any evidence, no matter

how expert -- such as the Parkland physicians consistent reports of this massive defect with both cerebellar and

cerebral tissue extruding -- is dismissed or ignored by this man in pursuit of his own idiosyncratic take about the

head wounds. This is called "special pleading" by citing only the evidence favorable to your side and discounting

the rest. I am sorry to say but his qualifications for research on the medical evidence are increasingly disputable.

This article is archived here with active links, photos and film clips:

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/11/jfk-head-shot-paradox.html

The JFK “Head Shot” Paradox*

by Jim Fetzer

Recently by Jim Fetzer: The Place of Probability in Science

As a philosopher of science with a keen interest in the nature of scientific knowledge, I have been fascinated by the recent book by G. Paul Chalmers, Head Shot: The Science Behind the JFK Assassination (2010). I have found several aspects of his discussion of interest, including his conclusion—that the fatal shot to JFK’s head seen in the Zapruder film was caused by a shot from the right-front (“the grassy knoll”)—which he affirms on the basis of his competence as a physicist. He does not seem to notice that JFK’s brains and blood are blown out to the right-front in the Zapruder film, which he takes to be authentic and unaltered. But that means there is a paradox in his analysis, since, if the film is authentic, the blow-out to the right-front contradicts his conclusion that the shot that caused this effect was fired from the right-front, which is founded on elementary laws of physics. This, in turn, implies that he has not taken into account all the relevant evidence and thereby violated a basic principle of scientific reasoning, which may be appropriate for politicians, editorial writers, and used-car salesmen, but not for him.

. . .

It not only troubles me profoundly that Chalmers violates a basic principle of scientific reasoning and that evidence internal to the extant film refutes his presumption that the film is authentic but that Jefferson Morley endorses the book with the following claim: “He dismantles the bad science at the core of Vincent Bugliosi’s flabby Reclaiming History [2007] and politely punts the fantasy that the Zapruder film was altered.” While I agree that Bugliosi’s work is indefensible, to the best of my knowledge, Morley has never studied the film and is not in a position to know whether it is authentic or not. This is not the first time Morley has proven to be unequal to the demands of serious research about the assassination of one of the Kennedys. Science, as we have seen, can enable us to sort out authentic from inauthentic evidence, but we have to think things through and not let ourselves be misled by pseudo-science masquerading as genuine in the search for truth.

* Thanks to David W. Mantik, John Costella, and Morgan Reynolds for their feedback.

Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer who earned his Ph.D. in the history and the philosophy of science, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the Duluth campus of the University of Minnesota. He co-edits assassinationresearch.com with John Costella.

A couple of quick comments.

1) You inaccurately attribute your belief the x-rays have been altered to hide a blow-out in the back of the head to Dr. Mantik. In his most recent comments he acknowledged that the white patch on the x-rays does not overlay the area on the back of the head from which the Harper fragment was dislodged. He also claimed that it does not conceal missing bone, but missing brain. If researchers (not just yourself but Doug Horne, Jim Douglass, and others) are gonna cite Mantik as an expert supporting there was a blow-out to the back of the head, they should present his conclusions accurately, correct? If so, you should acknowledge that Mantik believes brain is missing from the back of the head, but thinks (strangely, in my opinion) that the x-rays fail to reveal missing bone.

2) Your assertion that the explosion of blood and brain in frame 313 suggests a shot from behind...is not as true as most (including until recently myself) believe. As shown in the following slide, blood spatter experts have confirmed that the explosion of blood and matter from a skull is not an indication of bullet direction. As a result, frame 313 could very well suggest the knoll shot so many suspect... (Keep in mind I write this even though I no longer suspect such a shot.)

Pat,

David Mantik is preparing a detailed response to your claims, which we await with

great interest. Since we can actually SEE the blow-out to the back of the head

in frame 374 and can actually SEE that it corresponds to what he calls "Area P"

in his study of the lateral cranial X-ray, which also obviously does NOT show

it, how can you persist with allegations that it was NOT patched over? Take a

look at http://www.und.edu/org/jfkconference/UNDchapter30.pdf where I have presented them

nearly side-by-side. I have made this point repeatedly and you have never, to

my knowledge, acknowledged it. Yet it blows your claim right out of the water!

