DID ZAPRUDER FILM "THE ZAPRUDER FILM"?

[Cliff Varnell]

Here's the lowdown on fine men's dress from THE authority on the subject, designer/historian Alan Flusser:

CLOTHES AND THE MAN: The Principles of Fine Men's Dress

http://www.throughtherye.com/flusser/index_current.html

The sixties brought the Peacock Revolution - a phrase popularized in this country by George Frazier, a former columnist for Esquire magazine and the Boston Globe - which began on Carnaby Street in London and featured a whole array of new looks, including the Nehru jacket and the Edwardian suit. In contrast to the fifties, during which time choices were limited, a wide range of alternatives was now available as the focus moved to youth and protest. The designer Pierre Cardin even created an American version of the slim-lined European silhouette, which, along with the immense popularity of jeans, led to the acceptance of extreme fittedness in clothing - a far cry from the casual, comfortable elegance of preceding generations.

During this period, the American designer Ralph Lauren was attempting to convince the American male that there was a viable alternative to this high-style clothing. This alternative was a version of the two-button shaped suit with natural shoulders that had been introduced by Paul Stuart in 1954 and briefly popularized by John Kennedy during his presidency.

This hybrid style was dubbed Updated American.

Flusser:

The updated American silhouette is a combination of the best elements of the sack and the European-cut suit. The jacket has some of the same softness and fullness through the chest and shoulder areas of the sack, to which it adds some of the European notion of shape.

Long the staple of fine dressers, from Clark Gable to Fred Astaire to Cary Grant, this soft, shaped suit was essentially a spin-off from the sack. The three-button sack coat was modified to a two-button version with some suppression at the waist by Paul Stuart.

"Suppression of the waist" is the key phrase. JFK's suits where tailored to taper at the waist.

Flusser:

Like the European model, the new American-style jacket is tapered at the waist, giving the wearer something of a V-shaped appearance. The jacket, with its two-button design, has a longer lapel roll. In further contrast to the sack, this style also has a somewhat higher armhole and the chest is a bit smaller. All these details work to give it more definition than its dour predecessor.

What is the significance of the tapered waist? The minimal amount of slack fabric in JFK's shirt!

Flusser:

The body of the shirt should have no more material than is necessary for a man to sit comfortably. Excess material bulging around the midriff could destroy the lines of the jacket. If you do buy a shirt with too large a body, a seamstress can take in the side seams or put darts in the back to reduce the size. The darts are actually a bit more practical, since if you put on weight they can be removed. The length of the shirt is also an important concern. It should hang at least six inches below the waist so that it stays tucked in when you move around. It should not be so long, however, that it creates bulges in front of the trousers.

Bulging material around JFK's waist would have ruined the lines of the Updated American silhouette, and there

is absolutely no photographic evidence that JFK ever suffered from ruined jacket lines.

Edited April 4, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

That's Craigster for you--all empty bombast.

FYI, Kennedy''s shirts were made for him in New York on Park Avenue.

THey were made from bolted cloth, which meant they had to be tailored to his body.

They today would cost the equivalent of 150 bucks per shirt.

Tailored shirts do not do want you want them to do.

Have you ever had one made?

No, I never have.

I'm not sure what you mean by "tailored shirts do not do what you want them to do."

T-shirts do!

[Pat Speer]

When I said the "blow out" was to the left/rear, I mean the debris being blown out to the left/rear,

where it impacted with Officer Bobby Hargis. I did not mean that the defect was to the left/rear.

Several of the witnesses quoted in a recent post supported the entry at the right temple. Chuck

Crenshaw even described it in a televised interview and Thomas Evan Robinson the confirmed it. I

cannot get over your obsessive attempts to revise and reinterpret the clear and consistent reports

of those who were actually there. You are subjective and unscientific in your entire approach and

go out of your way to disregard that their earlier reports are going to be the more accurate ones.

Jim, you are the one who is being unscientific, and who is sadly ill-informed. The Moorman photo, the Zapruder film, and the eyewitnesses all confirm that Kennedy's head was turned to his left at the time of the head shot. So how, exactly, could a bullet enter from his right front, exit from the right side of the back of his head, and spray only those to his left rear? Wouldn't it have to explode from the left side of the back of the head to spray in that direction? If you have ever bothered to map this out, and can show how this makes sense, a quick peak would be appreciated.

As far as Crenshaw and Robinson, you're just propping up CRUD to support what you apparently desperately need to believe. None of the Parkland witnesses you find so compelling saw an entrance on the front of Kennedy's head. READ their reports! READ their testimony! FIND OUT what the evidence actually shows instead of repeating what you gather from others. Crenshaw never claimed to see an entrance wound on the front of Kennedy's head. He didn't mention this in his book. He didn't tell this to the ARRB. In his book he writes "From the damage I saw, there was no doubt in my mind that the bullet had entered his head through the front." Now, in a television interview, he mentioned a bullet wound on the front of Kennedy's head, but this was clearly where he PRESUMED the bullet entered, and not where he actually SAW an entrance.

And if you think I'm bluffing, please read DOUG HORNE'S REPORT on his interview with Crenshaw. Look at the FIRST words in his summary: "Only saw ONE head wound."

http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md183/html/md183_0002a.htm

As far as Robinson, here is how he described what you're trying to pretend was an entrance wound when interviewed by the HSCA:

PURDY: Did you notice anything else unusual about the body which may not have been artificially caused, that is caused by something other than the autopsy?

ROBINSON: Probably, a little mark at the temples in the hairline. As I recall, it was so small it could be hidden by the hair. It didn't have to be covered with make-up. I thought it probably a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet that caused it.

PURDY: In other words, there was a little wound.

ROBINSON: Yes.

PURDY: Approximately where, which side of the forehead or part of the head was it on?

ROBINSON: I believe it was on the right side.

PURDY: On his right side?

ROBINSON: That's an anatomical right, yes.

PURDY: You say it was in the forehead region up near the hairline?

ROBINSON: Yes.

PURDY: Would you say it was closer to the top of the hair?

ROBINSON: Somewhere around the temples.

PURDY: Approximately what size?

ROBINSON: Very small, about a quarter of an inch.

PURDY: Quarter of an inch is all the damage. Had it been closed up by the doctors?

ROBINSON: No, he didn't have to close it. If anything, I just would have probably put a little wax in it.

When asked later what he thought caused this wound, moreover, he claimed "I think either a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet. Or a very small piece of shrapnel." When asked one last time what he thought caused the wound, furthermore, he reiterated "A piece of the bone or metal exiting."

So, Robinson did not call this wound an entrance, nor think it was an entrance. No, he believed it to have been an exit for a very small fragment of some sort, or perhaps even a mark created by shrapnel. This is NOT the description of an entrance hole for an explosive round so many pretend it is, nor a bullet hole of any kind.

Heck, it was a wound so small that Robinson wasn't even sure he put wax in it.

[Don Jeffries]

Pat,

I think Jim's question was a good one. You seem to have a different take on the nature of JFK's wounds than many of us do. I would also be interested in knowing where you think his wounds were. Also, where do you think each shot came from?

[Pat Speer]

My responses in italics.

SPEER: What crud. You can bet dollars to donuts these are not exact quotes from Bill Newman, but Jack's quite possibly skewed recollections of what Newman said. I've read a number of statements by Newman, and have viewed a number of interviews. And he has NEVER said the Zapruder film is at odds with what he saw, at least ON THE RECORD. If you think he has, please find it. If you think he will, please track him down and get him to put something in writing. It is also beyond offensive that here you are suddenly claiming Newman as a highly credible witness supporting YOUR views, when 1) he has always claimed the sound he heard came from behind him at the time of the head shot and not from the fence to his right (which I have come to believe as well and which you NO DOUBT claim is nonsense) and 2) he saw NO blow-out on the back of JFK's head at the moment of the fatal impact, and instead noted a blow-out by Kennedy's ear (which supports the accuracy of the Zapruder film, and which you no doubt claim is nonsense).

