DID ZAPRUDER FILM "THE ZAPRUDER FILM"?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Very little blood would have come from the back wound, which was a shallow wound that penetrated only

about as far as the second knuckle of your little finger at a downward angle of 45-60° with no exit. Check

out Sibert and O'Neill's report about this. The back wound could not have caused that much blood but, as

Bernice has observed, he slumped to the left onto her lap. My best guess as to why there wasn't more on

her outfit is that there was an initial gush of brains and debris (and blood) when he was first hit (most of

which, of course, was blown out to the left rear), she got up to reach for a chunk of his skull and brains on

the trunk, and when she sat back down, JFK had already bled onto the seat but there wasn't a lot of blood

left as she held him in her hands. Do we have photos of any blood on the back of her suit? That might be

worth considering, but we may have an explanation at hand here for why her lap was not soaked in blood.

hi Robin; As has been mentioned, JFK fell to his left towards onto, Jackie's lap, that would cause the heavy blood flow to the left from the head wound,imo take care b

Yes i agree B

Unless i read Pat's post to Martin incorrectly, he implied that the blood on the left of the shirt, came mainly from the BACK WOUND before the head shot and then continued as kennedy lay in jackie'a lap

I do agree that the blood in the middle section of the back more than likely came from the back wound before frame z-312

What i don't agree with is that the back wound alone, caused the huge blood stain seen on kennedys left shirt shoulder, and on the front of the shirt on the same side .

Pat Speers Quote:

A quick thought. The blood on the shirt came primarily from the back wound. That is why so much of it drips straight down. It was already headed in this direction when Kennedy was hit in the head and fell over, and then continued on in this direction when Jackie put his head in her lap.

Question:

As kennedy lay in Jackie's lap and the blood from the head wound saturated the leftt shoulder of the suit coat.

How did the blood on the suit coat, then get onto the left shoulder of the shirt. ?

Did the blood from the head wound streem down the back of the neck onto the shirt. ?

Looking at the painting below depicting ( one possible scenario for what may have happened at Parkland )kennedy's head in Jackies lap.

why wasn't Jackies dress more blood stained to the same degree as we see on the shirt. ?

Edited April 9, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Robin,

David Mantik, during one of his visits to the National Archives, had a member of the staff put on Jack's

shirt and jacket. He found that the hole in the shirt was slightly below (1/8", as I recall) the hole in the

jacket, which is exactly what we would expect from a shot fired from above and behind--where this one

seems to have been fired from the top of the County Records Building by Deputy Sheriff Harry Weatherford,

a point on which Robert Groden, THE KILLING OF A PRESIDENT (1993), pages 16 and 41, and I both agree.

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

Now, thats interesting Robin.

To place clothing, maybe shot from different directions (camera location) to an overlay in a GIF is a good idea but

it's difficult. It's maybe impossible to get it perfect. But the whole idea is great.

I would never have this idea i believe.

The difference is astonishing. I mean the blood traces/contures)

You raise (again) interesting questions.

best to you

Martin

Hi Martin.

I was never intending to try to overlay exactly one image onto the other, as you say, that would be nearly inpossible as the two images were not taken from the same angle, height etc:

The two NARA images have not been resized, or angle adjusted in any way.

What i did do, is move one image layer across the top of the other, until the two bullit holes aligned

the GIF above was the result.

Cheers.

Robin

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

This is really disillusioning. When I offered my assurance, I meant that, when you look at the evidence I

have cited in those books, it should be obvious--even to you!--that the wound to the throat was caused

by a shot that passed through the windshield, which, as I have now explained several times, you can see

in the Altgens! So it's not there before the throat shot but it is there after the throat shot--what does that

suggest to you, Cliff? I have also explained that a bullet passing through a windshield makes the sound of

a firecracker! Jim Lewis has been traveling through the South and firing high-velocity rounds through the

windshields of junked cars, as I explain in HOAX (2003), page 436, which you apparently have never read.

