Evidence of a Frontal Shot --- Part II / The Exit Wound

[Chris Bristow]

19 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Dr. Jones does not believe the photos were faked. He isn't even a conspiracy theorist.

From Chapter 18c:

Dr. Ronald Jones, as Peters, has claimed many times over the years that the wound was on the back of Kennedy's head. In the photo in Groden's book, however, he points to a wound location slightly to the side of the wound on the "McClelland" drawing. In 1992, even stranger, he described the wound as a "side wound." In 1997, in a letter to researcher Francois Carlier, Jones tried to explain his confusion; he insisted that although he observed a wound on the "posterior aspect of the skull," he was "unable to observe the exact extent or dimensions of this wound" because of his "position at the table on the left side of the President below his arm" while the President was lying "flat on his back." When interviewed by the ARRB in 1998, for what's worse, he offered more excuses, insisting "it was difficult to see down through the hair," and admitting "All my view was from the President's left side." He then clarified this position to researcher Vincent Palamara, first admitting that he really didn't have "a clear view of the back side of the head wound. President Kennedy had very thick dark hair that covered the injured area" and then offering "In my opinion it was in the occipital area in the back of the head." He had thereby confirmed that he'd failed to see the large hole missing scalp and bone depicted in the "McClelland"drawing.

 

From Chapter 18d: 

When Dr. Ronald Jones testified on 3-24-64 he said Kennedy had "a large wound in the right posterior side of the head" and then further described "There was a large defect in the back side of the head as the President lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted next with the brain and with a tremendous amount of clot and blood." He later discussed "what appeared to be an exit wound in the posterior portion of the skull." . 

As discussed, Jones would later defer to the accuracy of the autopsy photos, and tell the ARRB that "it was difficult to see down through the hair." He then clarified his position to researcher Vincent Palamara, first admitting that he really didn't have "a clear view of the back side of the head wound. President Kennedy had very thick dark hair that covered the injured area" and then offering "In my opinion it was in the occipital area in the back of the head." And should that not make his position clear, one should view this 9-24-13 interview of McClelland and Jones, in which Jones counters Dr. McClelland's claim the head shot came from the front, and cites the studies of Dr. John Lattimer as evidence the shot actually came from behind. He also pushes that the back wound was an entrance for a bullet exiting the throat. Dr. Jones is not a "back-of-the-head witness," nor is he a conspiracy theorist.

As usual you cherry pick statements and then see them through the lens of your own bias interpretation.
"he points to a wound location slightly to the side of the wound on the "McClelland" drawing." "slightly to the side" means what exactly?  What does "side wound" mean exactly? In this case it means what you want it to mean. Your interpretation of those statements completely ignores the photographic evidence of Jones demonstrating the wound location, and I think most would agree photos trump written and verbal comments. 
 As I mentioned in my post the Parkland witnesses vary some when they define the occipital wound, that is to be expected.