The point of my piece was to observe the paradox between the back-and-to-the

-left motion of his body and the brains bulging out to the right-front, which was

painted in, as Ryan observed, to created the impression of a shot from behind.

I have no idea why you contest it, since that was the reason for this fabrication.

Jim

I don't see a blow-out in frame 374. I see a dark area at the back of the head. Probably shadow. Now I can't say for sure that this shadow is on the up and up, in that, if a series of actual experts were to look at the film and conclude this area had been painted in, I might believe them.

But I just don't see a hole in that image in your article.

FWIW, while looking back through your article I noticed a few mistakes. On page 357, for example, you compare the wrong part of the skull in the black and white back of the head photo to the cowlick area in the Dox drawing. On page 359, for further example, you credit Dr. McClelland for the so-called McClelland drawing, when, as pointed out by Doug Horne in his book, he had nothing to do with it, and actually disputed its representation of the wounds.

[Pat Speer]

So much for Jim Fetzer's "scholarship." I mention McClelland's latter-day claims he made the drawing on my webpage...where I also point out that Tink Thompson--who admits he hired a student to make the drawing based on Dr. McClelland's testimony--also admits he never even spoke to Dr. McClelland about the drawing. I also should point out that, while Thompson remembered this student as being a woman--Doug Horne, who, unlike the rest of us, actually looked through Thompson's book to find the credit for the drawing--found it was credited to Phillip Johnson. (If you'd actually read Horne's book as opposed to picking out a few pieces that you liked you'd have known that Horne attributes the drawing to Johnson.)

As far as your assertion that I am in pursuit of "my own idiosyncratic take" on the head wounds...balderdash. I am simply trying to make sense of information you refuse to let make sense. The Dealey Plaza witnesses all noted a wound on top of the head near the right ear. The Zapruder film, autopsy photos and x-rays all depict a wound in this same location. The Parkland witnesses, while inconsistent, nevertheless, when taken as a whole, suggest this wound was further back. Even so, however, they also confirm that the wound was one large wound, missing scalp and skull, on the upper right side of the head, and that there was no entrance wound on the front of the head.

So what have conspiracy theorists done with their statements and testimony? Have they been so impressed with their statements and testimony that they insist these witnesses must have been correct?

NO. They ignore the actual statements and testimony of these witnesses and USE them to imply there was an entrance on the front of the head (that none of these people saw) and an exit from the middle of the back of the head, involving the occipital bone (which is inches away from where these witnesses on average described the wound). Some CTs, cognizant of the fact that their claiming the autopsy photos are fake makes them look a little wacky, pretend as well that these witnesses were describing an open skull flap on the back of the head, that was closed up for the autopsy photos, and that the wound on top of the head shown in the autopsy photos and x-rays was closed up while at Parkland.

NONSENSE. Read their words. Don't invent entrance wounds on the front of the head. Don't pretend no bone exploded from the head and that there were skull flaps that could cover up the existence of either a hole on top of the head, a hole on back of the head, or both.

If you do, you'll see, as I, that the Parkland witnesses WERE describing the wound seen on the autopsy photos, only further back. And ask yourself why that is...

Believe it or not, there's an answer. It's not what you want to hear, but it makes a heckuva lot more sense than claiming there was a large hole in the middle of the back of Kennedy's head that none of the witnesses to his being shot seemed to notice, that strangely appeared at Parkland, only inches away from where the witnesses at Parkland remembered it, at the same time the wound on the right top of the head noted in the Plaza disappeared, and that disappeared again during the autopsy, at the same time the wound noted in the plaza re-appeared.

One of us has his feet on the ground. And it's not you.

Sometimes I have no idea where Pat Speer comes up with some of this stuff. There is a nice copy of the diagram

attributed to Robert McClellan in HEAD SHOT on page 94 with a note dated January 24, 1994, in which he writes,

"Brad, the drawing below is an exact copy, in regard to location and dimensions, of

the drawing I made for Josiah Thompson in 1966. Best wishes, Robert N. McClelland".

