DID ZAPRUDER FILM "THE ZAPRUDER FILM"?

[Cliff Varnell]

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,

Craig persists in his charade because his head will explode if he doesn't remain self-deluded. His reactionary, Kennedy-hating world view renders him incapable of processing information.

The shirt evidence is definitive. Uncontested, unchallenged, and unimpeachable.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

I can't believe that Craig Lamson would be so dumb as to make a response to me WITHOUT BOTHERING

TO READ THE ARTICLE I CITED. It shows where the holes entered his jacket and his xxxx, where Boswell

and Sibert diagrammed the wound, where Admiral Burkely located it--and how the holes in the jacket

and the shirt ALIGN with the location of the wounds shown on the diagrams! In passing, I explain how

this evidence disproves the "bunching up" theory, even offering an illustration! This guy is apparently

so stupid he thinks he can make up the evidence to suit himself! I also show where the commission's

own staff located the wound to the back by using large markers to identify it. If anyone ever wanted a

crisp and clean proof of Craig Lamson's incompetent in JFK research, this one is completely stunning!

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.

Edited April 4, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pat,

Anyone who is willing to defend a position as absurd as yours--which does not even acknowledge the vast

difference between the HSCA photographs and diagrams, which you support, and the description of the

enormous surface area of missing cranium, which is described in the official autopsy report--has shown

that there is no good reason to take him seriously regarding the medical evidence nor, I dare say, about

any other aspect of JFK research. I am sorry, Pat, but you have now blown your credibility--completely!

It's bad enough that anyone would prefer the Bethesda autopsy report over the Parkland physicians. I

have explained in dozens of ways why you are off the mark, but I really had no idea by how far until now.

Jim

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.

. . .

Edited April 4, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Paul Rigby]

I can't believe that Craig Lamson would be so dumb as to make a response to me WITHOUT BOTHERING

TO READ THE ARTICLE I CITED. It shows where the holes entered his jacket and his xxxx...

Someone has unquestionably made a stool of himself, but is it necessarily the blessed Craig Lamson?

[Paul Rigby]

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.

I am delighted to remind Herr Speer of the pith of Brehm's original statement:

“Drehm seemed to think the shots came from in front or beside the President. He explained the President did not slump forward as if [sic] he would have after being shot from the rear,”

“President Dead, Connally Shot,” The Dallas Times Herald, 22 November 1963, p.2 [cited by Joachim Joesten. Oswald: Assassin or Fall Guy? (London: Merlin Press, 1964), p.176.]

I did like the weaselly reference to Brehm's "earliest interviews," though. Nice one, Pat.

[Paul Rigby]

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?

I can't wait for Pat's explanation of how Chaney managed to get sufficiently ahead of Kennedy to turn round and see the latter shot in the face - while managing to elude the cameras of Z et al. Did he become invisible, Pat, or are the films a fake?

And speaking of Z's testimony before the cameras of WFAA, whatever happened to his statement that he filmed the presidential limo making the turn from Houston onto Elm?

A cynic could begin to conclude that your arguments are not merely contradictory and perverse, but plain dishonest. And that would be a pity, I'm sure.

[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,

Craig persists in his charade because his head will explode if he doesn't remain self-deluded. His reactionary, Kennedy-hating world view renders him incapable of processing information.

The shirt evidence is definitive. Uncontested, unchallenged, and unimpeachable.

Cliff continues to bray about his non-existant "shirt evidence" because reality is just too painful for him. Given he has bet on the wrong horse for the last decade it is understandable but shows his gross intellectual dishonesty.

[Craig Lamson]

I can't believe that Craig Lamson would be so dumb as to make a response to me WITHOUT BOTHERING

TO READ THE ARTICLE I CITED. It shows where the holes entered his jacket and his xxxx, where Boswell

and Sibert diagrammed the wound, where Admiral Burkely located it--and how the holes in the jacket

and the shirt ALIGN with the location of the wounds shown on the diagrams! In passing, I explain how

this evidence disproves the "bunching up" theory, even offering an illustration! This guy is apparently

so stupid he thinks he can make up the evidence to suit himself! I also show where the commission's

own staff located the wound to the back by using large markers to identify it. If anyone ever wanted a

crisp and clean proof of Craig Lamson's incompetent in JFK research, this one is completely stunning!

Oh I read your "article" Jim. However, despite your massive bloviation you still have not found a way to deal directly with the unimpreachable existance of the 3+ inch fold of fabric found in Betzner. It's there Jim and your silly claims will not make it go away. So you can offer direct proof (not the CONTESTED location of the entry wound on JFK's back) that there was NO fold at the time of impact or you simply lose.

