The Head Shot Theories

[Eddy Bainbridge]

For anyone new reading this post, it is intended to summarise theories on the head shots seen around Z313. I am trying to collate all plausible theories, presented in simple terms.

Its is essential for all Conspiracy Theorists to vigorously scoff at all theories, other than their own, so I’ll have a go at a bit of scoffing as well.

 

Warren Commission – Head Hit by one shot from rear, smallish low rear entry. Fired from TBSD – Scoff; what about all the witnesses and evidence of a large blowout at the back of the head and the angle of the shot that doesn’t match its supposed origin?

 

HSCA – Head hit by one shot from rear, fired from TBSD but entry higher up than Warren Commission, to ‘adjust’ angle to match TBSD location – Scoff ; As per Warren Commission scoff, AND no evidence provided for shot entry location change, other than an extraordinarily weak reference to the fragment tracks visible on the X-rays. The fragment tracks seem to show a shot from completely the opposite direction.

 

JFK film/public theory - One shot fired from Grassy Knoll entering somewhere near right front of head and exiting through blast in rear(as per witnesses etc) – Scoff; I can’t see much serious support from anyone for this simple theory. How does it explain the larger fragment behind the eye socket visible behind the eye socket? and how does it explain the eye-witness and photographic evidence of a blow-out at the front/side of the head?

 

Two head-shot theory 1 (Josiah Thompson?) – A shot fired from the front, entering above the right eye and blowing out the rear. A second shot from the rear that hits JFK a glancing blow on the right side of his head and causes a blow-out wound at the front/side of the head – Scoff; Where is all the mess created by this sequence in the Z-film? It requires a rejection of the testimony of the three autopsy surgeons. That might sound easy to do, but a reading of their testimony, and others, plus the documentary evidence results in a bizarre conclusion. That conclusion being : The autopsy surgeons were trying to lie about their autopsy, CONTRARY to the alleged cover-up. Put another way: the autopsy surgeons produced an explanation, and, during the autopsy, acted in a way, that did not support the Warren Commission or the HSCA findings. They insisted on a low entry at the rear and, during the autopsy spent time trying to find out where this low entry came out. After the autopsy the cover-up kicked in, to obfuscate the autopsy report, but the three autopsy surgeons never jumped on board.

Two head-shot theory 2 (Pat Speer?) – As above, but two head shots from rear – As above theory but the rear blow-out is higher up the head, and the theory includes a detailed explanation of why the rear blow-out is not located where the witnesses apparently state it is located. Scoff– Same as the theory above. You might find the theory of the mislocated rear blow-out persuasive (I don’t) but you are still left with lying autopsy surgeons, going rogue!

 

(All the above theories do not require any alteration to the Z-film to work, Josiah Thompson’s version of ‘Two head-shot theory 1’ is the most fully formed attempt at resolving the lack of debris in the film.)

 

Two head-shot theory 3 – First head-shot from TBSD, Second head-shot from front. The theory requires missing Z film frames, as the angle of the first shot doesn’t work otherwise. Scoff : There is no scoff! Absolute genius! Go to thread “The Harper Fragment Proves a Lot” for a full explanation.

 

Please can anyone post corrections to my characterisations of these theories, and also please suggest other plausible theories I have missed. I will then edit my post accordingly.

 

[Chuck Schwartz]

Per Dr. Mantik (who had access to autopsy material and is a MD with a PHD, there were three headshots): (see #3 below)

Dr. Mantik – Yes, indeed. For further details, see my closing comments on my website in the CONCLUSIONS section of my JFK ASSASSINATION SURVEY.