I am dumbfounded that you do not even have ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY

PLAZA (2000) or THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003). My objective in editing them was to bring

together studies by the most highly qualified experts on the medical, the ballistic, and the photographic

and film evidence. They are chock full of documents, photos, diagrams, and records, including Charles

Crenshaw's diagrams of the throat and the head wound, the Parkland Press Conference transcript, the

official autopsy reports, the HSCA diagrams and photographs, the CIA's advisory on how to handle any

critics of THE WARREN REPORT and much more, which are all basic to understanding all the evidence.

For you to be ignorant of these important studies, including Charles Crenshaw's chapter on what he saw

at Parkland, David Mantik's original studies of the alteration of the X-rays, Bob Livingson's analysis of the

reports from Parkland and how they imply that the brain shown in diagrams and photos at the National

Archives cannot be of the brain of JFK, my exchange with the Department of Justice, Mantik's brilliant

synthesis of the medical evidence and Aguilar's study of the reports of the back-of-the-head wound,

and so much more is simply stunning. And now you are refusing to actually study the evidence which

demonstrates the throat shot passes through the windshield en route to its target--for an "ice bullet"?

I am sorry, Cliff. I thought you were better than this. Evading evidence by ignoring it EVEN WHEN IT

HAS BEEN POINTED OUT TO YOU is an unscientific attitude and displays your willingness to ignore

evidence that would demonstrate that your pet hypothesis appears to be false. You are not taking

into account the sound of the firecracker, the image of the hole in the windshield, the tiny "shrapnel

wounds" in JFK's face, the reports from Parkland Hospital, Richard Dudman's article, the substitution

of another windshield--all of which are documented in studies you have never read in books you do

not even own! For someone who poses as a serious student of JFK, that is a stunning indictment.

[And, by the way, you have never given me the HSCA pages where I can see the X-ray and its report.]

Cliff,

You are being obstinate. I have given you the pages numbers of the books that discuss all of this. The

kind of argument you are making here--"Well, I haven't seen the proof on this thread in the past five

minutes!"--is (or should be) beneath you. Track down MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000) and read the

chapter by Doug Weldon for openers.

I've read my limit on the subject, Jim. I followed Weldon's battles with Pamela Brown. I followed Doug's debates with Tink. I'm not arguing that there was no t&t windshield hole, I'm just pointing out that there is no proof that the throat wound and the windshield strike were the same shot.

I can't reproduce it here on this thread.

Could you paraphrase the evidence which rules out the throat shot as separate from the windshield shot?

I have explained where you should go for the most important discussions of the evidence related to this specific question and I really don't think I should have to spoon-feed you beyond this.

Jim the only argument you have presented is that the throat shot lines up with the windshield t&t and a location on

the south overpass, which is far from dispositive.

If you are serious, you will study the sources I have provided. I can assure you, there is no reason to doubt that this was the throat shot.

Jim

Assurances don't cut it. When you or Doug Weldon offer something other than a hypothesized trajectory

to establish that the throat wound and the windshield strike were the same shot, I'll take it seriously.

And the nature of the damage in the neck x-ray gives us plenty reason to doubt that JFK was hit with

a conventional round.

Edited April 9, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Cliff Varnell]

This is really disillusioning. When I offered my assurance, I meant that, when you look at the evidence I

have cited in those books, it should be obvious--even to you!--that the wound to the throat was caused

by a shot that passed through the windshield, which, as I have now explained several times, you can see

in the Altgens!

Jim, I'm not challenging the t&t hole in the windshield.

The question is whether or not it was caused by the same round that struck JFK's throat.

So it's not there before the throat shot but it is there after the throat shot--what does that suggest to you, Cliff?

Several possibilities. Including the possibility of the throat shot and windshield shot being separate.

Connally was not shot before the throat shot, but he was wounded by Z255.

Are we to conclude, therefore, that the throat shot also wounded Connally?

Of course not.

I have also explained that a bullet passing through a windshield makes the sound of

a firecracker! Jim Lewis has been traveling through the South and firing high-velocity rounds through the

windshields of junked cars, as I explain in HOAX (2003), page 436, which you apparently have never read.