Not really very hard Jim, but failure to do so will offer clean and crisp proof of your incompetence in this simple JFK research matter. But of course not many here on this forum will find your incompetence stunning at all.

[Pat Speer]

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.

I am delighted to remind Herr Speer of the pith of Brehm's original statement:

“Drehm seemed to think the shots came from in front or beside the President. He explained the President did not slump forward as if [sic] he would have after being shot from the rear,”

“President Dead, Connally Shot,” The Dallas Times Herald, 22 November 1963, p.2 [cited by Joachim Joesten. Oswald: Assassin or Fall Guy? (London: Merlin Press, 1964), p.176.]

I did like the weaselly reference to Brehm's "earliest interviews," though. Nice one, Pat.

What nonsense, Paul. What "Drehm" "seemed" to think does not relate whatsoever to the point I was making, namely that BREHM did not see an explosion from the back of Kennedy's head.

And I guess you think the term "weaselly" means accurate. Here are Brehm's first statements. WHERE OH WHERE does he say he saw an explosion from the back of the head?

Charles Brehm and his small son Joe were several yards to Moorman’s and Hill’s right and can be seen in the Zapruder, Nix and Moorman films, as well as the Bond photo. (11-22-63 notes on an interview of Brehm by a Dallas Times-Herald reporter immediately after the shooting, as presented in The Zapruder Film by David Wrone, 2003) "The shots came from in front of or beside of the President." (11-22-63 article in the Dallas Times Herald) "The first time he slumped and the second one really blasted him," These were the words of Charles Drehm...Drehm seemed to think the shots came from in front of or beside the President." (11-22-63 (NBC?) radio interview found on the internet) “I happened to be about fifteen feet away from the President when the first shot hit him. There is some discussion now as to whether there was one or two shots that hit him, but the first shot rang out and I was positive when I saw the look on his face and saw him grab his chest and saw the reaction of his wife that he had been shot and just at that time, which was probably a few seconds later the second shot rang out and he just absolutely went down into the seat of the car. There was a third shot that went and by that time I had grabbed my little five year old boy who was with me and ran away from the scene of the thing. But the only thing that I did witness and something I'm sorry I did witness very honestly was the look on his face when that shot hit, and the look again on him and his wife's face when the shots started to ring out. And it was very obviously that he was hit. The first two shots that were heard. The first one hit the president—there was no doubt whatsoever--because his face winced and he grabbed himself and he slumped down. I do believe without any doubt that the second one hit him because he had an immediate reaction with that second shot. I do know there was a third shot but as I said by that time I had grabbed my boy and started to go. I did not witness Governor Connally’s being hit.” (11-22-63 WBAP television interview first broadcast 3:15 CST, as shown in Rush to Judgment) “Unfortunately I was probably 15-20 feet away from the President when it happened…He was coming down the Street and my five-year old boy and myself were by ourselves on the grass there on Commerce Street. And I asked Joe to wave to him and Joe waved and I waved (breaks up)…as he was waving back, the shot rang out and he slumped down in his seat and his wife reached up toward him as he was slumping down and the second shot went off and it just knocked him down in the seat...Two shots..." (When asked if he saw the shooter) "No, sir, I did not see the man who did it. All I did was look in the man's face when he was shot there and saw that expression on his face and he grabbed himself and slide, and the second one whenever it went--I’m positive that it hit him--I hope it didn't--but I'm positive it hit him and he went all the way down in the car. Then they speeded up and I didn't know what was going on so I just grabbed the boy and fell on him in hopes that there wasn't a maniac around.” (11-23-63 UPI article found in the Fresno Bee) “He was waving and the first shot hit him, and then that awful look crossed his face,” Brehm said.” (11-25-63 FBI report, 22H837-838) ‘‘He and his son stood right at the curb on the grass and saw the President’s car take a wide swing as it turned left into Elm Street. When the President’s automobile was very close to him and he could see the President’s face very well, the President was seated, but was leaning forward when he stiffened perceptibly, at the same instant what appeared to be a rifle shot sounded. According to Brehm, the President seemed to stiffen and come to a pause when another shot sounded and the President appeared to be badly hit in the head. Brehm said when the President was hit by the second shot, he could notice the President’s hair fly up and then roll over to his side, as Mrs. Kennedy was apparently pulling him in that direction. Brehm said that a third shot followed and that all three shots were relatively close together. Brehm stated that he was in military service and has had experience with bolt-action rifles and he expressed his opinion that the three shots were fired just about as quickly as an individual can maneuver a bolt-action rifle, take aim, and fire three shots. Brehm stated he definitely knew that the President had been shot and he recalled having seen blood on the President's face. He also stated that it seemed quite apparent to him that the shots came from one of two buildings back at the corner of Elm and Houston Streets. Immediately after the third shot rang out, Brehm pushed his son down on the grass and for the moment was more concerned with the safety of his son who might be hit by any wild gunfire which might follow. Brehm expressed the opinion that between the first and third shots, the president’s car only traveled some 10 to 12 feet. It seemed to him that the automobile almost came to a halt after the first shot, but of this he is not certain. After the third shot, the car in which the president was riding increased its speed and went under the freeway underpass.”