Accusing me of lying (skewed recollections) is the last straw with Speer. This is absurd. I spent about 20 minutes (on the cited occasion) questioning Newman. I had done the same before twice, years earlier. What he said was very clear and vivid. I made up nothing, changed nothing, only

paraphrased some of his replies.

SPEER: So you admit I was right when I said these were not exact quotes. Thanks.

I reported what he said. I have NO views to support.

SPEER: What nonsense. You have staked your entire reputation on the Zapruder film being fake, and here you present "paraphrased" statements from Newman suggesting the film has been faked, when he has never mentioned this to anyone else. Of course, you have views to support.

Speer's changing the interpretation of what Newman said about the origin of the shots is despicable.

SPEER: You are just grandstanding here. I have NEVER changed the interpretation of what Newman said. He said it came from behind him. He said it within moments of the fatal shots.

He has ALWAYS consistently said the shots came from behind him, and that he was "in the line of fire". All

photos of the Newman family show that directly behind them was the pergola and picket fence.

SPEER: Wrong. We've been through this before. Newman thought the head shot came from behind him, from the pergola, or garden, whatever, and NOT from the picket fence to his right. He has on numerous occasions demonstrated this--including in the video Duncan has already linked to.

He did not say anything about "a blowout of Kennedy's ear", but instead said that is where a bullet struck (right temple). I discussed this with him on THREE OCCASIONS, years apart. He always used the same analogy..."like a baseball bat hit him in the right temple"...never mentioning a "blowout".

SPEER: More nonsense. You're pretending Newman didn't see a blow-out so you can pretend he just saw Kennedy fall over in the seat while his brains blew out the back. This allows you to pretend his statements don't support the accuracy of the Zapruder film. Well, there's a couple of problems with this. One is that Newman was looking directly at the back of Kennedy's head at the moment of the fatal impact and saw nothing blow out the back. And two is that Newman and his wife discussed this blow out over and over and and over again.

(11-24-63 FBI report, 22H842) “At that time he heard the bullet strike the president and saw flesh fly from the President’s head”

(11-29-66 interview with Josiah Thompson) “In my opinion the ear went…

(2-17-69 testimony in the trial of Clay Shaw)"then when the car was directly in front of me, well, that is when the third shot was fired and it hit him in the side of the head right above the ear and his ear come off…I observed his ear flying off, and he turned just real white and then blood red"

(7-23-86 testimony in televised mock trial, On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald)"just as the President's car got directly in front of me, the President was probably fifteen feet away, Boom, and the side of his ear flew off, and justa, bits and pieces flew off. I can remember seeing just a white flash, and then the red, and the President fell across the car, as if you'd hit him with a bat.

(Interview in The Men Who Killed Kennedy, broadcast 1988)Then he got nearer to us, and, bam, a shot took the right side of his head off. His ear flew off. I heard Mrs. Kennedy say 'Oh, my God, no, they shot Jack!' He was knocked violently back against the seat, almost as if he had been hit by a baseball bat. At that time, I was looking right at the President and I thought the shots were coming from directly behind us."

(Excerpt from 1991 interview with Mark Oakes, found online) "As the car got directly in front of us, the President was not much further than I am to you--probably ten to twelve feet, he was directly in front of me--the third shot rang out and I remember seeing the side of his head come off.

(11-20-97 interview published in No Case To Answer, 2005)the third shot rang out and I can remember seeing the side of President Kennedy's head blow off. There was black matter and then grayish and he fell across Mrs. Kennedy,

(No More Silence p. 94-101, published 1998)the third shot rang out, and it hit the President. It appeared to me that it hit him on the side of the head, as the side of his head came off. I can remember seeing a white mass, and then just a mass of red.

(Oral History for the Sixth Floor Museum, 7-10-03)just as he got straight out from the curb from us, the third shot rang out. And I can remember seeing the side of President Kennedy's head come off, and I thought his ear came off. And I testified to that effect but years later I saw a picture that showed otherwise. But I can remember seeing a flash of white and the red blood....(When discussing a report received at WFAA saying the President was still alive) "I was kinda dumbfounded to hear these people saying that, when just minutes earlier I'd seen the side of his head come off." (When asked if he knew the President was dead when first interviewed on WFAA) "When you see something the size of a grapefruit or orange or something blow out into the air, and then you hear the statement that he was in the emergency and was shot in the back whatever, it dumbfounded me momentarily.." (When later asked about his impression the shots came from behind) "It was the visual impact that it had on me more so than the noise--seeing the side of the President's head blow off, seeing the President go across the car seat into Mrs. Kennedy's lap, in her direction. It gave me the impression that the shots were coming from directly behind where I was standing." (When stressing just how much his impressions of the shot location were based on what he saw as opposed to what he heard) "It might be difficult for me to testify that I heard a noise."

(11-19-08 AP article by Dylan Lovan)'Ten, 12 feet in front of us, the third shot rang out, and that's when the side of his head flew off and I could remember seeing' the blood

(Tru TV program Conspiracy Theory, first broadcast 11-19-10)Just as the car got right in front of us, the third shot rang out, and the side of President Kennedy's head blew off (as he says this he reaches for his temple). We seen the brain matter and the blood fly off.

Speer makes up things to fit his theories.

SPEER: more nonsense. This is the same kind of stuff LNs say when I prove them wrong. "You're making things up." Not.

Newman is very clear. The head shot came from the right front, directly over his head, and hit JFK in the right temple. Ask him today; that is what he will say.

SPEER: EXACTLY. EXCEPT FOR ONE THING. He will not say right FRONT. Kennedy was PAST Newman at the moment of the head shot. He thought the shot came from BEHIND him. Not to his right. I don't know why this is so hard for you to grasp. Watch the video posted by Duncan. It shows Newman pointing out where HE thought the shot came from...and it's not anywhere near where you want it to be.

I doubt that Speer has ever talked to Newman, especially three times...yet he disputes those who have. But he is willing to put words in Newman's

mouth to make him say what fits Speer's preconceived theories. Despicable acts of someone with an agenda.

Jack

SPEER: I think it's readily obvious which one of us is putting words in Newman's mouth to further his agenda. I'd double dog dare you to get Newman to sign something or state on camera that he thinks the Zapruder film is fake, because it does not reflect events as he remembers them. But why waste my breath?

Edited April 4, 2011 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

And am I "just MAKING THIS UP" when I observe that, when Malcolm Kilduff announced JFK's death,

he pointed to his right temple and said that it was a simple matter of a bullet right through the head?

And that, on radio and television that day, there were reports of two shots, one to the throat and one

to the head, which Chet Huntley reported as a simple matter of a bullet to the head "which entered his

right temple", attributing that finding to Admiral George Burkley, the president's personal physician?

How grossly am I suppose to permit you to misrepresent the evidence? This has gone beyond absurd.

What? Haven't you ever read the transcript of the Parkland press conference? Haven't you ever read the testimony of Dr. Clark, the only one at Parkland to inspect the head wound--the man who declared Kennedy dead? He thought the head wound was a tangential wound--a wound of both entrance and exit--A BULLET THROUGH THE HEAD...

Dr. William Kemp Clark, who had examined the President's head wound and pronounced him dead: "I was called by Dr. Perry because the President... had sustained a brain wound. On my arrival, the resuscitative efforts, the tracheostomy, the administration of chest tubes to relieve any...possibility of air being in the pleural space, the electrocardiogram had been hooked up, blood and fluids were being administered by Dr. Perry and Dr. Baxter. It was apparent that the President had sustained a lethal wound. A missile had gone in or out of the back of his head, causing extensive lacerations and loss of brain tissue. Shortly after I arrived, the patient, the President, lost his heart action by the electrocardiogram, his heart action had stopped. We attempted resuscitative measures of his heart, including closed chest cardiac massage, but to no avail." (When asked to describe the course of the bullet through the head) "We were too busy to be absolutely sure of the track, but the back of his head...Principally on his right side, towards the right side...The head wound could have been either the exit wound from the neck or it could have been a tangential wound, as it was simply a large, gaping loss of tissue."