"he was unable to observe the EXACT extent or dimensions of this wound". That is understandable considering the hair got in the way and he was on JFK's left side. But we are talking about the general wound location on the head not so much its exact dimensions and size. Even if you are looking at a wound through the mass of blood and hair it is not going to make you think the wound is in a completely different location. With JFK's face and right ear in tact it would not have been difficult to determine wound location relative to his ear as he looked over from the JFK's left side 
"President Kennedy had very thick dark hair that covered the injured area". "You take that out of context  to imply that   "He had thereby confirmed that he'd failed to see the large hole missing scalp and bone depicted in the "McClelland"drawing." Saying "very thick dark hair that covered the injured area" does not necessarily mean totally covered. He clearly said he saw the wound and knew the location so when he said "hair that covered the injured area" it can only be taken to mean the hair partially covered the wound. 
 But from his position I would expect him to see less of the large blasted out area as he was looking at it side on or top down. However that would not cause him to see it in the occipital parietal if it was not located there. His apparent inconsistency regarding the blasted out area does not mean his account was wrong. That is a biased interpretation. 
"Jones counters Dr. McClelland's claim the head shot came from the front, and cites the studies of Dr. John Lattimer as evidence the shot actually came from behind."
Ya I have seen that interview. But the basis of the CT is about wound location. The doctors can speculate all they want on the direction of the shot but it is the missing occipital parietal wound in the autopsy that is the issue. That is what points to a coverup. I personally think the discrepancy between the wound seen at Parkland and the official report indicates a coverup of a frontal shot but it is the omission of the occipital wound that strongly suggests a coverup. 
"Jones would later defer to the accuracy of the autopsy photos,". I must have missed that, but films of Jones show he was most definitely a "Back of he head" witness.
  When it comes to a few people recanting their back of the head statements I have to take that with a grain of salt. Crenshaw was seriously attacked by one of the most recognized medical journals " the Journal of American Medical Associations" when they inferred he was a complete xxxx and may have never even been in the room that day. I think any medical professional who was aware of that cheap attack on Crenshaw saw the writing on the wall. If you talk about an occipital wound your entire career could be put in jeopardy. To be attacked by that well known publication is very serious. And we know that 5 Parkland staff testified to the WC that Crenshaw was in the room that day. It is clear they were not interested in researching the facts.
If a person holds the opinion that the wound was occipital then changes their opinion on a dime decades later I think it is fair to ask which of their two conflicting accounts was wrong and which was right? Take Carrico as an example. He writes O.C in his report that day. He testifies to same at the WC. He doubles down to the HSCA. He triples down in the KRON interview and is photographed with his hand in the upper O.C. Then after decades he suddenly flips!. A rational evaluation of his conflicting statements leans heavily towards his 4 original accounts over his interview with the 6th floor museum so many years later. But the bias of Parkland skeptics like yourself leads you to accept his last version of the wound location without question. It is bias like that which casts doubt on those who argue so fervently against the parkland staff and many at the autopsy.

[Chuck Schwartz]

J. Corsi and Dr. David Mantik were on Coast to Coast last night.  They have released a new book documenting the fact that there was 2 head shots to the front of JFK's head and 1 head shot to the back of his head.  There was a shot thru the windowshield  in the front .  And, Connally was hit by 2 separate bullets.  There was one shot that missed the limo completely. Could have been more missed shots

[Donald Willis]

On 2/19/2024 at 5:59 PM, Denise Hazelwood said:

Thank you for the link to the Scally article on Alan Smith, Pat Speer. Scally concluded that "Bob Goodman" basically, was a xxxxx. However, Scally said "It has not thus far been possible to find any evidence of a Chicago Tribune representative in Dallas that day..." Au contraire. per the Todd Vaughn motorcade schematic listing (https://gregwagnersite.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/presidential-motorcade-schematic-by-todd-vaughn.pdf) Chicago Tribune reporter Robert Young was embedded in the motorcade. Although Vaughn reports (noting Seth Kantor) that "no reporters were allowed to exit the bus in Dealey Plaza" I suspect that Young returned either exited despite that statement, or returned to Dealey Plaza after the bus arrived at Parkland Hospital. At any rate, the Chicago Tribune's courage of the assassination has been attributed to Young.

Scally's "youths" in the Cabluck images are interesting, as are the Rckerby and Grant crops are also interesting, as are the other images. However, given the boys in Altgens 6 and the "running boy" in Wiegman's film, I stand by my earlier statement that Alan Smith was standing in front of the TSBD window, right where he said he was when JFK was "shot in the forehead." Smith and his friend/s may have run towards the Triple Underpass, as the boy in the Weigman's film did, but Smith was on Elm Street in front of the shooter's window at the time of the forehead shot.

 

 

 

There were also apparently reporters from the Chicago Daily News there that day.  The S.F. Chronicle 11/29/63 features an article by M.W. Newman and Henry Hanson of the News, recounting many things, including this paragraph:

"H.L. Brennan... saw a rifle barrel sticking out of a fifth-floor window in a red-brick warehouse building.  The man who held the gun was 'slender and nice-looking'.  He crouched in a dusty, cobwebby corner and fired while leaning over crates of textbooks."  

The most interesting part of that recollection is the word "cobwebby"--witness James Tague echoed this word in his Commission testimony:

"From the reflection of the sun it was something on the window... Not the window that proved to be where the shots were fired, but it was a different window, like it had spider webs or dust, and maybe shots had come through the window."  (v7p554)

Where exactly was that cobwebs-and-dust window from which shots also seemed to come?  Counsel did not follow up on this.

[Denise Hazelwood]

On 2/18/2024 at 4:38 AM, Pat Speer said:

Neither Allman nor Smith said they thought the shots came from the front. In fact they both said they thought the shots were fired from a building. And neither one said they saw a wound on the back of the head. The closest Allman came to saying such a thing, as I recall, is when he quoted Bill Newman as saying "They got the side of his head."

