DID ZAPRUDER FILM "THE ZAPRUDER FILM"?

[David Andrews]

Is there any sort of photo enhancement that enables us to see the blood on the suit jacket?

The photo in post #368 seems to show more blood on the right shoulder and back of the jacket than is on the shirt.

Edited April 6, 2011 by David Andrews

[Robin Unger]

Is there any sort of photo enhancement that enables us to see the blood on the suit jacket?

The photo in post #368 seems to show more blood on the right shoulder and back of the jacket than is on the shirt.

Thanks David.

That is exactly the point i was trying to make.

[Don Jeffries]

Mike,

You can't expect people to take you seriously when you say there is no evidence of a shot from the front. There would have never been a critical community connected to this case if there hadn't been overwhelming indications that shots were fired from the front.

The majority of witnesses reported that the shots came from in front. Look at the photos and film- everyone rushed up the grassy knoll afterwards. Except for Marion Baker, the TSBD was virtually ignored at first by law enforcement and spectators. Even most of those inside or standing in front of the TSBD reported that the shots came front the knoll/ railroad area. Lots of "echoes" that day, I suppose.

[David G. Healy]

Kamikaze Mike: There is absolutely not one shred of evidence of a shot from the front.

If you are to disagree please post what you consider to be evidence of a shot entering the front. I caution you, the old arguments of back and to the left are ridiculous.

1. Sam Holland's hearing shots from and detection of smoke form behind the grassy knoll and his finding of weird prints there.

2. Lee Bowers testimony about the cars coming into that area, the flash of light, and then the man shoving something back into the trunk of the car.

3. Joe Smith's testimony about the false SS men up on the knoll.

4.The testimony of Newman, Hudson and Zapruder about the shots coming form behind them.

5. J.C. Price's testimony about a man running toward the parked cars near the rail line with something in his hand that may have been a head piece.

6. The FBi report declassified in 1977 about a couple of men behind the picket fence who appeared to be aiming a wooden stick or something two days before the murder.

7. The gaping avulsive wound to the rear of Kennedy's skull.

8. The rocketing back of Kennedy's entire body in the Zapruder film therefore obeying the laws of physics and Newton's laws of motion. Plus the fact that the neuromuscular reaction, jet effect and goat films have all been exposed as being BS.

9. THe fact that there is simply too much brian damage as reported by Doug Horne and others to account for just one bullet. Plus the fact that John Stringer disowned the brain photographs in the Archives.

10. Tom Robinson's testimony before the ARRB.

11. The fact that in the Z film, the explosion near the front of the head resembles that of a frangible bullet.

12. Jackie crawling out the back of the car to pick up debris expelled from the exploding skull. Plus the fact of her uncensored testimony about the appearance of JFK's head to her right afterwards.

13. How David Mantik has fit the Harper fragment into the rear of the skull.

Not one shred of evidence huh? You are such a joke you make DVP look sophisticated.

1. Yet there is no evidence that what Holland says it true. There is nothing to support it.

2. Lee Bowers only says that he felt something had happened there. He was not certain of what happened. As for the people in the cars, is there any evidence that this was sinister?

3. Is there any evidence that this ever happened? Or is Smith being as presumptuous as you are Jimmy?

4. This one always gives me a laugh. You do realize that the TSBD is behind them, yes?

5. That may have been? What the hell is that? It may have been a transistor radio, or any number of other things. People were running all over the place. Only you Jimmy would consider this evidence.

6. Id love to see the source of that report. I can destroy it in 30 seconds.

7. Well here is a two fold doosey just for you. One I do not believe that wound exists. I believe the wound was to the side of the head. However even if it did exist, this would well have been an entrance of a full metal jacket bullet.

8. Ahhhhh Finally something we partially agree on. Those notions were BS. However, I fear you are in woefully over your depth if you really believe that the backward motion we see is justification of a shot from the front. But I will be happy to educate you.

We know that a bullet only transfers .1 to .3% of its energy to the target.  

This is generally less than 10 ft lbs of force in a transiting shot.  The human punch is 110 ft lbs on average.