P.S. Clark saw but one head wound. Burkley undoubtedly consulted with Clark. Kilduff's pointing to his temple, then, suggests that this was where Burkley thought the ONE wound was.

[Pat Speer]

My responses in italics.

Pat,

I have three questions for you for which my answers are given below.

(1) In relation to these three diagrams (from Parkland, from Bethesda

and from the HSCA), which most accurately represents the head wound?

My response: the HSCA drawing is a nearly accurate copy of an autopsy photo many believe to be fake. I see no reason to think so, however. The other drawings are just Lifton's guesstimates as to how the wound looked at Parkland and Bethesda. The Parkland drawing is flat out wrong, as it presents the wound almost entirely on the occipital bone in a location at odds with both the statements of the witnesses, and images of these witnesses pointing out the wound location. The Bethesda drawing, apparently, reflects the approximate size of the wound, AFTER the scalp was peeled back, and skull fell to the table.

(2) Where was JFK hit? Just describe the locations and nature of the

wounds he sustained, independently of your reasons for thinking so.

My response: I believe he was hit from behind in the back, in the back of the head by the EOP, and finally by the temple.

(3) Who is the single best witness when it comes to understanding the

wounds in corresponding to your beliefs and why do you agree with him?

My response: sometime after I came to my conclusions based on the photos, films, and eyewitnesses, I realized that an obscure witness to the autopsy with no apparent theory to sell named Richard Lipsey had described the wounds discussed at autopsy to the HSCA as if he'd been reading my webpage, almost 30 years before it existed.

My answers:

(1) The Parkland description is the most accurate. The Bethesda has

it after Humes used his saw and the HSCA presentation is indefensible.

To this day, I cannot understand why one or another member of the HSCA

medical panel, which included Cyril Wecht, M.D., J.D., did not raise

an enormous commotion in protest of the complete transformation of the

wound from its description in the signed autopsy report (the second of

these three images) and the HSCA representation (which is the third).

My response: Your outrage, IMO, comes from your lack of familiarity with the evidence. Humes testified that skull fell to the table as he peeled back the scalp. The doctors would not have tried to measure the size of the skull wound with scalp and hair in the way. All the measurements and descriptions, then, of the skull in the autopsy report are of the skull AFTER the wound had been enlarged.

(2) He was hit in the throat and incurred a small, clean oval wound.

He was hit in the back by a shot that entered about 5.5 inches below

his collar, which was a shallow wound at a downward angle that had no

point of exit. He was hit in the right temple by a shot that blew his

brains out the back of his head to the left/rear. The blow-out was a

the rear of his head, slightly to the right, and was the size of your

fist when you double it up. There was also a small entry wound to the

back of his head that entered around the EOP and was only discovered on

the basis of locating inward beveling on a small piece of bone fragment.

(3) Thomas Evan Robinson. As the mortician, he had the longest time to

examine the wounds as he prepared the body for burial. He has not only

confirmed the entry wound in the right temple, the blow-out at the back

of the head, and the wound to his back, but also testified that he had

a "nasty" throat wound. He did not observe the small, clean entry wound

because it had been completely obscured by alteration to make it look as

if it were a wound of exit. He had observed Humes take a saw to enlarge

the blow-out at the back of the head, so he knew the difference between

the wound JFK had sustained and the larger wound that Humes had created.

My response: Some of this is not true. Robinson absolutely positively did not confirm an entrance wound in the right temple. If you read his HSCA testimony, moreover, you'll see that Robinson NEVER saw Kennedy's head wound during the autopsy, as he was sitting on the left side of the body. In other words...he thought the wound was on the right side. Now, it's true he saw a wound at the end of the autopsy, during reconstruction, that he claimed was on the back of the head. BUT, he did not reconstruct the skull. Since the morticians were not asked to perform a forensic reconstruction of the skull, and since their job was to make the president presentable for a viewing, moreover, it's quite clear that whoever did do the reconstruction would re-arrange things a bit, and make sure whatever hole was left over at the end was on the back of the head, so it could be hidden in a pillow. This is what morticians do. They're not anthropologists. So it's no surprise Robinson noted a hole in this location at the end of reconstruction. In fact, it's exactly what one would expect.

Your answers?

Edited April 4, 2011 by Pat Speer

[Craig Lamson]

Here's the lowdown on fine men's dress from THE authority on the subject, designer/historian Alan Flusser:

(snip cliffs continued and meaningless braying)

Thanks cliff, you just totally MADE my point. You can't prove one way or the other the condition nor specfic CUSTOM tailoring of JFK's shirt. Your Prima Facia evidence claim is up in smoke. ROFLMAO!

Edited April 4, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

That's Craigster for you--all empty bombast.

FYI, Kennedy''s shirts were made for him in New York on Park Avenue.

THey were made from bolted cloth, which meant they had to be tailored to his body.

They today would cost the equivalent of 150 bucks per shirt.

Tailored shirts do not do want you want them to do.

Have you ever had one made?

I'm not stupid like some others on this thread. I've made no claims about how a specfic shirt may or may not have been tailored.

You love to talk about how things would play in a court of law. Cool. Prove your point to the jury that the specfic shirt JFK wore could NOT have had risen up 1.5 inches on his back.

Remember tailoring means fitting clothing the exact WANTS of a specfic customer. Exactly HOW did JFK want THIS shirt to fit?

That's NOT the same as Cliffs braying about clothing design THEORY. If the best you can do is "Tailored shirts do not do want you want them to do.", you lose and the attorney will RIP you to shreds.

Edited April 4, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Craig,

Cliff has it exactly right. You seem to be performing an old "song and dance" that was laid to rest long ago.

For a more recent study that explains why you are wrong and how we know, I suggest that you download

"Reasoning about Assassinations", which I presented at Cambridge and published in an international, peer-

reviewed journal. Then you can explain how you can persist in this charade on the basis of the evidence.

Jim

P.S. It's also available at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2009/11/reasoning-about-assassinations.html

We know that JFK's jacket was elevated no more than a fraction of an inch because the bullet hole in the jacket

is 4.125 inches below the collar, very close to the bullet hole in the shirt.

A tucked in custom-made dress shirt only has about 3/4 inch of available slack. This is an uncontested fact.

Unimpeachable.

The claim that JFK's shirt had four times the standard amount of slack is beyond ridiculous.

JFK was vigorously reacting to the throat wound for two seconds after Betzner was taken, so Lamson's bizarre interpretations of Betzner have no bearing on the location of the back wound.

I must say you do provide great comic relief Cliff.

Actually you don't KNOW any of that Cliff. That's why your continued braying about dress shirts and clothing design is nothing but bullcrap hand waving. And now you try .. and fail...to shift gears with MORE bullcrap about timing. Pretty sad to see you reduced to this Cliff.

Of course if anyone wants to see your destruction in fine detail there are threads available in the archives that do just that.

You have been BEATEN...pounded into the ground by a very simple shadow. Simply DESTROYED because you can't understand how the SUN work.

Now that's UNIMPEACHABLE...

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Thanks, Pat. Someone who thinks the HSCA drawing is the most accurate has to be a master at self-deception,

at distorting the evidence, and at perpetrating frauds. I am sorry, Pat. This is far more revealing about you and

your state of understanding of the medical evidence. I find this extremely illuminating and extremely troubling.

No wonder to get to your position you have to discount the most important evidence we have about the wound to

the back of his head--the Dealey Plaza witnesses, Clint Hill, the Parkland physicians, McClelland and Crenshaw's

diagrams, and David Mantik's studies of the X-rays, not to mention Thomas Evan Robinson's detailed observations.

It has taken me a long time to sort this out, which I still would not have done without your candid answers to these

questions. Now of course you search for the tiniest variations and your disregard of the principle of inference to the

best explanation make sense. You have to do these things to prop up your artificial, subjective and unscientific theory.

My responses in italics.

Pat,

I have three questions for you for which my answers are given below.