When Smith said that Kennedy was shot "in his forehead," that seems clear enough to me that it came from the front. Allman's importance is more in describing the limousine's location at the time of the first shot rather than the wounds to Kennedy's head. I am unaware of either Allman or Newman saying "They got the side of his head." Newman pointed with one finger to the left side of his head in his same day interview, but that was the side of Kennedy's head away from where he was standing, which he would not have been able to see, so I take that head point to be an assumption (mistaken) rather than direct observation, especially since Newman later said he only assumed Kennedy had been shot at that point because of how he slumped against Jackie. And while neither Smith nor Allman described the blow-out at the back of Kennedy's head (which would have been not clearly visible to them at the time of the shot, since they had more of a frontal view of Kennedy at the time), there are plenty of other witnesses who did describe the back of the head blow-out hole.

[Denise Hazelwood]

On 3/26/2024 at 8:40 AM, Chuck Schwartz said:

J. Corsi and Dr. David Mantik were on Coast to Coast last night.  They have released a new book documenting the fact that there was 2 head shots to the front of JFK's head and 1 head shot to the back of his head.  There was a shot thru the windowshield  in the front .  And, Connally was hit by 2 separate bullets.  There was one shot that missed the limo completely. Could have been more missed shots

The book is not yet on Dr. Mantik's website. Do you know what evidence they give for 3 head shots with "2 head shots to the front"? I know in his book JFK's Head Wounds Mantik speculated on "3" head shots but also said there was "no medical evidence for the 3rd shot" (whereas there is evidence of 2 head shots). I suspect they are using the Z-film as evidence for the "3rd" head shot. But since the Z-film is an altered product, it really shouldn't be used for much evidence of anything--except the lengths to which the government was willing to go in executing the cover-up. Personally, I think only 2 head shots: the first from Oswald (causing Kennedy to go into the decorticate posture "chest grab" reflex), and the second from the AR-15 slam fire accident.

[Denise Hazelwood]

On 2/18/2024 at 7:41 AM, Pete Mellor said:

"I was standing on the curb watching the parade along Main street."  Has anyone identified Smith's location in movie or still photograph's?

Where exactly was he to be 10ft from Kennedy to see him hit in the forehead?  A name I haven't come across before.

I believe he is one of the 2 boys standing in front of the TSBD barely visible in the Altgens 6 photo, one of whom can be seen to be running after the limo in the Couch film. I also think he may have been misquoted, and that he actually said "I was standing...on the main street" (as opposed to the small access road that ran in front of the TSBD). (Or he may have gotten the name of the street wrong. I don't consider this to be a "biggie.") But he was standing almost directly below the TSBD window from which the shots were fired--which is important.

Edited March 28 by Denise Hazelwood
I originally said "Wiegman" film, but it was the Couch film I was actually referring to.

[Denise Hazelwood]

(System keeps acting like it's not saving and posting duplicates.)

Edited March 28 by Denise Hazelwood
(Duplicate Posting)

[Denise Hazelwood]

(Duplicate posting.)

Edited March 28 by Denise Hazelwood
Duplicate posting

[Bill Fite]

On 2/18/2024 at 6:29 PM, Pat Speer said:

I believe the point made by Chesser and others is that the cloud of smaller fragments is towards the front of the head, not rear, which would not be in keeping with a bullet's heading from back to front, as smaller fragments have less momentum, and travel shorter distances than larger fragments. 

+1

[Denise Hazelwood]

1 hour ago, Bill Fite said:

I believe the point made by Chesser and others is that the cloud of smaller fragments is towards the front of the head, not rear, which would not be in keeping with a bullet's heading from back to front, as smaller fragments have less momentum, and travel shorter distances than larger fragments. 

1. Dr. Chesser's work can be found at https://assassinationofjfk.net/a-review-of-the-jfk-cranial-x-rays-and-photographs/

2. It is true that larger fragments generally travel farther than smaller fragments. Emphasis needed on the word "NOT" as in "NOT in keeping with a bullet's heading from back to front," but rather from front to back. 