1. Based on the observation of bruising at the actual wound sites (versus no bruising at the chest tube sites)—as clearly cited in the autopsy report itself—we know that the pathologists knew that JFK had been struck in the throat by a frontal projectile (although they did not know what it was). Likewise, they understood that a projectile had entered his right forehead (at the hairline). Although the autopsy photograph does not show this entry wound, it does show an incision (which obscures the actual wound), and we know (with certainty—based on eyewitnesses) that this incision did not exist in Dallas. So, somewhere after Parkland, this incision was deliberately created. Only one possible reason exists for this: It was intended to obscure the entry wound at this site. Even Boswell admitted that the forehead contained an “incised wound.” It does not get much clearer than that.
2. Most likely they recognized a frontal entry wound just above and anterior to the right ear—associated with a large occipital exit hole. See my e-book for many witnesses to this temporal entry wound; also see the comments of James Jenkins, who saw this entry wound while at the autopsy.
3. JFK was struck by three headshots—including two from the front (one at the frontal hairline and one near the right ear), and one shot from the posterior, entering near the external occipital protuberance, just as reported by the pathologists.
4. No bullet struck JFK in the back—or in the throat. The Single Bullet Theory is nonsense. The (superficial) back wound was likely caused by metallic shrapnel.
5. The purported brain photographs of JFK are not of his brain.
6. The X-rays and photographs have been altered at critical sites—in order to disguise evidence of frontal shots. Failure to hide these shots would have required a conclusion of conspiracy, which was not politically acceptable in 1963.
7. The Zapruder film has been critically altered—for the same reason.
8. The acoustic evidence (from the Police Dictabelt) is bogus. See my 100+ page review at my website starting on page 42 for 37 specific reasons to doubt that this noise includes authentic gunshots.

 

To view Dr. Mantik’s library of works on the JFK assassination, click on this link:

http://themantikview.com/

[Ron Bulman]

7 hours ago, Chuck Schwartz said:

Per Dr. Mantik (who had access to autopsy material and is a MD with a PHD, there were three headshots): (see #3 below)

Dr. Mantik – Yes, indeed. For further details, see my closing comments on my website in the CONCLUSIONS section of my JFK ASSASSINATION SURVEY.

1. Based on the observation of bruising at the actual wound sites (versus no bruising at the chest tube sites)—as clearly cited in the autopsy report itself—we know that the pathologists knew that JFK had been struck in the throat by a frontal projectile (although they did not know what it was). Likewise, they understood that a projectile had entered his right forehead (at the hairline). Although the autopsy photograph does not show this entry wound, it does show an incision (which obscures the actual wound), and we know (with certainty—based on eyewitnesses) that this incision did not exist in Dallas. So, somewhere after Parkland, this incision was deliberately created. Only one possible reason exists for this: It was intended to obscure the entry wound at this site. Even Boswell admitted that the forehead contained an “incised wound.” It does not get much clearer than that.
2. Most likely they recognized a frontal entry wound just above and anterior to the right ear—associated with a large occipital exit hole. See my e-book for many witnesses to this temporal entry wound; also see the comments of James Jenkins, who saw this entry wound while at the autopsy.
3. JFK was struck by three headshots—including two from the front (one at the frontal hairline and one near the right ear), and one shot from the posterior, entering near the external occipital protuberance, just as reported by the pathologists.
4. No bullet struck JFK in the back—or in the throat. The Single Bullet Theory is nonsense. The (superficial) back wound was likely caused by metallic shrapnel.
5. The purported brain photographs of JFK are not of his brain.
6. The X-rays and photographs have been altered at critical sites—in order to disguise evidence of frontal shots. Failure to hide these shots would have required a conclusion of conspiracy, which was not politically acceptable in 1963.
7. The Zapruder film has been critically altered—for the same reason.
8. The acoustic evidence (from the Police Dictabelt) is bogus. See my 100+ page review at my website starting on page 42 for 37 specific reasons to doubt that this noise includes authentic gunshots.

 

To view Dr. Mantik’s library of works on the JFK assassination, click on this link:

http://themantikview.com/

Again we find Dr. MANTICK'S ANALYLIS IS THE GOLD STANDARD IN THE CASE.  Taken with Dr. Chesser's work with that of ARRB Military Analysist Dough Horne the evidence is overwhelming.  JFK was shot from the front in the hairline over the right eye, at the top of the right front ear lobe, and from behind.  All pretty much simultaneously. 

 

[Eddy Bainbridge]

Many thanks to Chuck and Ron, I will read more fully how David Mantik reaches his conclusions about three headshots, and if I find this worth adding I will. In respect of Dr Mantik being the 'Gold Standard', can I strongly advise you read what Pat Speer has to say on the large fragment that Mantik states is visible on the AP xray, but not on the others. Speer's analysis is the 'Gold Standard' in this area in my view. I think it is big error in Mantik's analysis.

[Chuck Schwartz]

Doug Horne agreed with Dr. Mantik...