So in order for a transiting bullet to transfer the same amount of force as a punch:

Lets take the Carcano as an example:

As we can see the impact energy at 90 yards is 1328 ft-lbs  since we are passing through skull we should use the higher end at .3%

So

1328*.003= 3.98 ft-lbs of energy to the target, and a human punch on average is 110 Ft. Lbs.

With the above considered how many Ft-Lbs of energy would a transiting bullet have to strike with in order to transfer 110ft-lbs to the target?

37,000*.003=111Ft.-Lbs.

How would we achieve this?

An 800 grain .50 cal BMG has an energy of 14,895 ft-lbs at the muzzle.

So lets grab 2 of those for a total of 29790 ft-lbs

which leaves us 7210 ft-Lbs.

7.62x51 nato (.308) is 175 grains and 2627 ft.-lbs at the muzzle.

so lets grab 2 of those and we are up to 35,044 ft lbs

We still need another 1956 ft lbs......hmmmm.....

how about the .45 acp in 230 grains as it has a muzzle energy of 352 ft lbs

so lets grab 5 of those

we are now at 36,804 ft lbs.

damn still short......by......196 ft lbs!

so lets go back shopping and get......

1 32 grain .22 cal with 191 ft lbs of energy

  

We are still short by 5 ft lbs, so I suppose we could shoot with a carcano as well which adds another 3.98 ft lbs....

So in order to hit a target with enough transiting shots to equal a human punch we need to hit them with:

2-.50 cals

2-.308cals

5-.45 acp's

1-.22 cal

and a carcano

all at the same time.

really now.........

Oh yes and your "frangible bullet idea"?

"Dr. Charles Petty of the HSCA forensic pathology panel

responded to Dr. Wecht's frangible-bullet theory in his testimony

before the committee. [Quoting Petty:] "I happen to be the coauthor of

the only paper that has ever been written about the wounding

capabilities of frangible bullets. .... Such bullets and the breakup

products of [these] bullets are easy to detect in X-rays. There are no

such fragments in the X-ray of the late president's head. There was no

frangible bullet fired. I might also add that frangible bullets are

produced in .22 caliber loads and they are not produced [for] larger

weapons."

9. This is comical. From what I have read, almost every single doctor who worked on JFK agree that the photos, and xrays are authentic, and resemble what they saw. I was not aware that Horne was a wound ballistics expert.

10. An Embalmer? Now thats rich. I think first you better settle the issues you have with the medical professionals.

11. No frangible bullet: See number 8.

12. Well then by all means, show me this material on the trunk.

13. Man you really are behind the times huh?

There is nothing of substance in any of your items here Jimmy.

ahh, you ARE nervous, son. btw, your frangible bullet expert, "Such bullets and the breakup

products of [these] bullets are easy to detect in X-rays." He ever show an x-ray depicting frangible bullet breakup example? Or do we have to take your word for what he said?

Ya post a lot of mumbo jumbo above, can you cite any of the above or are you just another lone nut noise maker, Sgt Mikey? Just curious

[Mike Williams]

Mike,

You can't expect people to take you seriously when you say there is no evidence of a shot from the front. There would have never been a critical community connected to this case if there hadn't been overwhelming indications that shots were fired from the front.

The majority of witnesses reported that the shots came from in front. Look at the photos and film- everyone rushed up the grassy knoll afterwards. Except for Marion Baker, the TSBD was virtually ignored at first by law enforcement and spectators. Even most of those inside or standing in front of the TSBD reported that the shots came front the knoll/ railroad area. Lots of "echoes" that day, I suppose.

Don,

There would have never been a critical community if the people who claimed such a thing actually knew what is known today. Several things are needed to even begin to contemplate a shot from the front.

First and foremost is a viable shooting position. I have challenged, several times, for someone to show a viable position that does not lead to left side head damage. This has yet to be accomplished.

Secondly, there is nothing on the Zapruder film that indicates a shot from the front. We see a large mass of ejecta emitted from the front of the head. Clearly indicating a shot from the rear. we never see this same ejecta exit the back of the head.