How does this establish that the throat shot and t&t shot were the same? Lots of times people mistake firearm reports for firecrackers. SSA Glenn Bennett reported that the back shot also sounded like a firecracker.

I am dumbfounded that you do not even have ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY

PLAZA (2000) or THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003).

2 out of 3 ain't bad. I've got AS and MIDP. I've read Weldon's work, and if he presented iron-clad evidence that the throat shot was the t&t shot I must have missed it.

I understand that we have reason to regard the head x-rays as fakes, but I don't recall a specific case against the neck x-ray. Maybe I missed it.

I found Mantik's "Cause for Doubt" to be an utterly wrong-headed approach to the SBT trajectory.

Cause for doubt? Gimme a break! We don't combat the "high back wound" lie by micro-analyzing this pernicious fantasy as if there was any doubt whatsoever!

Cause for doubt?

No, cause for certainty. JFK's back wound was at T3. Period. You could demonstrate this

to a five year old. It does not require an advanced degree to disprove the SBT trajectory, and I find the notion that it does require an advanced degree to understand the JFK assassination to be, well, wrong-headed.

My objective in editing them was to bring together studies by the most highly qualified experts on the medical, the ballistic, and the photographic and film evidence.

They are chock full of documents, photos, diagrams, and records, including Charles

Crenshaw's diagrams of the throat and the head wound, the Parkland Press Conference transcript, the

official autopsy reports, the HSCA diagrams and photographs, the CIA's advisory on how to handle any

critics of THE WARREN REPORT and much more, which are all basic to understanding all the evidence.

For you to be ignorant of these important studies, including Charles Crenshaw's chapter on what he saw

at Parkland, David Mantik's original studies of the alteration of the X-rays, Bob Livingson's analysis of the

reports from Parkland and how they imply that the brain shown in diagrams and photos at the National

Archives cannot be of the brain of JFK, my exchange with the Department of Justice, Mantik's brilliant

synthesis of the medical evidence and Aguilar's study of the reports of the back-of-the-head wound,

and so much more is simply stunning. And now you are refusing to actually study the evidence which

demonstrates the throat shot passes through the windshield en route to its target--for an "ice bullet"?

I haven't seen any evidence that the throat shot passed through the windshield. All I see is a hypothetical trajectory that proves nothing.

The use of blood soluble rounds in JFK's high tech killing doesn't run counter to the existence of a t&t hole in the windshield.

The two events are not mutually exclusive.

I am sorry, Cliff. I thought you were better than this.

That's what the ladies tell me.

Evading evidence by ignoring it EVEN WHEN IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT TO YOU is an unscientific attitude and displays your willingness to ignore evidence that would demonstrate that your pet hypothesis appears to be false.

First of all, it's not my hypothesis. This was the "general feeling" among the prosectors the night of the autopsy. It was their pet hypothesis, and the two FBI men at the autopsy took their hypothesis seriously enough to call the FBI Lab to follow-through.

So this scenario is part of the official record, along with the low back wound and the notation of pre-autopsy surgery to the head.

Secondly -- what evidence have I ignored?

T&t hole in the windshield at Z255 -- check.

Bullets fired through windshield sounds like firecracker -- check.

Small cuts on JFK's face consistent with windshield glass -- check.

Does this add up to throat shot = t&t shot?

No.

To me, what you are positing is like some kind of basketball trick shot in a game of HORSE --

"From the south over-pass, across the Plaza near the corner of Elm and Houston, through the windshield -- nothing but neck."

You are not taking into account the sound of the firecracker, the image of the hole in the windshield, the tiny "shrapnel wounds" in JFK's face,

See above.

the reports from Parkland Hospital,

How do the reports from Parkland Hospital establish throat shot = t&t shot?

Richard Dudman's article, the substitution of another windshield--all of which are documented in studies you have never read in books you do not even own!

Here's what Dudman wrote in the New Republic, December 21, 1963.