[Greg Burnham]

Mr. LIEBELER. Then, you can actually see yourself in this picture, can't you?

Mr. ZAPRUDER. Well, I can't distinguish myself being [there]--I know I was there.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you recognize that this picture was taken at the time you were there?

Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes; I was there and I would say this couldn't be anybody else, unless---if this is an authentic photograph and it isn't composed now or changed---I would say that's me. That's the first time I have seen that. Were these pictures ever published in a magazine---there were pictures like that I suppose--- actually?

Mr. LIEBELER. This picture here is in fact one of a series of pictures that is being sold down here in Dallas by a fellow named Willis, I believe his name is Phil Willis. He has a series of slides that are available and it's picture No. 5 of those slides in which you can see yourself back there.

Mr. ZAPRUDER. That must be it because there's another couple back there---I took some from there and I was shooting some of the pictures to start my roll from the beginning. I didn't want to have a blank and I shot some, in fact, they have it--the Federal Bureau of Investigation have those pictures.

Mr. LIEBELER. As you stood there on this abutment with your camera, the motorcade came down Houston Street and turned left on Elm Street, did it not?

Mr. ZAPRUDER. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. And it proceeded then down Elm Street toward the triple underpass; is that correct?

Mr. ZAPRUDER. That's correct. I started shooting--when the motorcade started coming in, I believe I started and wanted to get it coming in from Houston Street.

Mr. LIEBELER. Tell us what happened as you took these pictures.

Mr. ZAPRUDER. Well, as the car came in line almost--I believe it was almost in line. I was standing up here and I was shooting through a telephoto lens, which is a zoom lens and as it reached about--I imagine it was around here--I heard the first shot and I saw the President lean over and grab himself like this (holding his left chest area).

Mr. LIEBELER. Grab himself on the front of his chest?

Mr. ZAPRUDER. Right---something like that. In other words, he was sitting like this and waving and then after the shot he just went like that.

Mr. LIEBELER. He was sitting upright in the car and you heard the shot and you saw the President slump over?

Mr. ZAPRUDER. Leaning--leaning toward the side of Jacqueline. For a moment I thought it was, you know, like you say, "Oh, he got me," when you hear a shot--you've heard these expressions and then I saw---I don't believe the President is going to make jokes like this, but before I had a chance to organize my mind, I heard a second shot and then I saw his head opened up and the blood and everything came out and I started--I can hardly talk about it.

[emphasis added on parts that of his testimony that are "odd" or are inconsistent with the extant Z-film]

Edited April 4, 2011 by Greg Burnham

[Pat Speer]

Pat,

Anyone who is willing to defend a position as absurd as yours--which does not even acknowledge the vast

difference between the HSCA photographs and diagrams, which you support, and the description of the

enormous surface area of missing cranium, which is described in the official autopsy report--has shown

that there is no good reason to take him seriously regarding the medical evidence nor, I dare say, about

any other aspect of JFK research. I am sorry, Pat, but you have now blown your credibility--completely!

It's bad enough that anyone would prefer the Bethesda autopsy report over the Parkland physicians. I

have explained in dozens of ways why you are off the mark, but I really had no idea by how far until now.

Jim

What nonsense, Jim. I have repeatedly explained why the BOH drawing/photograph does not reflect the measurements obtained at autopsy. If You'd actually read what others have written for a change, you might learn a thing or two.

To repeat, the measurements taken at autopsy reflect the measurements of the head wound on the skull AFTER the scalp was reflected and skull fell to the table. The x-rays show that much of the skull at the back of the head was shattered. This supports what Humes claimed--that he started to peel back the scalp and chunks of skull fell to the table. It's not rocket science.

Edited April 4, 2011 by Pat Speer

[Bernice Moore]

Robert Groden's JFK The Case For Conspiracy part 6 of 9b

[Jack White]

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.

I am delighted to remind Herr Speer of the pith of Brehm's original statement:

“Drehm seemed to think the shots came from in front or beside the President. He explained the President did not slump forward as if [sic] he would have after being shot from the rear,”

“President Dead, Connally Shot,” The Dallas Times Herald, 22 November 1963, p.2 [cited by Joachim Joesten. Oswald: Assassin or Fall Guy? (London: Merlin Press, 1964), p.176.]