The slight forward motion of JFK at 312 is a direct and accurate reflection of a bullet passing front to back, while the following backward motion is certainly not. Simply put, transiting bullets do not impact that much force, except in the movies.

There is no significant amount of debris to the rear of the vehicle. While there is a mass of debris forward, all the way up to the hood ornament on the limo, and it was traveling against a 12-15 mph head wind.

The chrome dent could only have happened from a rear shot.

The crack in the limo glass could only have happened from a rear shot.

The debris field in the head xray opens back to front.

One has to weigh these considerations, and to me there is nothing significant in the physical evidence that shows a shot from the front.

[Mike Williams]

Kamikaze Mike: There is absolutely not one shred of evidence of a shot from the front.

If you are to disagree please post what you consider to be evidence of a shot entering the front. I caution you, the old arguments of back and to the left are ridiculous.

1. Sam Holland's hearing shots from and detection of smoke form behind the grassy knoll and his finding of weird prints there.

2. Lee Bowers testimony about the cars coming into that area, the flash of light, and then the man shoving something back into the trunk of the car.

3. Joe Smith's testimony about the false SS men up on the knoll.

4.The testimony of Newman, Hudson and Zapruder about the shots coming form behind them.

5. J.C. Price's testimony about a man running toward the parked cars near the rail line with something in his hand that may have been a head piece.

6. The FBi report declassified in 1977 about a couple of men behind the picket fence who appeared to be aiming a wooden stick or something two days before the murder.

7. The gaping avulsive wound to the rear of Kennedy's skull.

8. The rocketing back of Kennedy's entire body in the Zapruder film therefore obeying the laws of physics and Newton's laws of motion. Plus the fact that the neuromuscular reaction, jet effect and goat films have all been exposed as being BS.

9. THe fact that there is simply too much brian damage as reported by Doug Horne and others to account for just one bullet. Plus the fact that John Stringer disowned the brain photographs in the Archives.

10. Tom Robinson's testimony before the ARRB.

11. The fact that in the Z film, the explosion near the front of the head resembles that of a frangible bullet.

12. Jackie crawling out the back of the car to pick up debris expelled from the exploding skull. Plus the fact of her uncensored testimony about the appearance of JFK's head to her right afterwards.

13. How David Mantik has fit the Harper fragment into the rear of the skull.

Not one shred of evidence huh? You are such a joke you make DVP look sophisticated.

1. Yet there is no evidence that what Holland says it true. There is nothing to support it.

2. Lee Bowers only says that he felt something had happened there. He was not certain of what happened. As for the people in the cars, is there any evidence that this was sinister?

3. Is there any evidence that this ever happened? Or is Smith being as presumptuous as you are Jimmy?

4. This one always gives me a laugh. You do realize that the TSBD is behind them, yes?

5. That may have been? What the hell is that? It may have been a transistor radio, or any number of other things. People were running all over the place. Only you Jimmy would consider this evidence.

6. Id love to see the source of that report. I can destroy it in 30 seconds.

7. Well here is a two fold doosey just for you. One I do not believe that wound exists. I believe the wound was to the side of the head. However even if it did exist, this would well have been an entrance of a full metal jacket bullet.

8. Ahhhhh Finally something we partially agree on. Those notions were BS. However, I fear you are in woefully over your depth if you really believe that the backward motion we see is justification of a shot from the front. But I will be happy to educate you.

We know that a bullet only transfers .1 to .3% of its energy to the target.  

This is generally less than 10 ft lbs of force in a transiting shot.  The human punch is 110 ft lbs on average.

So in order for a transiting bullet to transfer the same amount of force as a punch:

Lets take the Carcano as an example:

As we can see the impact energy at 90 yards is 1328 ft-lbs  since we are passing through skull we should use the higher end at .3%

So

1328*.003= 3.98 ft-lbs of energy to the target, and a human punch on average is 110 Ft. Lbs.

With the above considered how many Ft-Lbs of energy would a transiting bullet have to strike with in order to transfer 110ft-lbs to the target?