So much for Pat's dismissal of his own diagram! There seems to be a pattern here where any evidence, no matter

how expert -- such as the Parkland physicians consistent reports of this massive defect with both cerebellar and

cerebral tissue extruding -- is dismissed or ignored by this man in pursuit of his own idiosyncratic take about the

head wounds. This is called "special pleading" by citing only the evidence favorable to your side and discounting

the rest. I am sorry to say but his qualifications for research on the medical evidence are increasingly disputable.

This article is archived here with active links, photos and film clips:

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/11/jfk-head-shot-paradox.html

The JFK “Head Shot” Paradox*

by Jim Fetzer

Recently by Jim Fetzer: The Place of Probability in Science

As a philosopher of science with a keen interest in the nature of scientific knowledge, I have been fascinated by the recent book by G. Paul Chalmers, Head Shot: The Science Behind the JFK Assassination (2010). I have found several aspects of his discussion of interest, including his conclusion—that the fatal shot to JFK’s head seen in the Zapruder film was caused by a shot from the right-front (“the grassy knoll”)—which he affirms on the basis of his competence as a physicist. He does not seem to notice that JFK’s brains and blood are blown out to the right-front in the Zapruder film, which he takes to be authentic and unaltered. But that means there is a paradox in his analysis, since, if the film is authentic, the blow-out to the right-front contradicts his conclusion that the shot that caused this effect was fired from the right-front, which is founded on elementary laws of physics. This, in turn, implies that he has not taken into account all the relevant evidence and thereby violated a basic principle of scientific reasoning, which may be appropriate for politicians, editorial writers, and used-car salesmen, but not for him.

. . .

It not only troubles me profoundly that Chalmers violates a basic principle of scientific reasoning and that evidence internal to the extant film refutes his presumption that the film is authentic but that Jefferson Morley endorses the book with the following claim: “He dismantles the bad science at the core of Vincent Bugliosi’s flabby Reclaiming History [2007] and politely punts the fantasy that the Zapruder film was altered.” While I agree that Bugliosi’s work is indefensible, to the best of my knowledge, Morley has never studied the film and is not in a position to know whether it is authentic or not. This is not the first time Morley has proven to be unequal to the demands of serious research about the assassination of one of the Kennedys. Science, as we have seen, can enable us to sort out authentic from inauthentic evidence, but we have to think things through and not let ourselves be misled by pseudo-science masquerading as genuine in the search for truth.

* Thanks to David W. Mantik, John Costella, and Morgan Reynolds for their feedback.

Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer who earned his Ph.D. in the history and the philosophy of science, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the Duluth campus of the University of Minnesota. He co-edits assassinationresearch.com with John Costella.

A couple of quick comments.

1) You inaccurately attribute your belief the x-rays have been altered to hide a blow-out in the back of the head to Dr. Mantik. In his most recent comments he acknowledged that the white patch on the x-rays does not overlay the area on the back of the head from which the Harper fragment was dislodged. He also claimed that it does not conceal missing bone, but missing brain. If researchers (not just yourself but Doug Horne, Jim Douglass, and others) are gonna cite Mantik as an expert supporting there was a blow-out to the back of the head, they should present his conclusions accurately, correct? If so, you should acknowledge that Mantik believes brain is missing from the back of the head, but thinks (strangely, in my opinion) that the x-rays fail to reveal missing bone.

2) Your assertion that the explosion of blood and brain in frame 313 suggests a shot from behind...is not as true as most (including until recently myself) believe. As shown in the following slide, blood spatter experts have confirmed that the explosion of blood and matter from a skull is not an indication of bullet direction. As a result, frame 313 could very well suggest the knoll shot so many suspect... (Keep in mind I write this even though I no longer suspect such a shot.)