(1) In relation to these three diagrams (from Parkland, from Bethesda

and from the HSCA), which most accurately represents the head wound?

My response: the HSCA drawing is a nearly accurate copy of an autopsy photo many believe to be fake. I see no reason to think so, however. The other drawings are just Lifton's guesstimates as to how the wound looked at Parkland and Bethesda. The Parkland drawing is flat out wrong, as it presents the wound almost entirely on the occipital bone in a location at odds with both the statements of the witnesses, and images of these witnesses pointing out the wound location. The Bethesda drawing, apparently, reflects the approximate size of the wound, AFTER the scalp was peeled back, and skull fell to the table.

(2) Where was JFK hit? Just describe the locations and nature of the

wounds he sustained, independently of your reasons for thinking so.

My response: I believe he was hit from behind in the back, in the back of the head by the EOP, and finally by the temple.

(3) Who is the single best witness when it comes to understanding the

wounds in corresponding to your beliefs and why do you agree with him?

My response: sometime after I came to my conclusions based on the photos, films, and eyewitnesses, I realized that an obscure witness to the autopsy with no apparent theory to sell named Richard Lipsey had described the wounds discussed at autopsy to the HSCA as if he'd been reading my webpage, almost 30 years before it existed.

My answers:

(1) The Parkland description is the most accurate. The Bethesda has

it after Humes used his saw and the HSCA presentation is indefensible.

To this day, I cannot understand why one or another member of the HSCA

medical panel, which included Cyril Wecht, M.D., J.D., did not raise

an enormous commotion in protest of the complete transformation of the

wound from its description in the signed autopsy report (the second of

these three images) and the HSCA representation (which is the third).

My response: Your outrage, IMO, comes from your lack of familiarity with the evidence. Humes testified that skull fell to the table as he peeled back the scalp. The doctors would not have tried to measure the size of the skull wound with scalp and hair in the way. All the measurements and descriptions, then, of the skull in the autopsy report are of the skull AFTER the wound had been enlarged.

(2) He was hit in the throat and incurred a small, clean oval wound.

He was hit in the back by a shot that entered about 5.5 inches below

his collar, which was a shallow wound at a downward angle that had no

point of exit. He was hit in the right temple by a shot that blew his

brains out the back of his head to the left/rear. The blow-out was a

the rear of his head, slightly to the right, and was the size of your

fist when you double it up. There was also a small entry wound to the

back of his head that entered around the EOP and was only discovered on

the basis of locating inward beveling on a small piece of bone fragment.

(3) Thomas Evan Robinson. As the mortician, he had the longest time to

examine the wounds as he prepared the body for burial. He has not only

confirmed the entry wound in the right temple, the blow-out at the back

of the head, and the wound to his back, but also testified that he had

a "nasty" throat wound. He did not observe the small, clean entry wound

because it had been completely obscured by alteration to make it look as

if it were a wound of exit. He had observed Humes take a saw to enlarge

the blow-out at the back of the head, so he knew the difference between

the wound JFK had sustained and the larger wound that Humes had created.

My response: Some of this is not true. Robinson absolutely positively did not confirm an entrance wound in the right temple. If you read his HSCA testimony, moreover, you'll see that Robinson NEVER saw Kennedy's head wound during the autopsy, as he was sitting on the left side of the body. In other words...he thought the wound was on the right side. Now, it's true he saw a wound at the end of the autopsy, during reconstruction, that he claimed was on the back of the head. BUT, he did not reconstruct the skull. Since the morticians were not asked to perform a forensic reconstruction of the skull, and since their job was to make the president presentable for a viewing, moreover, it's quite clear that whoever did do the reconstruction would re-arrange things a bit, and make sure whatever hole was left over at the end was on the back of the head, so it could be hidden in a pillow. This is what morticians do. They're not anthropologists. So it's no surprise Robinson noted a hole in this location at the end of reconstruction. In fact, it's exactly what one would expect.

Your answers?

Edited April 4, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

We don't know the accuracy of the transcript, but we do have a public record of the following reports:

And am I "just MAKING THIS UP" when I observe that, when Malcolm Kilduff announced JFK's death,

he pointed to his right temple and said that it was a simple matter of a bullet right through the head?

And that, on radio and television that day, there were reports of two shots, one to the throat and one

to the head, which Chet Huntley reported as a simple matter of a bullet to the head "which entered his

right temple", attributing that finding to Admiral George Burkley, the president's personal physician?

How grossly am I suppose to permit you to misrepresent the evidence? This has gone beyond absurd.

And have you bothered to read the text of the page including the three diagrams? Two shots were

widely broadcast on radio and television that day, the shot to his throat and the shot that hit him in

the right temple and blew out his brains. I suppose you think we should discount those reports, too!

All you do is pick and choose, using the method of selection and elimination, selecting the evidence

that supports a predetermined conclusion and eliminating the rest. That is what we expect from used

car salesmen, not from someone who poses as an authority on the medical evidence in the death of JFK.

When I said the "blow out" was to the left/rear, I mean the debris being blown out to the left/rear,

where it impacted with Officer Bobby Hargis. I did not mean that the defect was to the left/rear.

Several of the witnesses quoted in a recent post supported the entry at the right temple. Chuck

Crenshaw even described it in a televised interview and Thomas Evan Robinson the confirmed it. I

cannot get over your obsessive attempts to revise and reinterpret the clear and consistent reports

of those who were actually there. You are subjective and unscientific in your entire approach and

go out of your way to disregard that their earlier reports are going to be the more accurate ones.

Jim, you are the one who is being unscientific, and who is sadly ill-informed. The Moorman photo, the Zapruder film, and the eyewitnesses all confirm that Kennedy's head was turned to his left at the time of the head shot. So how, exactly, could a bullet enter from his right front, exit from the right side of the back of his head, and spray only those to his left rear? Wouldn't it have to explode from the left side of the back of the head to spray in that direction? If you have ever bothered to map this out, and can show how this makes sense, a quick peak would be appreciated.

As far as Crenshaw and Robinson, you're just propping up CRUD to support what you apparently desperately need to believe. None of the Parkland witnesses you find so compelling saw an entrance on the front of Kennedy's head. READ their reports! READ their testimony! FIND OUT what the evidence actually shows instead of repeating what you gather from others. Crenshaw never claimed to see an entrance wound on the front of Kennedy's head. He didn't mention this in his book. He didn't tell this to the ARRB. In his book he writes "From the damage I saw, there was no doubt in my mind that the bullet had entered his head through the front." Now, in a television interview, he mentioned a bullet wound on the front of Kennedy's head, but this was clearly where he PRESUMED the bullet entered, and not where he actually SAW an entrance.

And if you think I'm bluffing, please read DOUG HORNE'S REPORT on his interview with Crenshaw. Look at the FIRST words in his summary: "Only saw ONE head wound."

http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md183/html/md183_0002a.htm

As far as Robinson, here is how he described what you're trying to pretend was an entrance wound when interviewed by the HSCA:

PURDY: Did you notice anything else unusual about the body which may not have been artificially caused, that is caused by something other than the autopsy?

ROBINSON: Probably, a little mark at the temples in the hairline. As I recall, it was so small it could be hidden by the hair. It didn't have to be covered with make-up. I thought it probably a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet that caused it.

PURDY: In other words, there was a little wound.

ROBINSON: Yes.

PURDY: Approximately where, which side of the forehead or part of the head was it on?

ROBINSON: I believe it was on the right side.

PURDY: On his right side?

ROBINSON: That's an anatomical right, yes.

PURDY: You say it was in the forehead region up near the hairline?

ROBINSON: Yes.

PURDY: Would you say it was closer to the top of the hair?

ROBINSON: Somewhere around the temples.

PURDY: Approximately what size?

ROBINSON: Very small, about a quarter of an inch.

PURDY: Quarter of an inch is all the damage. Had it been closed up by the doctors?

ROBINSON: No, he didn't have to close it. If anything, I just would have probably put a little wax in it.