37,000*.003=111Ft.-Lbs.

How would we achieve this?

An 800 grain .50 cal BMG has an energy of 14,895 ft-lbs at the muzzle.

So lets grab 2 of those for a total of 29790 ft-lbs

which leaves us 7210 ft-Lbs.

7.62x51 nato (.308) is 175 grains and 2627 ft.-lbs at the muzzle.

so lets grab 2 of those and we are up to 35,044 ft lbs

We still need another 1956 ft lbs......hmmmm.....

how about the .45 acp in 230 grains as it has a muzzle energy of 352 ft lbs

so lets grab 5 of those

we are now at 36,804 ft lbs.

damn still short......by......196 ft lbs!

so lets go back shopping and get......

1 32 grain .22 cal with 191 ft lbs of energy

  

We are still short by 5 ft lbs, so I suppose we could shoot with a carcano as well which adds another 3.98 ft lbs....

So in order to hit a target with enough transiting shots to equal a human punch we need to hit them with:

2-.50 cals

2-.308cals

5-.45 acp's

1-.22 cal

and a carcano

all at the same time.

really now.........

Oh yes and your "frangible bullet idea"?

"Dr. Charles Petty of the HSCA forensic pathology panel

responded to Dr. Wecht's frangible-bullet theory in his testimony

before the committee. [Quoting Petty:] "I happen to be the coauthor of

the only paper that has ever been written about the wounding

capabilities of frangible bullets. .... Such bullets and the breakup

products of [these] bullets are easy to detect in X-rays. There are no

such fragments in the X-ray of the late president's head. There was no

frangible bullet fired. I might also add that frangible bullets are

produced in .22 caliber loads and they are not produced [for] larger

weapons."

9. This is comical. From what I have read, almost every single doctor who worked on JFK agree that the photos, and xrays are authentic, and resemble what they saw. I was not aware that Horne was a wound ballistics expert.

10. An Embalmer? Now thats rich. I think first you better settle the issues you have with the medical professionals.

11. No frangible bullet: See number 8.

12. Well then by all means, show me this material on the trunk.

13. Man you really are behind the times huh?

There is nothing of substance in any of your items here Jimmy.

ahh, you ARE nervous, son. btw, your frangible bullet expert, "Such bullets and the breakup

products of [these] bullets are easy to detect in X-rays." He ever show an x-ray depicting frangible bullet breakup example? Or do we have to take your word for what he said?

Ya post a lot of mumbo jumbo above, can you cite any of the above or are you just another lone nut noise maker, Sgt Mikey? Just curious

David,

No need to take my word for anything, thats why they call it research. Run the figures yourself, and then come back and refute what I posted.

[Cliff Varnell]

One has to weigh these considerations, and to me there is nothing significant in the physical evidence that shows a shot from the front.

The throat wound was an entrance. It was described as such by the Parkland doctors and nurses, and the back wound

is too low to have been an entrance for a throat exit. The back wound was probed by Humes and Finck and

no transit through the body was found.

Edited April 7, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Robin Unger]

Blood stain. ( bullit hole aligned GIF )

Place your mouse cursor on the bullit hole to align the hole in the shirt with the hole in the coat

Edited April 7, 2011 by Robin Unger

[David Andrews]

I'm thinking that the staining makes sense. More right back/right shoulder staining on the jacket from initial woundings. Left side staining on the shirt because he fell to the left and lay there, while blood soaking into the jacket followed gravity and welled on the left, where it saturated the shirt.

The jacket reinforcement fabric (stiffened white mesh under the inner silk lining?) might have kept the right exterior blood from soaking the right back of shirt - you can see a "fade-in" of blood near the back wound hole, with massive soaking leftward,where gravity directed the fluid. Why no more blood soaked into the left shirt back when he was placed on the hospital gurney is unexplained.

The strange resemblance of the shirt stain to the map of Southeast Asia is also inexplicable.