Pat,

David Mantik is preparing a detailed response to your claims, which we await with

great interest. Since we can actually SEE the blow-out to the back of the head

in frame 374 and can actually SEE that it corresponds to what he calls "Area P"

in his study of the lateral cranial X-ray, which also obviously does NOT show

it, how can you persist with allegations that it was NOT patched over? Take a

look at http://www.und.edu/org/jfkconference/UNDchapter30.pdf where I have presented them

nearly side-by-side. I have made this point repeatedly and you have never, to

my knowledge, acknowledged it. Yet it blows your claim right out of the water!

The point of my piece was to observe the paradox between the back-and-to-the

-left motion of his body and the brains bulging out to the right-front, which was

painted in, as Ryan observed, to created the impression of a shot from behind.

I have no idea why you contest it, since that was the reason for this fabrication.

Jim

I don't see a blow-out in frame 374. I see a dark area at the back of the head. Probably shadow. Now I can't say for sure that this shadow is on the up and up, in that, if a series of actual experts were to look at the film and conclude this area had been painted in, I might believe them.

But I just don't see a hole in that image in your article.

FWIW, while looking back through your article I noticed a few mistakes. On page 357, for example, you compare the wrong part of the skull in the black and white back of the head photo to the cowlick area in the Dox drawing. On page 359, for further example, you credit Dr. McClelland for the so-called McClelland drawing, when, as pointed out by Doug Horne in his book, he had nothing to do with it, and actually disputed its representation of the wounds.

Edited December 12, 2010 by Pat Speer

[Josiah Thompson]

It is one of the oldest mistakes in JFK research to ascribe the the sketch in Six Seconds to Dr. McClelland. I've been telling people for years that McClelland had nothing to do with the preparation of this sketch. I took a Polaroid photo of the right back of my head and sent it to a medical illustrator in Philadelphia. I included the actual text of McClelland's description of the Kennedy back of the head wound and paid the medical illustrator to draw it. Hence, it is just false that Dr. McClelland made the sketch. I never even asked him for his opinion on the sketch. The sketch then is the interpretation of a medical illustrator of what Dr. McClelland described.

Pat Speer "comes up with this stuff" by doing what a good researcher ought to do: asking questions and getting direct answers from people who are in a position to know.

His analysis of the various descriptions of damage to the back of Kennedy's head is quite illuminating. He should be praised for not accepting the usual superficial interpretations of these witness reports. So fume as much as you like, but Pat Speer is 100% correct and you are 100% incorrect.

Josiah Thompson

Sometimes I have no idea where Pat Speer comes up with some of this stuff. There is a nice copy of the diagram

attributed to Robert McClellan in HEAD SHOT on page 94 with a note dated January 24, 1994, in which he writes,

"Brad, the drawing below is an exact copy, in regard to location and dimensions, of

the drawing I made for Josiah Thompson in 1966. Best wishes, Robert N. McClelland".

So much for Pat's dismissal of his own diagram! There seems to be a pattern here where any evidence, no matter

how expert -- such as the Parkland physicians consistent reports of this massive defect with both cerebellar and

cerebral tissue extruding -- is dismissed or ignored by this man in pursuit of his own idiosyncratic take about the

head wounds. This is called "special pleading" by citing only the evidence favorable to your side and discounting

the rest. I am sorry to say but his qualifications for research on the medical evidence are increasingly disputable.

This article is archived here with active links, photos and film clips:

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/11/jfk-head-shot-paradox.html

The JFK “Head Shot” Paradox*

by Jim Fetzer

Recently by Jim Fetzer: The Place of Probability in Science

As a philosopher of science with a keen interest in the nature of scientific knowledge, I have been fascinated by the recent book by G. Paul Chalmers, Head Shot: The Science Behind the JFK Assassination (2010). I have found several aspects of his discussion of interest, including his conclusion—that the fatal shot to JFK’s head seen in the Zapruder film was caused by a shot from the right-front (“the grassy knoll”)—which he affirms on the basis of his competence as a physicist. He does not seem to notice that JFK’s brains and blood are blown out to the right-front in the Zapruder film, which he takes to be authentic and unaltered. But that means there is a paradox in his analysis, since, if the film is authentic, the blow-out to the right-front contradicts his conclusion that the shot that caused this effect was fired from the right-front, which is founded on elementary laws of physics. This, in turn, implies that he has not taken into account all the relevant evidence and thereby violated a basic principle of scientific reasoning, which may be appropriate for politicians, editorial writers, and used-car salesmen, but not for him.