When asked later what he thought caused this wound, moreover, he claimed "I think either a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet. Or a very small piece of shrapnel." When asked one last time what he thought caused the wound, furthermore, he reiterated "A piece of the bone or metal exiting."

So, Robinson did not call this wound an entrance, nor think it was an entrance. No, he believed it to have been an exit for a very small fragment of some sort, or perhaps even a mark created by shrapnel. This is NOT the description of an entrance hole for an explosive round so many pretend it is, nor a bullet hole of any kind.

Heck, it was a wound so small that Robinson wasn't even sure he put wax in it.

Edited April 4, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

Craig,

Cliff has it exactly right. You seem to be performing an old "song and dance" that was laid to rest long ago.

For a more recent study that explains why you are wrong and how we know, I suggest that you download

"Reasoning about Assassinations", which I presented at Cambridge and published in an international, peer-

reviewed journal. Then you can explain how you can persist in this charade on the basis of the evidence.

Jim

P.S. It's also available at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2009/11/reasoning-about-assassinations.html

Jim, Cliff does NOT have it correct and neither do you. If you think you can PROVE there was not a 3+ inch fold of fabric in Betzner, please do so. Cliff has failed completely. My proofs of this fold's existence is simply unimpeachable. But have at it if you think you can.

Now since this fold exists, your burden of proof has shifted. YOU must prove there was no fold in the jacket at the instant of the back wound. Your attempts to do this will be highly entertaining to say the least. I suspect however all we will get from you is your patented bloviation.

[Jack White]

My responses in italics.

SPEER: What crud. You can bet dollars to donuts these are not exact quotes from Bill Newman, but Jack's quite possibly skewed recollections of what Newman said. I've read a number of statements by Newman, and have viewed a number of interviews. And he has NEVER said the Zapruder film is at odds with what he saw, at least ON THE RECORD. If you think he has, please find it. If you think he will, please track him down and get him to put something in writing. It is also beyond offensive that here you are suddenly claiming Newman as a highly credible witness supporting YOUR views, when 1) he has always claimed the sound he heard came from behind him at the time of the head shot and not from the fence to his right (which I have come to believe as well and which you NO DOUBT claim is nonsense) and 2) he saw NO blow-out on the back of JFK's head at the moment of the fatal impact, and instead noted a blow-out by Kennedy's ear (which supports the accuracy of the Zapruder film, and which you no doubt claim is nonsense).

Accusing me of lying (skewed recollections) is the last straw with Speer. This is absurd. I spent about 20 minutes (on the cited occasion) questioning Newman. I had done the same before twice, years earlier. What he said was very clear and vivid. I made up nothing, changed nothing, only

paraphrased some of his replies.

SPEER: So you admit I was right when I said these were not exact quotes. Thanks.

I reported what he said. I have NO views to support.

SPEER: What nonsense. You have staked your entire reputation on the Zapruder film being fake, and here you present "paraphrased" statements from Newman suggesting the film has been faked, when he has never mentioned this to anyone else. Of course, you have views to support.

Speer's changing the interpretation of what Newman said about the origin of the shots is despicable.

SPEER: You are just grandstanding here. I have NEVER changed the interpretation of what Newman said. He said it came from behind him. He said it within moments of the fatal shots.

He has ALWAYS consistently said the shots came from behind him, and that he was "in the line of fire". All

photos of the Newman family show that directly behind them was the pergola and picket fence.

SPEER: Wrong. We've been through this before. Newman thought the head shot came from behind him, from the pergola, or garden, whatever, and NOT from the picket fence to his right. He has on numerous occasions demonstrated this--including in the video Duncan has already linked to.

He did not say anything about "a blowout of Kennedy's ear", but instead said that is where a bullet struck (right temple). I discussed this with him on THREE OCCASIONS, years apart. He always used the same analogy..."like a baseball bat hit him in the right temple"...never mentioning a "blowout".

SPEER: More nonsense. You're pretending Newman didn't see a blow-out so you can pretend he just saw Kennedy fall over in the seat while his brains blew out the back. This allows you to pretend his statements don't support the accuracy of the Zapruder film. Well, there's a couple of problems with this. One is that Newman was looking directly at the back of Kennedy's head at the moment of the fatal impact and saw nothing blow out the back. And two is that Newman and his wife discussed this blow out over and over and and over again.

(11-24-63 FBI report, 22H842) “At that time he heard the bullet strike the president and saw flesh fly from the President’s head”

(11-29-66 interview with Josiah Thompson) “In my opinion the ear went…

(2-17-69 testimony in the trial of Clay Shaw)"then when the car was directly in front of me, well, that is when the third shot was fired and it hit him in the side of the head right above the ear and his ear come off…I observed his ear flying off, and he turned just real white and then blood red"

(7-23-86 testimony in televised mock trial, On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald)"just as the President's car got directly in front of me, the President was probably fifteen feet away, Boom, and the side of his ear flew off, and justa, bits and pieces flew off. I can remember seeing just a white flash, and then the red, and the President fell across the car, as if you'd hit him with a bat.

(Interview in The Men Who Killed Kennedy, broadcast 1988)Then he got nearer to us, and, bam, a shot took the right side of his head off. His ear flew off. I heard Mrs. Kennedy say 'Oh, my God, no, they shot Jack!' He was knocked violently back against the seat, almost as if he had been hit by a baseball bat. At that time, I was looking right at the President and I thought the shots were coming from directly behind us."

(Excerpt from 1991 interview with Mark Oakes, found online) "As the car got directly in front of us, the President was not much further than I am to you--probably ten to twelve feet, he was directly in front of me--the third shot rang out and I remember seeing the side of his head come off.

(11-20-97 interview published in No Case To Answer, 2005)the third shot rang out and I can remember seeing the side of President Kennedy's head blow off. There was black matter and then grayish and he fell across Mrs. Kennedy,

(No More Silence p. 94-101, published 1998)the third shot rang out, and it hit the President. It appeared to me that it hit him on the side of the head, as the side of his head came off. I can remember seeing a white mass, and then just a mass of red.

(Oral History for the Sixth Floor Museum, 7-10-03)just as he got straight out from the curb from us, the third shot rang out. And I can remember seeing the side of President Kennedy's head come off, and I thought his ear came off. And I testified to that effect but years later I saw a picture that showed otherwise. But I can remember seeing a flash of white and the red blood....(When discussing a report received at WFAA saying the President was still alive) "I was kinda dumbfounded to hear these people saying that, when just minutes earlier I'd seen the side of his head come off." (When asked if he knew the President was dead when first interviewed on WFAA) "When you see something the size of a grapefruit or orange or something blow out into the air, and then you hear the statement that he was in the emergency and was shot in the back whatever, it dumbfounded me momentarily.." (When later asked about his impression the shots came from behind) "It was the visual impact that it had on me more so than the noise--seeing the side of the President's head blow off, seeing the President go across the car seat into Mrs. Kennedy's lap, in her direction. It gave me the impression that the shots were coming from directly behind where I was standing." (When stressing just how much his impressions of the shot location were based on what he saw as opposed to what he heard) "It might be difficult for me to testify that I heard a noise."

(11-19-08 AP article by Dylan Lovan)'Ten, 12 feet in front of us, the third shot rang out, and that's when the side of his head flew off and I could remember seeing' the blood

(Tru TV program Conspiracy Theory, first broadcast 11-19-10)Just as the car got right in front of us, the third shot rang out, and the side of President Kennedy's head blew off (as he says this he reaches for his temple). We seen the brain matter and the blood fly off.

Speer makes up things to fit his theories.

SPEER: more nonsense. This is the same kind of stuff LNs say when I prove them wrong. "You're making things up." Not.

Newman is very clear. The head shot came from the right front, directly over his head, and hit JFK in the right temple. Ask him today; that is what he will say.

SPEER: EXACTLY. EXCEPT FOR ONE THING. He will not say right FRONT. Kennedy was PAST Newman at the moment of the head shot. He thought the shot came from BEHIND him. Not to his right. I don't know why this is so hard for you to grasp. Watch the video posted by Duncan. It shows Newman pointing out where HE thought the shot came from...and it's not anywhere near where you want it to be.