(quote on)

Some of the points raised here bothered me on the scene in Dallas, where I witnessed President Kennedy's assassination and the slaying of the accused assassin two days later. Three circumstances --- the entry wound in the throat, the small, round hole in the windshield of the Presidential limousine, and the number of bullets found afterward --- suggested that there had been a second sniper firing from a point in front of the automobile.

(quote off)

This does not establish throat shot = t&t shot.

(Jim F quote)

For someone who poses as a serious student of JFK, that is a stunning indictment.

(quote off)

I don't identify with the JFK Assassination Critical Research Community, so this is not a problem with me, my rep among other students of the case.

I identify with the First Day witnesses at Dealey Plaza/Parkland/Bethesda. These collectively heroic people have been maligned for nearly 5 decades. I particularly abhor the tendency among some critics to turn witnesses into perps.

You are much more supportive of the witnesses than others, Jim, which is why I regard you warmly...in spite of your temper.

[And, by the way, you have never given me the HSCA pages where I can see the X-ray and its report.]

The editor of Assassination Science doesn't have the neck x-ray and the HSCA report on it?

Even more reason to find the neck x-ray authentic, it hasn't crossed your radar, Jim.

I'll try to dig it out. I've moved a bunch of stuff around recently and I don't have access to my books right now.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Cliff,

Well, I am very favorably disposed toward you because you are far more rational in your response to the

witnesses and other evidence than many others. I am glad you have both ASSASSINATION SCIENCE

and MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA. Since that is the case, tell me whether you think that the substitute

windshield shown on page 157 bears any resemblance to the hole seen in the Altgens on page 149?

What's the probability that a hole in the windshield, JFK's grasping his throat, the sound of a fire-

cracker, and these tiny "shrapnel wounds" in the face are causally unrelated? Tracing the throat

wound and the windshield hole leads back to the location half-way between the road and the top

of the Triple Underpass. How do you explain this evidence? Where did that windshield bullet go?

The back shot and the throat shot were very closely spaced in time. Someone behind hearing the

sound of a firecracker caused by the bullet passing through the windshield but witnessing instead

the hit to his back might very well associate them. But what would have been the cause of such a

sound from the shot that hit him in the back? We know a windshield hit would cause that sound.

So I think you are not doing as good a job of thinking this through as I would like to have from you.

Did I not think you are a very smart guy whose work is usually quite good--including in relation to

the back wound, which I discuss in "Reasoning about Assassinations"--I wouldn't continue pursuing

this with you. Check out page 436 of HOAX when you have the chance and get back to me about it.

I do have a copy of (what purports to be) the chest X-ray in MORTAL ERROR, which, of course, was

why I asked if you thought JFK had been shot by a Secret Service agent by accident. I would like it

if you could elaborate on the sketch you have given of your views on the shot sequence, which is:

Throat shot -- right front.

Back shot -- Dal-Tex

Head shot(s) -- right front, possible multiple directions including South Knoll, the Dal-Tex, and

west corner of the TSBD, 6th fl.

In particular, where do you think the throat shot originated? As you know, I believe the back shot

originated from the top of the County Records Building, not the Dal-Tex, but that three shots were

fired from the Dal-Tex--the miss that injured James Tague, the miss that hit the chrome strip on

the windshield, the hit to the back of his head near the EOP. I believe one to three shots were from

the west side of the Book Depository, which hit John Connally. Tell me more about the throat shot.

This is really disillusioning. When I offered my assurance, I meant that, when you look at the evidence I

have cited in those books, it should be obvious--even to you!--that the wound to the throat was caused

by a shot that passed through the windshield, which, as I have now explained several times, you can see

in the Altgens!

Jim, I'm not challenging the t&t hole in the windshield.

The question is whether or not it was caused by the same round that struck JFK's throat.

So it's not there before the throat shot but it is there after the throat shot--what does that suggest to you, Cliff?

. . .

I don't identify with the JFK Assassination Critical Research Community, so this is not a problem with me, my rep among other students of the case.