5.0 out of 5 stars Mantik's Book is the Final Word on JFK's Head Wounds: 2 Shots from the Right-Front, One from the Rear

Reviewed in the United States on August 9, 2015

Verified Purchase

by Douglas P. Horne, author of "Inside the Assassination Records Review Board"

I am delighted to see this crucial and definitive study published.

Once and for all, this monograph proves definitively that the Harper Fragment (found in Dealey Plaza on November 23, 1963) was occipital bone, further corroboration for the observations of the Dallas doctors on 11/22/63 that JFK had an exit wound in the back of his head, and therefore had been shot from the front.

Mantik exhaustively reviews the HSCA's incorrect conclusion that the Harper Fragment was not from the occipital region of the skull, and demolishes both of the HSCA's conflicting arguments (argued within the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel) that the Harper fragment was either from the top of the skull, or the right-front of the skull, of the deceased President. He also reviews in depth---and dispenses with---other, incorrect arguments about the Harper Fragment made by various JFK researchers over the years. Mantik has conclusively proven that the Harper Fragment is from the mid-occipital region, squarely in the center of the back of President Kennedy's skull. The implications are off-scale, since this contradicts the autopsy photos which unaccountably depict the back of JFK's skull to be intact. The HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel believed the autopsy photos (showing the rear of JFK's head to be intact, contrary to all key eyewitnesses at Parkland Hospital and most Bethesda autopsy witnesses) were proof that the Harper fragment could not be occipital; but in reality, understanding that the Harper Fragment can ONLY BE OCCIPITAL in origin, is proof that there is a major problem with the autopsy photos of the back of JFK's head.

Mantik also points out that the extreme right edge of the Harper Fragment contains evidence of entry---of a shot low in the right rear of the skull, fired from behind (probably the DAL-TEX building, not the Texas School Book Depository). But the Harper Fragment was not blasted out of JFK's skull by that bullet from behind---it was explosively ejected by one of two shots from the right front, and the resulting overpressure inside the cranium that created the large, ragged, baseball-sized exit wound in the right rear of JFK's skull seen at Parkland Hospital. This large head wound in the right-rear of JFK's head seen at Parkland Hospital is further proof, in addition to the Harper Fragment, that JFK was struck by shots from the front. This, of course, eliminates any possibility that Lee Harvey Oswald (or anyone else) could have been a lone assassin firing from behind.

In the interests of transparency, I freely acknowledge that Dr. Mantik has agreed with my published position that there were three JFK head shots---two from the right front, and one from the rear---and for this I am extraordinarily grateful. He has provided better proof than I did in Chapter 13 of "Inside the ARRB," but it is most gratifying to know that I got the essentials correct.

Backstopped by extraordinary detail and footnoting, and by brilliant clarifying illustrations, the reader will quickly reach the conclusion that this work is the "final word on the JFK head shots"---as much as any "final word" can be determined today, that is---in view of the completely discredited JFK autopsy report, and incomplete and suspect collection of JFK autopsy photographs and skull x-rays. Dr. Mantik brings his expertise as an M.D.---a radiation oncologist quite familiar with and qualified to read skull x-rays---and as a physicist, to this extensive, illustrated monograph.

Dr. Mantik's application of the science and techniques of optical densitometry (used regularly in his own work as a radiation oncologist) to the three extant JFK skull x-rays [at least two, and possibly three of the skull x-rays taken at JFK's autopsy are missing] has proven that all three of the existing x-rays are copy films---not originals---and that all 3 extant x-rays are altered, composite images that do not accurately reflect what was shown in the 5 or 6 skull x-rays originally exposed at JFK's autopsy.

So I disagree with another reviewer's comment that we can "never know" what truly happened to President Kennedy in Dealey Plaza because of the tainted and discredited autopsy report. (My conclusion is that the principal problem with the autopsy was not incompetence, but cover-up: reporting only shots from behind, and intentionally suppressing all evidence of shots from the front. Dr. Mantik agrees with me on that score.) Because of the work of countless other researchers, and particularly Dr. Mantik in this book, we now know this: JFK was struck by three shots to the head during his assassination: two from the right front and one from behind. Dr. Mantik has provided medical evidence of a crossfire, and therefore of a conspiracy. So all the old arguments of the Warren Commission supporters that "there were no shots from the front, because no frontal shots were mentioned in the autopsy report," can now be thrown into the dustbin of history. Equally as important, Dr. Mantik's conclusions about 3 head shots, and about the alteration of the extant skull x-rays, prove there was a massive U.S. government cover-up regarding how JFK was killed.