Edited April 7, 2011 by David Andrews

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Mike Williams appears to be a buffoon, a blow-hard, and a shill. To

defend this position, he has 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, both McClelland and

Crenshaw's diagrams, and David Mantik's studies of the X-rays, not

to mention Gary Aguilar's research on the descriptions of the wound--

and, most importantly, Thomas Evan Robinson's detailed observations.

Why should anyone take him seriously after this bizarre performance?

I have three questions for him 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?

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

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

(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 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). I

might add that I have written to Cyril today to ask him this question.

(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.

Your answers?

I have previously explained that we not only have the other Crenshaw

diagram of the throat wound before and after the tracheostomy, which

was performed by Malcolm Perry, but also Perry's description of it as a

wound of entry, which he did THREE TIMES during the Parkland press

conference, which I included in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998) as it

Appendix ( C ). Your denial of the existence of evidence of shots from

the front is so bizarre that I really cannot believe your pretensions to

knowledge of ballistics has any foundation. You come across as a fraud.

And of course the massive blow-out of his brains and debris to the left/

rear impacted Officer Hargis so hard that he thought that he himself

had been shot. The brains splattered across the trunk was enough to

nauseate several Secret Service agents when they observed the limo in

the parking structure in Washington, D.C. And Erwin Swartz, a friend

of Zapruder, reported observing the blow out to the left/rear when he

viewed (what appears to have been) the unaltered Zapruder film after

its development in Dallas, additional evidence of a shot from the front.

Are you not aware of the fact 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 do you think you can get

away with misrepresenting the evidence? You have gone beyond absurd.

Mike,

You can't expect people to take you seriously when you say there is no evidence of a shot from the front. There would have never been a critical community connected to this case if there hadn't been overwhelming indications that shots were fired from the front.

The majority of witnesses reported that the shots came from in front. Look at the photos and film- everyone rushed up the grassy knoll afterwards. Except for Marion Baker, the TSBD was virtually ignored at first by law enforcement and spectators. Even most of those inside or standing in front of the TSBD reported that the shots came front the knoll/ railroad area. Lots of "echoes" that day, I suppose.

Don,

There would have never been a critical community if the people who claimed such a thing actually knew what is known today. Several things are needed to even begin to contemplate a shot from the front.

First and foremost is a viable shooting position. I have challenged, several times, for someone to show a viable position that does not lead to left side head damage. This has yet to be accomplished.

Secondly, there is nothing on the Zapruder film that indicates a shot from the front. We see a large mass of ejecta emitted from the front of the head. Clearly indicating a shot from the rear. we never see this same ejecta exit the back of the head.

The slight forward motion of JFK at 312 is a direct and accurate reflection of a bullet passing front to back, while the following backward motion is certainly not. Simply put, transiting bullets do not impact that much force, except in the movies.

There is no significant amount of debris to the rear of the vehicle. While there is a mass of debris forward, all the way up to the hood ornament on the limo, and it was traveling against a 12-15 mph head wind.

The chrome dent could only have happened from a rear shot.

The crack in the limo glass could only have happened from a rear shot.

The debris field in the head xray opens back to front.

One has to weigh these considerations, and to me there is nothing significant in the physical evidence that shows a shot from the front.

Edited April 7, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Greg Burnham]

Mike,

Even though I thoroughly disagree with everything you have written here, let me ask you a question and

"pretend" that there were no shots from the front.

If there were no shots from the front, then all shots came from the rear according to you. If true, how many

shots did LHO get off? Sounds like 5 to me.

Let's count them, shall we? According to your own count, but in no particular order:

1) One shot hit Kennedy in the head;

2) One shot (the Magic Bullet) wounded both Kennedy and Connally (several times);

3) One shot missed the occupants and struck the curb wounding James Tague;

4) One shot caused a dent in the chrome of the limo;

5) One shot struck the windshield;

So, even if all shots came from the rear how did LHO do THAT?

Don,

There would have never been a critical community if the people who claimed such a thing actually knew what is known today. Several things are needed to even begin to contemplate a shot from the front.

First and foremost is a viable shooting position. I have challenged, several times, for someone to show a viable position that does not lead to left side head damage. This has yet to be accomplished.