I identify with the First Day witnesses at Dealey Plaza/Parkland/Bethesda. These collectively heroic people have been maligned for nearly 5 decades. I particularly abhor the tendency among some critics to turn witnesses into perps.

You are much more supportive of the witnesses than others, Jim, which is why I regard you warmly...in spite of your temper.

[And, by the way, you have never given me the HSCA pages where I can see the X-ray and its report.]

The editor of Assassination Science doesn't have the neck x-ray and the HSCA report on it?

Even more reason to find the neck x-ray authentic, it hasn't crossed your radar, Jim.

I'll try to dig it out. I've moved a bunch of stuff around recently and I don't have access to my books right now.

Edited April 9, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Cliff,

If these were two distinct shots, where did they go and where were they fired from? I have explained the

evidence that supports the south end of the Triple Underpass, which Doug Weldon discusses in detail. I

am right about your interest in an "ice bullet", right? From where you believe that it was fired? And if you

think the hole in the windshield was a later shot, where was it fired from and where did it go? Many thanks.

Jim

Those small "shrapnel wounds" on his face appear to have been made by shards of glass from the windshield.

Jim, keep in mind that the throat shot occurred circa Z190. Altgens was snapped at Z255. In between Connally was hit, perhaps twice. A military style volley with multiple shooters will sound like a single report, right?

We don't know how many shots were fired into the limo by Z255. There is a possibility that a shot after Z190

struck the windshield prior to Z255.

I'm jus' say'n...

[Robin Unger]

Very little blood would have come from the back wound, which was a shallow wound that penetrated only

about as far as the second knuckle of your little finger at a downward angle of 45-60° with no exit. Check

out Sibert and O'Neill's report about this. The back wound could not have caused that much blood but, as

Bernice has observed, he slumped to the left onto her lap. My best guess as to why there wasn't more on

her outfit is that there was an initial gush of brains and debris (and blood) when he was first hit (most of

which, of course, was blown out to the left rear), she got up to reach for a chunk of his skull and brains on

the trunk, and when she sat back down, JFK had already bled onto the seat but there wasn't a lot of blood

left as she held him in her hands. Do we have photos of any blood on the back of her suit? That might be

worth considering, but we may have an explanation at hand here for why her lap was not soaked in blood.

hi Robin; As has been mentioned, JFK fell to his left towards onto, Jackie's lap, that would cause the heavy blood flow to the left from the head wound,imo take care b

Yes i agree B

Unless i read Pat's post to Martin incorrectly, he implied that the blood on the left of the shirt, came mainly from the BACK WOUND before the head shot and then continued as kennedy lay in jackie'a lap

I do agree that the blood in the middle section of the back more than likely came from the back wound before frame z-312

What i don't agree with is that the back wound alone, caused the huge blood stain seen on kennedys left shirt shoulder, and on the front of the shirt on the same side .

Pat Speers Quote:

A quick thought. The blood on the shirt came primarily from the back wound. That is why so much of it drips straight down. It was already headed in this direction when Kennedy was hit in the head and fell over, and then continued on in this direction when Jackie put his head in her lap.

Question:

As kennedy lay in Jackie's lap and the blood from the head wound saturated the leftt shoulder of the suit coat.

How did the blood on the suit coat, then get onto the left shoulder of the shirt. ?

Did the blood from the head wound streem down the back of the neck onto the shirt. ?

Looking at the painting below depicting ( one possible scenario for what may have happened at Parkland )kennedy's head in Jackies lap.

why wasn't Jackies dress more blood stained to the same degree as we see on the shirt. ?

Thanks Jim

In a larger blowup of the Stoughton image below, I do recall seeing clearly the blood on jackies dress

As a side note, I also notice in the image that Jackie boards AF1 with her blood stained gloves on, and when we see her come of the plane the Gloves have been removed.

the blood stained pill box hat had already been removed at Parkland before the drive to Love Field.

Large Stoughton Crop

Edited April 11, 2011 by Robin Unger

[Robin Unger]

Distinct lack of blood on the jacket around the hole. ?