It requires patience to read and digest a monograph of this nature that is written in the style of a scientific paper, but it is well worth the time and intellectual rigor required, and the reader will be amply rewarded. All previous published attempts to discuss JFK's head wounds pale in comparison with this magnificent effort. Well done!

 

[Chuck Schwartz]

Here is a paper written by Dr. Mantik..https://assassinationresearch.com/v2n2/pittsburgh.pdf

[Denny Zartman]

On 9/5/2021 at 6:11 PM, Chuck Schwartz said:

No bullet struck JFK in the back—or in the throat.

I have a hard time buying this conclusion from Dr. Mantik.

[Chuck Schwartz]

Denny, since Dr. Mantik had access to actual autopsy material and the backround (MD/PhD) to interpret such material , I have gone with his conclusions.  Perhaps , though, there is a possibilty that he got it wrong and you are correct.

[Eddy Bainbridge]

Adding another theory reliant on film alteration in my view. 

Three headshots theory (Mantik, Horne, Chesser), One rear, one above eye, one right temple. The theory is largely based on viewing of the original Xrays and photographs so has a good evidential basis. Horne particularly posits Z film alteration. I am not scoffing at this theory, it largely matches my thoughts. but would make some observations: The evidence provided for rear bullet entry, and temple entry isn't very persuasive( Based on one crack following Puppe's law and a barely defined 'keyhole' entry site). The xray bullet track (front to back) , in my view, is somewhat misinterpreted. Bear in mind that a large right portion of the brain is missing. This means any bullet track will be visible in the remaining brain, but has no medium to support it on the right side. In my view we see around 1/4 to 1/3 of the debris trail from the shot above the eye and Chesser's interpretation of its direction is misplaced. The theory also does not accept the large fragment next to the eye socket (They need to listen to Pat Speer) and ignores where the autopsy surgeons say they removed bullet fragments. 

I hold the injuries can be explained by two head-shots. If you propose three head-shots I think you are struggling to demonstrate three exit points without unsupported speculation. 

[Ron Ecker]

Mantik: "The (superficial) back wound was likely caused by metallic shrapnel."

Shrapnel from what?

 

 

[Eddy Bainbridge]

30 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

Mantik: "The (superficial) back wound was likely caused by metallic shrapnel."

Shrapnel from what?

 

 

Hi Ron, I think some of Mantik's conclusions are a little hasty (e.g large fragment at rear). I think anyone would say the low back wound is a puzzle. I think the best you can say is that the autopsy witness testimony probably confirms there was some sort of wound in the back, and probing was inconclusive. I don't think you can confidently say the wound existed in Dallas.

[Denny Zartman]

On 9/8/2021 at 9:02 AM, Chuck Schwartz said:

Denny, since Dr. Mantik had access to actual autopsy material and the backround (MD/PhD) to interpret such material , I have gone with his conclusions.  Perhaps , though, there is a possibilty that he got it wrong and you are correct.

I'm just going by what you've posted here. I'd be willing to look at his evidence and reasoning, or read it if you'd like to summarize it, but based on what you have posted I still have some questions. Dr. Mantik's conclusions on the front neck wound and back wound seem to conflict with my understanding of the evidence.

As I understand it, it seems that almost all of the doctors at Parkland who saw the anterior neck wound in person said it was consistent with a bullet entrance wound.

The doctors at Bethesda, while not having the same experience in treating gunshot wounds as the doctors at Parkland had, nevertheless saw Kennedy's back wound, probed it with a finger and found it to be shallow, unsuccessfully attempted to track it through Kennedy's body with flexible metal probes, and actively discussed among themselves where the bullet went. After calling Parkland and learning about the discovery of CE 399 in the Dallas hospital there, the Bethesda doctors concluded the bullet that caused the back wound had fallen out during heart massage attempts to save Kennedy.

If the anterior neck wound was not caused by a bullet fired from in front of Kennedy, why then did the doctors in Parkland say it appeared to be a bullet entrance wound? For what specific reason should we believe the Parkland doctors were mistaken in their observations?