Secondly, there is nothing on the Zapruder film that indicates a shot from the front. We see a large mass of ejecta emitted from the front of the head. Clearly indicating a shot from the rear. we never see this same ejecta exit the back of the head.

The slight forward motion of JFK at 312 is a direct and accurate reflection of a bullet passing front to back, while the following backward motion is certainly not. Simply put, transiting bullets do not impact that much force, except in the movies.

There is no significant amount of debris to the rear of the vehicle. While there is a mass of debris forward, all the way up to the hood ornament on the limo, and it was traveling against a 12-15 mph head wind.

The chrome dent could only have happened from a rear shot.

The crack in the limo glass could only have happened from a rear shot.

The debris field in the head xray opens back to front.

One has to weigh these considerations, and to me there is nothing significant in the physical evidence that shows a shot from the front.

[Mike Williams]

Mike,

Even though I thoroughly disagree with everything you have written here, let me ask you a question and

"pretend" that there were no shots from the front.

If there were no shots from the front, then all shots came from the rear according to you. If true, how many

shots did LHO get off? Sounds like 5 to me.

Let's count them, shall we? According to your own count, but in no particular order:

1) One shot hit Kennedy in the head;

2) One shot (the Magic Bullet) wounded both Kennedy and Connally (several times);

3) One shot missed the occupants and struck the curb wounding James Tague;

4) One shot caused a dent in the chrome of the limo;

5) One shot struck the windshield;

So, even if all shots came from the rear how did LHO do THAT?

Don,

There would have never been a critical community if the people who claimed such a thing actually knew what is known today. Several things are needed to even begin to contemplate a shot from the front.

First and foremost is a viable shooting position. I have challenged, several times, for someone to show a viable position that does not lead to left side head damage. This has yet to be accomplished.

Secondly, there is nothing on the Zapruder film that indicates a shot from the front. We see a large mass of ejecta emitted from the front of the head. Clearly indicating a shot from the rear. we never see this same ejecta exit the back of the head.

The slight forward motion of JFK at 312 is a direct and accurate reflection of a bullet passing front to back, while the following backward motion is certainly not. Simply put, transiting bullets do not impact that much force, except in the movies.

There is no significant amount of debris to the rear of the vehicle. While there is a mass of debris forward, all the way up to the hood ornament on the limo, and it was traveling against a 12-15 mph head wind.

The chrome dent could only have happened from a rear shot.

The crack in the limo glass could only have happened from a rear shot.

The debris field in the head xray opens back to front.

One has to weigh these considerations, and to me there is nothing significant in the physical evidence that shows a shot from the front.

Greg,

My contention is simple.

Shot one missed, possibly nicked Tague.

Shot two Hit Kennedy and Connally.

Shot three Fragmented in the head and sent one fragment forward to dent the chrome. (simple deduction here, as the chrome strike is not a fell velocity impact).

For those that disbelieve, a Carcano bullet has a sectional density in the .283 range. It consumes roughly 30 ftlbs of energy for every inch of flesh it transits.

This has a two fold implication. One it is a deep penetrating round very capable of the SBT. It is also capable at full velocity of tearing that chrome and steel mullion to shreds.

Of course there are those among you who no doubt squabble about the SBT.

SO I have one quick question.

If there is a hole in the back, where did the bullet go?

If there is a hole in the Front, where did the bullet go?

There is also documented proof JFK suffered a hemo/pneumo thorax during the attack. If that bullet did not transit, how the hell did he manage to have a hemo/pneumothorax?

[Mike Williams]

Mike Williams appears to be a buffoon, a blow-hard, and a shill. To

defend this position, he has 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, both McClelland and

Crenshaw's diagrams, and David Mantik's studies of the X-rays, not

to mention Gary Aguilar's research on the descriptions of the wound--

and, most importantly, Thomas Evan Robinson's detailed observations.

Why should anyone take him seriously after this bizarre performance?

I have three questions for him 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?

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

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

(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 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). I

might add that I have written to Cyril today to ask him this question.