Quote:

Very little blood would have come from the back wound, which was a shallow wound that penetrated only

about as far as the second knuckle of your little finger at a downward angle of 45-60° with no exit

Paul O'Connor sketch of the back wound from William Law's " In the eye of history "

Edited April 11, 2011 by Robin Unger

[Pat Speer]

Moreover, we

know that the Warren Commission staff also placed the wound at that location, as these photos show:

http://i52.tinypic.com/2uejpz8.jp

It was the FBI who put the back wound in its proper position, not the Warren Commission staff.

Hoover never bought the SBT. Hoover wanted to make Specter look like an idiot.

This isn't correct, Cliff. Specter ran the show at the re-enactment. He was shown the back wound photo on the day of the re-enactment by SS agent Thomas Kelley.

According to Specter, correct?

He tested the trajectories using the real back wound location, based on the photo and the face sheet. When he found they didn't work so great he had Kelley testify they'd used the Rydberg drawings to establish the back wound location used in the re-enactment, and Shaneyfelt claim the trajectory from the sniper's nest approximated that of the trajectory in the Rydberg drawings. He then made sure that no photos showing the back wound location used in the re-enactment were published in the 26 volumes.

His charade was exposed, however, by three people. 1) Frazier testified they'd used the face sheet to place the wound. 2) Specter admitted Kelley had shown him the photo on the day of the re-enactment. 3) Kelley confirmed this to Weisberg.

This is all covered in part 2 of my video series.

Those were FBI men in the limo, correct? And wasn't it Frazier of the FBI who used the face sheet to place the wound?

The FBI's memos on the re=enactment make clear they were only there to assist the commission. As far as they were concerned, they'd already done their re-enactment.

Kelley's testimony is below. It demonstrates that the secret service created the chalk mark based on the Rydberg drawings and hole on JFK's clothing. As you know they don't align. He was lying. He and Specter would both eventually admit they'd looked at the autopsy photo, which does align with the hole on the clothing.

Mr. SPECTER. What marking, if any, was placed on the back of President Kennedy--the stand-in for President Kennedy?

Mr. KELLEY. There was a chalk mark placed on his coat, in this area here.

Mr. SPECTER. And what did that chalk mark represent?

Mr. KELLEY. That represented the entry point of the shot which wounded the President.

Mr. SPECTER. And how was the location for that mark fixed or determined?

Mr. KELLEY. That was fixed from the photographs of a medical drawing that was made by the physicians and the people at Parkland and an examination of the coat which the President was wearing at the time.

Mr. SPECTER. As to the drawing, was that not the drawing made by the autopsy surgeons from Bethesda Naval Hospital?

Mr. KELLEY. Bethesda Naval.

Mr. McCLOY. Not Parkland, as I understand it?

Mr. SPECTER No, sir; not Parkland, because as the record will show, the President was not turned over at Parkland.

Mr. KELLEY. I was shown a drawing of--that was prepared by some medical technicians indicating the point of entry.

Mr. SPECTER. Permit me to show you Commission Exhibit No. 386, which has heretofore been marked and introduced into evidence, and I ask you if that is the drawing that you were shown as the basis for the marking of the wound on the back of the President's neck.

133

Mr. KELLEY. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. And the record will show, may it please the Commission, that this was made by the autopsy surgeons at Bethesda.

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; Commission No. 889 represented by frame 166 is the adjusted position to account for the fact that the Presidential stand-in on May 24 was actually 10 inches higher in the air above the street than the President would have been in the Presidential limousine.

Mr. DULLES - Would you explain to us simply how you made those adjustments?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES - I mean how did you get him down 10 inches as a practical matter.

Mr. FRAZIER - They had marked on the back of the President's coat the location of the wound, according to the distance from the top of his head down to the hole in his back as shown in the autopsy figures. They then held a ruler, a tape measure up against that, both the back of the Presidential stand-in- and the back of the Governor's stand-in, and looking through the scope you could estimate the 10-inch distance down on the automobile.