I doubt that Speer has ever talked to Newman, especially three times...yet he disputes those who have. But he is willing to put words in Newman's

mouth to make him say what fits Speer's preconceived theories. Despicable acts of someone with an agenda.

Jack

SPEER: I think it's readily obvious which one of us is putting words in Newman's mouth to further his agenda. I'd double dog dare you to get Newman to sign something or state on camera that he thinks the Zapruder film is fake, because it does not reflect events as he remembers them. But why waste my breath?

I "do not want" the shot to come from any particular place. I talked to Newman on three occasions. I reported where he

said the head shot came from. Speer is the one who wants it to come from a certain place. In talking to me, Newman

was very specific; Speer has NOT talked to Newman and makes up what he wants Newman to say. Nonsense. Speer

is rapidly losing all credibility.

Jack

[Pat Speer]

My responses in italics.

Thanks, Pat. Someone who thinks the HSCA drawing is the most accurate has to be a master at self-deception,

at distorting the evidence, and at perpetrating frauds.

My response: I'm not the one pretending the head wound was centered in the occipital region and that this is supported overwhelmingly by the eyewitness evidence. That would be you, the same person pretending Charles Crenshaw and Tom Robinson saw a small entrance wound on the front of Kennedy's head.

I am sorry, Pat. This is far more revealing about you and

your state of understanding of the medical evidence. I find this extremely illuminating and extremely troubling.

My response: Well, then there's hope for you. I was like you in many regards. I BELIEVED the Parkland witnesses consistently described a wound LOW on the back of the head, and that therefore the autopsy photos of the back of the head must be fake. Unlike you, however, I continued reading and reading, and I noticed something...these witnesses were, on average, describing the wound in the autopsy photos, only a few inches further back on the skull. The thought occurred that they were simply mistaken. I asked a few cognitive psychologists to see if this was possible. They said sure. I then decided to look at the witnesses to the shooting to see if they saw a blow-out on the back of the head. They overwhelmingly claimed the head wound they saw was on the top or side of the head. This sealed it for me. If a bullet had EXPLODED out the LOW back of JFK's head in Dealey Plaza, certainly someone would have seen it, don't you think?

No wonder to get to your position you have to discount the most important evidence we have about the wound to

the back of his head--the Dealey Plaza witnesses

My response: Are you playing a game? Haven't we been through this before? I could have sworn we've been through the DP witnesses one by one, and that I've shown their consistency regarding the head wound--that it was on the top or side of JFK's head, and not the back.

Clint Hill,

My response: Clint Hill insists the wound was above Kennedy's ear and NOT on the far back of the head. It is YOU who are discounting his statements and testimony, not I. How can this not sink in?

the Parkland physicians, McClelland and Crenshaw's diagrams, and David Mantik's studies of the X-rays, not to mention Thomas Evan Robinson's detailed observations.

My response: Doesn't anything sink in? The Parkland physicians are not as consistent as you pretend. Salyer, for example, said the wound was on the side. Baxter told the W#C there was a plate of bone flipped out to the side. It is YOU who discount their statements, not I. As far as McClelland and Crenshaw, yep, their diagrams are not reflective of what others saw. And Mantik, well he claims "area P", which does NOT overlay the back of the head where you claim the skull was missing, does not even represent missing skull. So it's a double-whammy. The area he claims does not represent missing bone does not overlay the area where he claims bone is missing. So HOW does this support your nonsense, exactly?

As far as Robinson, I've already explained how he did NOT see an entrance wound, as you claim, and how the hole he described almost certainly did not represent the location of the exit wound.

It has taken me a long time to sort this out, which I still would not have done without your candid answers to these

questions. Now of course you search for the tiniest variations and your disregard of the principle of inference to the best explanation make sense. You have to do these things to prop up your artificial, subjective and unscientific theory.

My response: I'm sorry, Jim, but it is you who are being "unscientific." Please find me a science textbook, anywhere, that claims you can decide photographs and films are fake because they don't match what a group of witnesses saw...while ignoring that other witnesses had no problem with the photos and films, and that the bulk of these witnesses, when confronted with the fact that their recollections didn't match the photos and films... deferred to the accuracy of the photos and films. That's the exact opposite of scientific, and you know it.

P.S. In case you really have forgotten what the DP witnesses had to say, here's a refresher course. You really need to read this to understand anything about the medical evidence. From chapter 18c:

To best explain my lack of faith in the accuracy of the Parkland witnesses, we need to go back to the beginning...

At approximately 12:45 P.M., within 15 minutes of Kennedy's being shot, assassination witness William Newman, who was less than 30 feet to the side of Kennedy when the fatal bullet struck, was interviewed live on television station WFAA. This was 45 minutes before the announcement of Kennedy’s death. Newman told Jay Watson: “And then as the car got directly in front of us, well, a gun shot apparently from behind us hit the President in the side, the side of the temple.” As he said this, he pointed to his left temple, with his only free hand. (This image is reversed on the slide above.)

At 1:17, about a half hour later, Watson interviewed Gayle Newman, who'd been standing right beside her husband and had had an equally close look at the President's wound. She reported: "And then another one—it was just awful fast. And President Kennedy reached up and grabbed--it looked like he grabbed--his ear and blood just started gushing out." (As she said this she motioned to her right temple with both of her hands. In 1969, while testifying at the trial of Clay Shaw, Mrs, Newman would make the implications of this even more clear, and specify that Kennedy "was shot in the head right at his ear or right above his ear…")

Okay so that's two for two. Two witnesses, BOTH of whom saw the bullet impact by Kennedy's ear. But they only saw Kennedy for a second. Maybe they were mistaken. If they were correct, certainly someone seeing Kennedy at Parkland Hospital would have noticed the wound they describe by Kennedy's temple, and have mentioned it on 11-22-63.

Someone did. At 1:33 p.m. on November 22, 1963, Assistant Press Secretary Malcolm Kilduff announced President Kennedy’s death from Parkland Hospital. He told the country: “President John F. Kennedy died at approximately one o’clock Central Standard Time today here in Dallas. He died of a gunshot wound in the brain…Dr. Burkley [Kennedy's personal physician] told me it is a simple matter…of a bullet right through the head.(at which time, as shown on the slide above, he pointed to his right temple) . . . It is my understanding that it entered in the temple, the right temple.” As Dr. Burkley had seen Kennedy in the Dallas emergency room and was later to tell the HSCA that Kennedy’s wounds didn’t change between Dallas and Bethesda, the site of the autopsy, Kilduff’s statements are a clear indication that the large head wound depicted in the autopsy photos is in the same location as the large head wound seen at Parkland Hospital. That no one at the time of Kilduff's statement had noted a separate bullet entrance anywhere on Kennedy's head, moreover, suggests that Burkley had seen but one wound, a wound by the temple, exactly where Newman and his wife had seen a wound.

But wait, there's more... Less than forty minutes after the announcement of Kennedy's death, eyewitness Abraham Zapruder took his turn before the cameras on WFAA, and confirmed the observations of Burkley and the Newmans. Describing the shooting, Zapruder told Jay Watson: “Then I heard another shot or two, I couldn't say it was one or two, and I saw his head practically open up, all blood and everything (at this time, and as shown on the slide above, Zapruder grabbed his right temple), and I kept on shooting. That's about all, I'm just sick, I can't…”

This means that there were four witnesses to comment on the location of Kennedy's head wound prior to the approximately 2:16 press conference at Parkland Hospital, in which Dr. William Kemp Clark claimed the wound was on the "back of his head," and all of them had specified the wound to have been on the side of Kennedy's head, where it was later shown to be in the autopsy photos and Zapruder film. Now ain't that a humdinger!