(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.

Your answers?

I have previously explained that we not only have the other Crenshaw

diagram of the throat wound before and after the tracheostomy, which

was performed by Malcolm Perry, but also Perry's description of it as a

wound of entry, which he did THREE TIMES during the Parkland press

conference, which I included in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998) as it

Appendix ( C ). Your denial of the existence of evidence of shots from

the front is so bizarre that I really cannot believe your pretensions to

knowledge of ballistics has any foundation. You come across as a fraud.

And of course the massive blow-out of his brains and debris to the left/

rear impacted Officer Hargis so hard that he thought that he himself

had been shot. The brains splattered across the trunk was enough to

nauseate several Secret Service agents when they observed the limo in

the parking structure in Washington, D.C. And Erwin Swartz, a friend

of Zapruder, reported observing the blow out to the left/rear when he

viewed (what appears to have been) the unaltered Zapruder film after

its development in Dallas, additional evidence of a shot from the front.

Are you not aware of the fact 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 do you think you can get

away with misrepresenting the evidence? You have gone beyond absurd.

Mike,

You can't expect people to take you seriously when you say there is no evidence of a shot from the front. There would have never been a critical community connected to this case if there hadn't been overwhelming indications that shots were fired from the front.

The majority of witnesses reported that the shots came from in front. Look at the photos and film- everyone rushed up the grassy knoll afterwards. Except for Marion Baker, the TSBD was virtually ignored at first by law enforcement and spectators. Even most of those inside or standing in front of the TSBD reported that the shots came front the knoll/ railroad area. Lots of "echoes" that day, I suppose.

Don,

There would have never been a critical community if the people who claimed such a thing actually knew what is known today. Several things are needed to even begin to contemplate a shot from the front.

First and foremost is a viable shooting position. I have challenged, several times, for someone to show a viable position that does not lead to left side head damage. This has yet to be accomplished.

Secondly, there is nothing on the Zapruder film that indicates a shot from the front. We see a large mass of ejecta emitted from the front of the head. Clearly indicating a shot from the rear. we never see this same ejecta exit the back of the head.

The slight forward motion of JFK at 312 is a direct and accurate reflection of a bullet passing front to back, while the following backward motion is certainly not. Simply put, transiting bullets do not impact that much force, except in the movies.

There is no significant amount of debris to the rear of the vehicle. While there is a mass of debris forward, all the way up to the hood ornament on the limo, and it was traveling against a 12-15 mph head wind.

The chrome dent could only have happened from a rear shot.

The crack in the limo glass could only have happened from a rear shot.

The debris field in the head xray opens back to front.

One has to weigh these considerations, and to me there is nothing significant in the physical evidence that shows a shot from the front.

Fetzer proves himself a useless gasbag as always.

Jim simple stuff here. Show me the physical evidence. Xrays? Z film? anything, anything at all?

Oh yeah they all have to be faked forged or altered to prove your case dont they?

You are about as low as they come. The comical thing is that you do not even believe your own crap, you simply do it to make a buck. The sad thing is, the people of this good forum are your victims.

They deserve better than you Jimbo. No matter if they agree with my position on the assassination or not.

[Greg Burnham]

Where did the "crack" (very probably a through and through hole) in the limo windshield come form then? Was it yet another separate round (#4) or was it

a skull fragment that also was "magical" in that it broke off the head, flew over the chrome, and changed directions to strike the windshield from the front?

[Mike Williams]

One has to weigh these considerations, and to me there is nothing significant in the physical evidence that shows a shot from the front.

The throat wound was an entrance. It was described as such by the Parkland doctors and nurses, and the back wound

is too low to have been an entrance for a throat exit. The back wound was probed by Humes and Finck and

no transit through the body was found.

Tell ya what then Cliffy. Explain how Kennedy managed to have suffered a hemo/pneumo thorax during the shooting.

The Parkland staff only had a glimpse of that wound, and even at that at the most two people saw it. So I do not know who you are trying to fool.

So tell me there bucko....where did this front entering bullet go?