P.S. Just a thought. Perhaps Frazier thought the Rydberg drawings were "autopsy figures."

Edited April 10, 2011 by Pat Speer

[David Andrews]

I can't see anyone aiming through the windshield. Any hole there was the result of a miss, imo.

The throat shot was a perfect hit.

Why shoot someone in the throat on purpose, if desiring a perfect hit?

I'm wondering if the throat wound source is the north end of the railroad bridge, and if from that position the shot came off at the last possible moment to strike Kennedy through the windshield, while the car was following the decline of the street.

Kennedy's head and neck were "framed" between the dashboard and the top of the windshield frame. Thus, as the limo descended with the street, the top of the head was disappearing rapidly from the shooter's view during every second it took for the shooter to acquire the target through the windshield.

JFK was also blocked from view by passengers, and obscured by the rearview mirror and the crossbar of the passenger compartment.

Altgens, though standing downslope, has some of the same problem with the head being obscured amid the windshield framework:

See how the top of JFK's head is blocked out at Altgens' POV, but the throat is centered?

What if a shooter on or near the railroad bridge had a similar experience?

From the shooter's elevated perspective (compared to Altgens'), Kennedy's crown, brow, and eyes may have been disappearing from view as the limo approached and descended. So, what if he fired at the head just before Kennedy's face was lost amid all that "framework," but only hit the throat?

Doug Weldon has some videos up showing a bridge shooter's perspective on approaching traffic, useful for comparison.

I'm thinking it's a good hit, but not the perfect hit the shooter wanted. But what if that was his only moment from that position, and he was counted on to make the kill shot there, so the later head shot from another position did not have to be made?

Edited April 10, 2011 by David Andrews

[Robin Unger]

I have looked at all the windscreen images, including a very large blowup of the Altgen's 6 windscreen area.

What i do see in many of the images, is a pattern of spider web cracks.

most probably caused by a metal fragement hitting the inside of the windscreen

Edited April 10, 2011 by Robin Unger

[Robin Unger]

NARA Limo windscreen close up.

[David Andrews]

Robin, I'd love to know where it came from. I've asked people to give opinion based solely on interpreting Connally's and Kellerman's reactions. I think that could be useful too.

Edited April 10, 2011 by David Andrews

[Mike Williams]

Robin, I'd love to know where it came from. I've asked people to give opinion based solely on interpreting Connally's and Kellerman's reactions. I think that could be useful too.

Dean,

I know over the years people have gone back and forth over the hole in the windshield. I looked at this using the Parkland photos, which obviously were taken before anyone could have switched anything. Here is a link to the article I wrote sometime ago.

http://www.jfkballistics.com/AHoleInOne.html

I find that this work, in conjunction with the evidence that there was lead only, on the inside of the crack, proves pretty reasonably that there was no hole, and just a crack in the glass.

The way that I see it, to proclaim there was a hole, is to say that the Parkland photos are doctored, and I just do not buy that. No disrespect towards anyone, but to this day I have yet to see any credible expert proclaim any of the photos or films have been altered.

Something else to consider, is that this minor defect in the glass is not to difficult to spot in the photos. A gross defect in the glass would stick out like a sore thumb.

We just do not see that.

I really have to conclude that there was no hole.

FWIW,

Mike

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Robin,

That's very odd, because what you are displaying here is the substitute windshield and not what we see in

the Altgens. The through-and-through hole is the white, spiral nebula with a dark hole in the center at a

location where JFK's left ear would be visible were it not obscured by the nebula. Take another look at the

location I am describing. The damage to the windshields is not at all the same. Here's page 21 from HOAX:

The contrast is not very good. If you have HOAX, Robin, you could no doubt do a better job on page 21.

I have looked at all the windscreen images, including a very large blowup of the Altgen's 6 windscreen area.

What i do see in many of the images, is a pattern of spider web cracks.

most probably caused by a metal fragement hitting the inside of the windscreen

Edited April 11, 2011 by James H. Fetzer