Now, I know what some of you are thinking. You're thinking, "but Pat you're cherry-picking witnesses to support your silly notion that the Parkland witnesses were wrong and that the bullet striking Kennedy at frame 313 did not exit the back of his head." Well, first of all, I don't believe my noting that the earliest witnesses all said that a bullet hit Kennedy by the temple is silly, particularly in that three participants to Kennedy's autopsy--radiologist Dr. John Ebersole, radiology technician Jerrol Custer, and autopsy assistant James Curtis Jenkins--all left the autopsy with a similar impression a bullet struck Kennedy by the temple. And second of all.... Well, have it your way. Let's go through the statements of the best witnesses to the shooting.

As we've seen, the Newmans and Zapruder, standing on Kennedy's right side, all thought the bullet struck Kennedy on the right side of his head, by his right temple. But they weren't the only witnesses on the right side of Kennedy to note an impact on the side of his head.

Dealey Plaza groundskeeper Emmett Hudson, who was standing on the steps to the right and front of Kennedy at the moment of the fatal head shot, also discussed its impact. In his testimony before the Warren Commission, Hudson asserted: "it looked like it hit him somewhere along a little bit behind the ear and a little bit above the ear." While this is a few inches back of the location described by the Newmans and Zapruder, it is more significantly not a description of a bullet exit on the far back of Kennedy's head, where most conspiracy theorists have long held the large head wound was located.

"Well, wait a second"--I'm sure some of you are thinking--"maybe Hudson, along with the other witnesses, saw the bullet's entrance, and missed seeing the exit of this bullet from the back of Kennedy's head due to their being slightly in front of Kennedy." Well, no, that doesn't work, either.

In 1966, Marilyn Sitzman, Abraham Zapruder’s secretary, who'd stood beside him on 11-22-63, confirmed his observation of the wound location. To writer Josiah Thompson, she related: “And the next thing that I remembered correct ... clearly was the shot that hit him directly in front of us, or almost directly in front of us, that hit him on the side of his face ...” When asked then by Thompson to specify just where she saw the large head wound, she continued: “I would say it'd be above the ear and to the front…Between the eye and the ear…And we could see his brains come out, you know, his head opening. It must have been a terrible shot because it exploded his head, more or less”. Hmmm... Sitzman, as Zapruder, was almost directly to the right of the President at the moment of the fatal bullet's impact. This put them in perfect position to note an explosion from the back of Kennedy's head. And yet neither of them saw such an explosion.

Even worse, at the moment of the fatal bullet's impact, the Newmans were approximately 6-8 feet behind the President, and about 20 feet to his right. Kennedy, at this time, was turned slightly left. This means the Newmans were looking directly at the back of Kennedy's head at the moment of the fatal bullet's impact... And yet both of them noted that this impact was by his ear!

Still, that's just four witnesses in a strong position to note whether the bullet exploded from the side or back of Kennedy's skull, all of whom said "side." What about the closest witnesses in the motorcade behind Kennedy? Didn't any of them see an explosion from the back of his head?

Uhhh...nope. Motorcycle officer James Chaney, riding just a few yards off Kennedy's right shoulder, was interviewed by WFAA on the night of the shooting. He reported: "We heard the first shot. I thought it was a motorcycle backfiring and uh I looked back over to my left and also President Kennedy looked back over his left shoulder. Then, the, uh, second shot came, well, then I looked back just in time to see the President struck in the face by the second bullet." Wait... What? Struck in the face? Apparently, Chaney, as Sitzman, considered the space between the eye and the ear the side of the face. While some might wish to believe Chaney was describing the impact of a bullet entering Kennedy's face and exiting from the back of his head, this in fact makes little sense, as Chaney said in this same interview that he thought the shot had come from "back over my right shoulder." We should also consider that WFAA's interview of Chaney took place on the night of the assassination...in the hall of the Dallas Police Station as Oswald was being questioned. By that time, Chaney had to have been told a rifle had been found in the depository behind Kennedy's position at the time of the shooting. If Chaney believed Oswald had fired the shots, as one would suspect since he thought the shots came from behind, and had seen an explosion of any kind from the back of Kennedy's head--entrance or exit--wouldn't he have said so?

And shouldn't the motorcycle officer riding directly to his right, Douglas Jackson, also have reported such an explosion? Jackson's notes, written on the night of the assassination and published in 1979, relate: "I looked back toward Mr. Kennedy and saw him hit in the head; he appeared to have been hit just above the right ear. The top of his head flew off away from me."

Well then, what about the officers riding on the other side, unable to see the right side of the President's face? If there had been an explosion from the back of Kennedy's head, entrance or exit, they would not have been distracted by an entrance or exit by Kennedy's ear. So what did they see?

While the motorcycle officer on the far left of the limo, B.J. Martin, said he did not even see the head shot, the officer to his right, Bobby Hargis, riding off Mrs. Kennedy's left shoulder, was not so lucky. In an 11-24-63 eyewitness account published in the New York Sunday News, he wrote: "As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned toward him, and that was when he got hit in the side of the head, spinning it around. I was splattered by blood." In 1968, in an interview with Jim Garrison's investigators, Hargis would later confirm: "If he'd got hit in the rear, I'd have been able to see it. All I saw was just a splash come out on the other side."

Okay, now, that's eight witnesses, all of whom said the kill shot impacted on the side of the President's head, and none of whom noted an explosion or wound on the back of his head.

We now move to the witnesses directly behind Kennedy, in perfect position to note an explosion from the back of his head. These witnesses rode in the Secret Service back-up car, trailing the limousine by just a few yards. Sam Kinney, the driver of this car, wrote a report on the night of the assassination which asserted "At this time, the second shot was fired and I observed hair flying from the right side of his head…" Sitting next to Kinney was Emory Roberts, sitting directly behind Kennedy. If a bullet hit Kennedy on the back of the head, or erupted from the back of his head, he would have been the one to notice. Instead, in an 11-29-63 report, he wrote "I saw what appeared to be a small explosion on the right side of the President’s head, saw blood, at which time the President fell further to his left."

On the left running board of the back-up car were two agents, neither of whom commented on the bullet's impact or wound location in their initial reports.

One of the agents on the right side of the limo, Paul Landis, however, described the impact in a graphic manner. In a report written 11-29-63, he noted "I heard a second report and saw the President’s head split open and pieces of flesh and blood flying through the air." While vague, this might indeed suggest a bullet's exploding from the back of Kennedy's head.

But between the agents on the left and right sides of the limo sat four more witnesses, two on the jump seat, and two on the rear seat. While Kennedy's close aide Kenneth O'Donnell failed to describe the impact of the fatal bullet or head wound location in his Warren Commission testimony, he and the man sitting next to him on the jump seat, Dave Powers, would in 1970 publish a book on Kennedy, which described: "While we both stared at the President, the third shot took the side of his head off. We saw pieces of bone and brain tissue and bits of his reddish hair flying through the air..." These were Kennedy's friends, both of whom felt one or more shots came from the front, and yet neither of them claimed to see an explosion from the back of Kennedy's head. Years earlier, in fact, Powers had provided a statement to the Warren Commission, which described: "there was a third shot which took off the top of the President’s head..." Thus, O'Donnell and Powers felt the explosion was on the top and side of the President's head--and not on the far back of his head, where so many conspiracy theorists fervently believe the wound was located.

Their impression was shared by George Hickey, one of the two Secret Service agents on the rear seat of the back-up car. On the night of the assassination, he wrote a report on what transpired in Dallas, and noted: "it seemed as if the right side of his head was hit and his hair flew forward." Next to Hickey sat Glen Bennett, who noted, in a handwritten 11-22-63 report, that the fatal bullet "hit the right rear high of the President’s head." While some might take Bennett's statement to indicate he saw the entrance of a bullet near Kennedy's cowlick, the entrance location later "discovered" by the Clark Panel, a more logical assessment would be that he saw an explosion of brain and blood from the right side of Kennedy's skull, to the rear of his head, as in not on his face, and high, as in the highest part of his head visible from behind. This, not coincidentally, would be the top of Kennedy's head above his ear, the location of the impact shown in the Zapruder film. (Should one not agree with this assessment one should feel free to explain how Bennett could have seen an impact at the small red shape seen in the autopsy photos, and fail to note the massive explosion from the gaping hole on the right side of Kennedy's head seen in the Zapruder film, especially when no blood can be seen exploding from the back of Kennedy's head in the film.)