I did like the weaselly reference to Brehm's "earliest interviews," though. Nice one, Pat.

What nonsense, Paul. What "Drehm" "seemed" to think does not relate whatsoever to the point I was making, namely that BREHM did not see an explosion from the back of Kennedy's head.

And I guess you think the term "weaselly" means accurate. Here are Brehm's first statements. WHERE OH WHERE does he say he saw an explosion from the back of the head?

Charles Brehm and his small son Joe were several yards to Moorman’s and Hill’s right and can be seen in the Zapruder, Nix and Moorman films, as well as the Bond photo. (11-22-63 notes on an interview of Brehm by a Dallas Times-Herald reporter immediately after the shooting, as presented in The Zapruder Film by David Wrone, 2003) "The shots came from in front of or beside of the President." (11-22-63 article in the Dallas Times Herald) "The first time he slumped and the second one really blasted him," These were the words of Charles Drehm...Drehm seemed to think the shots came from in front of or beside the President." (11-22-63 (NBC?) radio interview found on the internet) “I happened to be about fifteen feet away from the President when the first shot hit him. There is some discussion now as to whether there was one or two shots that hit him, but the first shot rang out and I was positive when I saw the look on his face and saw him grab his chest and saw the reaction of his wife that he had been shot and just at that time, which was probably a few seconds later the second shot rang out and he just absolutely went down into the seat of the car. There was a third shot that went and by that time I had grabbed my little five year old boy who was with me and ran away from the scene of the thing. But the only thing that I did witness and something I'm sorry I did witness very honestly was the look on his face when that shot hit, and the look again on him and his wife's face when the shots started to ring out. And it was very obviously that he was hit. The first two shots that were heard. The first one hit the president—there was no doubt whatsoever--because his face winced and he grabbed himself and he slumped down. I do believe without any doubt that the second one hit him because he had an immediate reaction with that second shot. I do know there was a third shot but as I said by that time I had grabbed my boy and started to go. I did not witness Governor Connally’s being hit.” (11-22-63 WBAP television interview first broadcast 3:15 CST, as shown in Rush to Judgment) “Unfortunately I was probably 15-20 feet away from the President when it happened…He was coming down the Street and my five-year old boy and myself were by ourselves on the grass there on Commerce Street. And I asked Joe to wave to him and Joe waved and I waved (breaks up)…as he was waving back, the shot rang out and he slumped down in his seat and his wife reached up toward him as he was slumping down and the second shot went off and it just knocked him down in the seat...Two shots..." (When asked if he saw the shooter) "No, sir, I did not see the man who did it. All I did was look in the man's face when he was shot there and saw that expression on his face and he grabbed himself and slide, and the second one whenever it went--I’m positive that it hit him--I hope it didn't--but I'm positive it hit him and he went all the way down in the car. Then they speeded up and I didn't know what was going on so I just grabbed the boy and fell on him in hopes that there wasn't a maniac around.” (11-23-63 UPI article found in the Fresno Bee) “He was waving and the first shot hit him, and then that awful look crossed his face,” Brehm said.” (11-25-63 FBI report, 22H837-838) ‘‘He and his son stood right at the curb on the grass and saw the President’s car take a wide swing as it turned left into Elm Street. When the President’s automobile was very close to him and he could see the President’s face very well, the President was seated, but was leaning forward when he stiffened perceptibly, at the same instant what appeared to be a rifle shot sounded. According to Brehm, the President seemed to stiffen and come to a pause when another shot sounded and the President appeared to be badly hit in the head. Brehm said when the President was hit by the second shot, he could notice the President’s hair fly up and then roll over to his side, as Mrs. Kennedy was apparently pulling him in that direction. Brehm said that a third shot followed and that all three shots were relatively close together. Brehm stated that he was in military service and has had experience with bolt-action rifles and he expressed his opinion that the three shots were fired just about as quickly as an individual can maneuver a bolt-action rifle, take aim, and fire three shots. Brehm stated he definitely knew that the President had been shot and he recalled having seen blood on the President's face. He also stated that it seemed quite apparent to him that the shots came from one of two buildings back at the corner of Elm and Houston Streets. Immediately after the third shot rang out, Brehm pushed his son down on the grass and for the moment was more concerned with the safety of his son who might be hit by any wild gunfire which might follow. Brehm expressed the opinion that between the first and third shots, the president’s car only traveled some 10 to 12 feet. It seemed to him that the automobile almost came to a halt after the first shot, but of this he is not certain. After the third shot, the car in which the president was riding increased its speed and went under the freeway underpass.”