. . .

It not only troubles me profoundly that Chalmers violates a basic principle of scientific reasoning and that evidence internal to the extant film refutes his presumption that the film is authentic but that Jefferson Morley endorses the book with the following claim: “He dismantles the bad science at the core of Vincent Bugliosi’s flabby Reclaiming History [2007] and politely punts the fantasy that the Zapruder film was altered.” While I agree that Bugliosi’s work is indefensible, to the best of my knowledge, Morley has never studied the film and is not in a position to know whether it is authentic or not. This is not the first time Morley has proven to be unequal to the demands of serious research about the assassination of one of the Kennedys. Science, as we have seen, can enable us to sort out authentic from inauthentic evidence, but we have to think things through and not let ourselves be misled by pseudo-science masquerading as genuine in the search for truth.

* Thanks to David W. Mantik, John Costella, and Morgan Reynolds for their feedback.

Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer who earned his Ph.D. in the history and the philosophy of science, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the Duluth campus of the University of Minnesota. He co-edits assassinationresearch.com with John Costella.

A couple of quick comments.

1) You inaccurately attribute your belief the x-rays have been altered to hide a blow-out in the back of the head to Dr. Mantik. In his most recent comments he acknowledged that the white patch on the x-rays does not overlay the area on the back of the head from which the Harper fragment was dislodged. He also claimed that it does not conceal missing bone, but missing brain. If researchers (not just yourself but Doug Horne, Jim Douglass, and others) are gonna cite Mantik as an expert supporting there was a blow-out to the back of the head, they should present his conclusions accurately, correct? If so, you should acknowledge that Mantik believes brain is missing from the back of the head, but thinks (strangely, in my opinion) that the x-rays fail to reveal missing bone.

2) Your assertion that the explosion of blood and brain in frame 313 suggests a shot from behind...is not as true as most (including until recently myself) believe. As shown in the following slide, blood spatter experts have confirmed that the explosion of blood and matter from a skull is not an indication of bullet direction. As a result, frame 313 could very well suggest the knoll shot so many suspect... (Keep in mind I write this even though I no longer suspect such a shot.)

Pat,

David Mantik is preparing a detailed response to your claims, which we await with

great interest. Since we can actually SEE the blow-out to the back of the head

in frame 374 and can actually SEE that it corresponds to what he calls "Area P"

in his study of the lateral cranial X-ray, which also obviously does NOT show

it, how can you persist with allegations that it was NOT patched over? Take a

look at http://www.und.edu/org/jfkconference/UNDchapter30.pdf where I have presented them

nearly side-by-side. I have made this point repeatedly and you have never, to

my knowledge, acknowledged it. Yet it blows your claim right out of the water!

The point of my piece was to observe the paradox between the back-and-to-the

-left motion of his body and the brains bulging out to the right-front, which was

painted in, as Ryan observed, to created the impression of a shot from behind.

I have no idea why you contest it, since that was the reason for this fabrication.

Jim

I don't see a blow-out in frame 374. I see a dark area at the back of the head. Probably shadow. Now I can't say for sure that this shadow is on the up and up, in that, if a series of actual experts were to look at the film and conclude this area had been painted in, I might believe them.

But I just don't see a hole in that image in your article.

FWIW, while looking back through your article I noticed a few mistakes. On page 357, for example, you compare the wrong part of the skull in the black and white back of the head photo to the cowlick area in the Dox drawing. On page 359, for further example, you credit Dr. McClelland for the so-called McClelland drawing, when, as pointed out by Doug Horne in his book, he had nothing to do with it, and actually disputed its representation of the wounds.

[David Lifton]

FWIW: I used the "McClelland diagram" in my 1989 filmed interview with Dr. McClelland and he said that it accurately portrayed what he was describing in his Warren Commission testimony.

(Pat Valentino was also present).

DSL

Los Angeles, CA

12/13/10, 9 PM PST