In sum, then, none of the closest witnesses to the side or back of the President saw a bullet impact on or explode from the back of his head. So why is it, again, that so many believe there was a wound on the back of his head? Oh, that's right. ALL those who saw Kennedy at Parkland Hospital said the wound they saw was on the back of his head.

Well, not all... As we've seen, Dr. Burkley, long before the Dallas doctors convened their press conference and told the world the large head wound was on the back of Kennedy's head, had already explained to press secretary Malcolm Kilduff that the wound was in fact by the temple.

And he wasn't the only one at Parkland to make this assessment. Texas Highway Patrolman Hurchel Jacks, the driver of Vice-President Johnson's car in the motorcade, arrived at the hospital just moments after the limousine, and witnessed the removal of the President's body from the limo. On 11-28-63, less than a week after the assassination, he filed a report (18H801) and noted: "Before the President's body was covered it appeared that the bullet had struck him above the right ear or near the temple." Well, then, what gives? Didn't any of the closest witnesses to the shooting or Kennedy's body before it entered the hospital say anything suggesting they saw a large wound on the back of Kennedy's head?

Yeah...one did... Clint Hill, the Secret Service agent riding to the hospital on the back of the limo, while making no initial comment on the impact location of the fatal bullet, would later describe the appearance of Kennedy's head wound both en route to the hospital in Dallas, and then later, after the autopsy in Bethesda. An 11-30-63 report written by Hill relates: "As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lieing in the seat." Hill returned to this later. When describing the aftermath to Kennedy's autopsy in his report, Hill relates "At approximately 2:45 A.M., November 23, I was requested by ASAIC to come to the morgue to once again view the body. When I arrived the autopsy had been completed and ASAIC Kellerman, SA Greer, General McHugh and I viewed the wounds. I observed a wound about six inches down from the neckline on the back just to the right of the spinal column. I observed another wound on the right rear portion of the skull." Well, this once again, is vague. A wound, whether on the "right rear side" of the head, or simply in "the right rear portion of the skull," could be most anywhere in back of the face, including the area above the ear.

So what about Hill's testimony, you might ask? Did he clear this matter up when testifying before the Warren Commission? Some would say so. In testimony taken nearly four months after the shooting, Hill told the Warren Commission: "The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head." Hill's testimony, then, first reflects that the wound was not on A portion of the right rear side, or merely ON a right rear portion of the skull, but instead covered THE entire right rear portion. It then reverses course, and reflects merely that it was IN the right rear portion, which could, of course, be anywhere in back of the face.

So, despite the widespread claims that Hill's testimony is proof the wound was on the back of Kennedy's head, it is, in reality, a confusing mess. With his statements and testimony, Hill had made four references to Kennedy's head wound--three that were unduly vague, and one that was overly expansive, as not even the looniest of conspiracy theorists believes the entire right rear portion of Kennedy's skull was missing. Perhaps Hill, then, when claiming "THE right rear portion" was missing, meant simply to repeat his earlier statement that "A portion of the right rear side was missing," and mis-spoke. While this may be stretching, it explains Hill's subsequent claim, in a 2004 television interview, that, when he first looked down on the President, he saw "the back of his head, And there was a gaping hole above his right ear about the size of my palm" better than that he had forgotten what he had seen, or that he had suddenly, for the first time, more than forty years after his original testimony, decided to start lying about what he saw.

(In 2010, while promoting The Kennedy Detail, a book written by his fellow agent Jerry Blaine, Hill would repeat many more times that the wound was above Kennedy's right ear. Sometimes he would add-in that it was "to the rear." In the book, it is described as "fist-sized." Well, this was all some conspiracy theorists, including James Fetzer, needed. In January 2011 Fetzer started pretending that Hill's comments supported not only that the Zapruder film and autopsy photos are fake, but that Hill's description supported the wound as described and depicted by Dr. Charles Crenshaw in Fetzer's 1998 book Assassination Science. Apparently, it never registered with Fetzer that Hill had also pointed out exactly where he meant when he said the wound was above the ear to the rear, and that, as shown on the slide above, the location pointed out by Hill was much closer to the wound depicted in the autopsy photos than the wound on Crenshaw's drawings...)

"But the men behind Kennedy were all government employees!", some might claim. "What about the witnesses in back of Kennedy on the south side of the street? Certainly, they saw an explosion from the back of his head..." No, no such luck. There were three witnesses behind Kennedy on his left who would have been in a position to see an explosion from the back of his head, should a shot from the grassy knoll truly have exploded from the back of his head, as so many believe. Mary Moorman, whose photo of Kennedy taken just after the shot's impact shows no evidence for such a wound, was interviewed numerous times on the day of the shooting, and would say only that she saw Kennedy grab his chest and slump down in the car. Her friend, Jean Hill, moreover, the woman in red in the Zapruder film, said much the same thing on the day of the shooting. Four months later, however, after much more spectacular reports had been printed, Hill claimed to have seen "the hair on the back of President Kennedy’s head fly up." Note that she still was not claiming to have seen an explosion from the back of his head. No, she didn't even claim such a thing when tracked down and interviewed decades later by conspiracy writer Jim Marrs. Instead, she told Marrs simply that "a bullet hit his head and took the top off." "Top." Not "back." Ms. Hill, in fact. made no claims of seeing the explosion from the back of Kennedy's head so many conspiracy theorists assume she saw until her book The Last Dissenting Witness appeared in 1992. It related "The whole back of his head appeared to explode and a cloud of blood-red mist filled the air." That this was "poetic license" inserted by her co-writer, Bill Sloan, should be readily apparent. If not, one should take into account that by 1992 Ms. Hill was still so confused by what she saw that she told interviewer James Earl Jones and a national television audience that, as "shots rang out", Kennedy "grabbed his throat, and that was the horrible head shot." Kennedy, of course, grabbed his throat long before the head shot.

Well, what of the third witness, then? Well, in his earliest interviews, Charles Brehm claimed to see Kennedy really get blasted and get knocked down in the car. No mention of an explosion from the back of his head. A few days later, however, newspaper accounts of the shooting quoting Brehm claimed he saw "the President’s hair fly up." In 1966, when interviewed by Mark Lane, moreover, he filled in the details, and claimed "When the second bullet hit, there was—the hair seemed to go flying. It was very definite then that he was struck in the head with the second bullet…I saw a piece fly over in the area of the curb…it seemed to have come left and back." While some might wish to take the flight of this one piece of skull as an indication the fatal shot came from the front, they really shouldn't rush to such a judgment. You see, not only did Brehm long claim he thought the shots came from behind, but he paused before he told Lane "the hair seemed to go flying." During this pause, in an obvious indication of where he recalled seeing a wound, he motioned not to the back of his head but to...his right ear.

Well, were there any other known witnesses to report on this wound from further back? Yes. Marilyn Willis, standing quite some distance behind Kennedy, told the FBI in June, 64 that she saw the "top" of Kennedy's head blown off, only to turn around and tell a TV audience in 1988 that she saw brain matter blown out the "back of his head," only to turn around yet again and tell Robert Groden in 1993 that the wound she saw was on "this side," while grabbing the right side of her head above her ear.

But no matter how one takes her statements, one should recall that Mrs. Willis was about 50 yards behind Kennedy when he received his fatal bullet, and that should she have actually seen his head wound it was but for a second. This makes her seeing blood and brain blown out the back of his head, when no credible witness closer to him saw any such thing, quite unlikely. In fact, when one considers the numerous eyewitness statements claiming the bullet impacted on the right side or top of Kennedy's head, the Zapruder film's confirmation of a wound in this location, and the autopsy photos' additional confirmation of a wound in this location, one might rightly conclude that the only thing solid about the Kennedy assassination medical evidence is that there was a large wound above and in front of Kennedy's right ear.

Edited April 4, 2011 by Pat Speer