Speer accelerates his ever diminishing credibility!

[Paul Rigby]

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.

The above is better than the below? Really?

i) Dr. Robert McClelland: "The cause of death was due to a massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple," Commission Exhibit 392. [‘Admission Note,’ written 22 Nov 1963 at 4.45 pm, reproduced in WCR572, & 17WCH11-12: cited in Lifton’s Best Evidence, p.55; and Meagher’s Accessories After the Fact, pp.159-160.]

ii) Dr. Marion Jenkins: "I don't know whether this is right or not, but I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process," 6WH48. [Cited by Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After The Fact: The Warren Commission, The Authorities, & The Report (New York: Vintage Books, 1992 reprint), p. 40.]

iii) Dr. Robert Shaw: "The third bullet struck the President on the left side of the head in the region of the left temporal region and made a large wound of exit on the right side of the head" [Letter from Dr. Shaw to Larry Ross, "Did Two Gunmen Cut Down Kennedy?", Today (British magazine), 15 February 1964, p.4]

iv) Dr. David Stewart: “This was the finding of all the physicians who were in attendance. There was a small wound in the left front of the President’s head and there was a quite massive wound of exit at the right back side of the head, and it was felt by all the physicians at the time to be a wound of entry which went in the front,” The Joe Dolan (Radio) Show, KNEW (Oakland, California), at 08:15hrs on 10 April 1967. [Harold Weisberg. Selections from Whitewash (NY: Carroll & Graf/Richard Gallen, 1994), pp.331-2.]

It was not only Parkland staff who attested to a left-temple entrance wound.

Entirely independently of them, Father Oscar Huber, upon leaving the hospital after administering the last rites, said precisely that, an observation he reaffirmed in an interview with Shirley Martin in late 1964; and eyewitness Norman Similas told the Toronto Star the same thing on the afternoon of the assassination. The left-temple entrance, as Sylvia Meagher noted in Accessories After the Fact, was in fact plotted by both Humes & Boswell at Bethesda, the former before alteration, the latter after a brief (and aborted) attempt to expand the entrance wound so as to effect a complete, neat, straight reversal of bullet bath (from front-left, rear-right, to vice-versa).

Now why would you want to omit all mention of the above, Pat?

[Jack White]

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.

The above is better than the below? Really?

i) Dr. Robert McClelland: "The cause of death was due to a massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple," Commission Exhibit 392. [‘Admission Note,’ written 22 Nov 1963 at 4.45 pm, reproduced in WCR572, & 17WCH11-12: cited in Lifton’s Best Evidence, p.55; and Meagher’s Accessories After the Fact, pp.159-160.]

ii) Dr. Marion Jenkins: "I don't know whether this is right or not, but I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process," 6WH48. [Cited by Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After The Fact: The Warren Commission, The Authorities, & The Report (New York: Vintage Books, 1992 reprint), p. 40.]

iii) Dr. Robert Shaw: "The third bullet struck the President on the left side of the head in the region of the left temporal region and made a large wound of exit on the right side of the head" [Letter from Dr. Shaw to Larry Ross, "Did Two Gunmen Cut Down Kennedy?", Today (British magazine), 15 February 1964, p.4]

iv) Dr. David Stewart: “This was the finding of all the physicians who were in attendance. There was a small wound in the left front of the President’s head and there was a quite massive wound of exit at the right back side of the head, and it was felt by all the physicians at the time to be a wound of entry which went in the front,” The Joe Dolan (Radio) Show, KNEW (Oakland, California), at 08:15hrs on 10 April 1967. [Harold Weisberg. Selections from Whitewash (NY: Carroll & Graf/Richard Gallen, 1994), pp.331-2.]

It was not only Parkland staff who attested to a left-temple entrance wound.

Entirely independently of them, Father Oscar Huber, upon leaving the hospital after administering the last rites, said precisely that, an observation he reaffirmed in an interview with Shirley Martin in late 1964; and eyewitness Norman Similas told the Toronto Star the same thing on the afternoon of the assassination. The left-temple entrance, as Sylvia Meagher noted in Accessories After the Fact, was in fact plotted by both Humes & Boswell at Bethesda, the former before alteration, the latter after a brief (and aborted) attempt to expand the entrance wound so as to effect a complete, neat, straight reversal of bullet bath (from front-left, rear-right, to vice-versa).

Now why would you want to omit all mention of the above, Pat?

What Paul points out has always been one of the unexplainable mysteries of witness observations which nobody ever followed up.

Jack