If the back wound was caused by shrapnel, what shrapnel was coming from the northeast toward JFK's back? I know of no reports of bullets striking the rear of the limo or striking the street behind the limo. Or does Dr. Mantik conclude the back wound came from another direction? Why specifically should we believe the back wound was not as a result of a bullet entering from the rear?

[Chuck Schwartz]

This thread is discussing headshot theories- I added the 3 headshots theory as depicted by Dr. Mantik and agreed to by Doug Horne. In regards to other shots hitting other parts of JFK's body, you could be correct Denny.

[Chuck Schwartz]

Denny, there is detail available on the Dr. Mantik we site, such as"We know that something struck JFK in the throat while he was on Elm St. This conclusion derives from (an oft-overlooked part of) the autopsy report. At the autopsy, bruises (bruise: injury in which small blood vessels are broken but the overlying skin remains intact) were seen in the strap muscles of the anterior neck (and in the fascia around the trachea)—and a contusion was seen at the right lung apex. (Lung contusion: bruise of the lung as a result of vascular injury.) Such bruising can only occur while the victim is alive. After death, the heart stops pumping, and the circulatory system is under no pressure—so no bruising can then occur. Therefore, both the strap muscles and the lung contusion prove that JFK’s heart was still beating when these injuries occurred—so these wounds must have occurred on Elm St. As further confirmation notice that the incisions for the chest tubes (on the anterior chest) were specifically described (in the autopsy report) as showing no bruising. So, we have a built-in control—right on JFK’s own body—for this deduction. 2. We can therefore also reach one more conclusion—one of momentous import: Humes and Boswell understood, while at the autopsy, that something had struck JFK in the throat, while he was on Elm Street. Surely, they recognized that bruising of the lung apex and the neck muscles could only have occurred while JFK was still alive. (At the very least, they recognized that the tracheotomy could not have caused a contusion of the lung apex.) They merely disguised their knowledge (of these pre-mortem wounds) with their bland comments about bruising—and no one was ever shrewd enough to ask them about this. Of course, they also blamed the tracheotomy incision (for obscuring the throat entry wound), but they knew better. In other words, as I have always insisted, the pathologists disclosed as much truth as their predicament could bear. But they did not want history to regard them as buffoons (which they were not), so they left these clues for us. Because they were under strict military orders, with their pensions and promotions at stake, they had to be cagey. So, their detailed descriptions of bruising (versus no bruising) were their secret cryptograms to posterity that they were not fools. 3. The glass shard probably caused the contusion at the right lung apex, but due to its small size, its..."  And this contains a presentation that Dr. Mantik made earlier this year..https://www.fff.org/freedom-in-motion/video/jfks-head-wounds/

[John Butler]

On 9/9/2021 at 9:05 AM, Ron Ecker said:

Mantik: "The (superficial) back wound was likely caused by metallic shrapnel."

Shrapnel from what?

 

 

And, in the same vein, what rifle or weapon caused the 2nd gunshot to the head?  The one from the rear. The one that is higher up near the top of the skill.  Was it a high powered rifle like that which caused the right temple(near the right ear) wound and blowout in the back in the parietal/occipital wound?  The grapefruit/orange blowout in the rear of the skull.  The tangential wound described by Kemp.  

If the rear of the skull higher up wound was caused by a high power rifle then why was not the front of Kennedy's skull blowout?  Or, at an angle the jaw removed  The assassins meant to shoot Kennedy in the head with a grand effect so that people could see and photographers could film the event for all to see through out history.  I don't think they would have used a short round or a lesser weapon.  I am suspicious of that wound?

The right forehead (frontal bone) wound is also suspicious.  What made that wound?  Was it a rifle or pistol wound?  That would round did not exit the skill at the left side.  Was that bullet removed before the autopsy?  In the same manner, the head shot wound from the rear at near the top of the skull did not have an exit wound either.  I can see where a high power rifle will travel through the skull taking a lot bone and matter with it due to hydrostatic shock as seen in the occipital wound.  The other two wounds don't have this effect so they must have been less powerful, suggesting pistol wounds.  One in the plaza and one outside the plaza?

As far as the back wound being superficial, it was just said to be that.  How far can you stick a finger in a .30 inch hole:  I would suspect not far.  And, the metal rod test could of simply been shoved in the wrong direction.  A straight thrust into a angle wound?  Or, an angled thrust into a straight wound.