3. From the front to the back, as in from the (forehead) entrance wound location towards the back of the head blow-out (where the larger fragments exited). Note my observations of the HSCA published X-ray with its "Occipital Defect" caption at https://www.a-benign-conspiracy.com/hsca-published-x-rays.html 

[Bill Fite]

2 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

quote above

Actually, the quoted text was written by Pat Speer - I just agreed.

[Pat Speer]

7 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

When Smith said that Kennedy was shot "in his forehead," that seems clear enough to me that it came from the front. Allman's importance is more in describing the limousine's location at the time of the first shot rather than the wounds to Kennedy's head. I am unaware of either Allman or Newman saying "They got the side of his head." Newman pointed with one finger to the left side of his head in his same day interview, but that was the side of Kennedy's head away from where he was standing, which he would not have been able to see, so I take that head point to be an assumption (mistaken) rather than direct observation, especially since Newman later said he only assumed Kennedy had been shot at that point because of how he slumped against Jackie. And while neither Smith nor Allman described the blow-out at the back of Kennedy's head (which would have been not clearly visible to them at the time of the shot, since they had more of a frontal view of Kennedy at the time), there are plenty of other witnesses who did describe the back of the head blow-out hole.

This is just not true. I go through the 11-22-63 statements of the Dealey Plaza witnesses one by one on my website and show how they thought the wound was on the face or right side. And no, none of them were claiming they thought they saw a bullet enter in one place and exit another. They saw an explosion on the skull...on the right side near the face. 

As far as Bill Newman...please. Bill Newman was on TV claiming the skull exploded by the temple within minutes of the shooting. While he initially pointed to his left temple, he did this because he was holding his kid with his right arm. His wife, moments later, pointed to her right temple. And Bill himself was filmed depicting an explosion from the right temple before he left the studio. The Newmans were looking at the back of JFK's head as he drove past. And yet they saw an explosion on the right side of his head by his ear and failed to see an explosion from the back of his head. And they have repeated this on camera and in person hundreds of times. 

And that's because no such explosion occurred. 

[Chuck Schwartz]

Denise, you can order the book on Amazon  now.  It is called,"The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis: Forensic Analysis of the JFK Autopsy X-Rays Proves Two Headshots from the Right Front and One from the Rear "Paperback – March 8, 2024

 

 

[Pat Speer]

7 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

The book is not yet on Dr. Mantik's website. Do you know what evidence they give for 3 head shots with "2 head shots to the front"? I know in his book JFK's Head Wounds Mantik speculated on "3" head shots but also said there was "no medical evidence for the 3rd shot" (whereas there is evidence of 2 head shots). I suspect they are using the Z-film as evidence for the "3rd" head shot. But since the Z-film is an altered product, it really shouldn't be used for much evidence of anything--except the lengths to which the government was willing to go in executing the cover-up. Personally, I think only 2 head shots: the first from Oswald (causing Kennedy to go into the decorticate posture "chest grab" reflex), and the second from the AR-15 slam fire accident.

I have been following the Mantik spiral for decades.

He correctly concluded there was a bullet defect on the Harper Fragment. In trying to make everything fit his belief the back of the head was blown out, he placed the Harper Fragment on the occipital bone, which put this defect near the EOP entrance described by Humes. So he claims the Harper fragment is occipital bone and the defect is the entrance defect identified by Humes. He pretty much ignores that this placement means the large defect extended well onto the left side of the head, when the Parkland witnesses had indicated it was on the right side only. And he avoids that the beveling at what he calls an entrance is exit beveling, and that pretty much all if not all the doctors studying the medical evidence claim what he calls an entrance, is an exit. 

I believe he has indicated as well that the bullet entering near the EOP did not exit, and was found and removed at autopsy. Note: this might be one of Horne's claims that is not shared by Mantik.  

So... bullet #1 enters near the EOP and does not exit.

Well, this leaves him without an explanation for what he claims was the blow-out on the occipital bone. So he claims there was an entrance by the temple that blasted out the back of the head. Now, his placement for this entrance puts it right where I long ago pointed out is the location of the bullet defect on the Harper fragment when the fragment is properly oriented, only to have Mantik and his attack dogs engage in a prolonged attack on my character, which only came to an end when the Wecht family intervened and asked Mantik and I to debate at the 2013 Wecht Conference, where Mantik finally admitted I was correct. (But not for long--I recently viewed a 2021 presentation in which he has returned to making his false claim the bullet defect on the Harper fragment is at the top of the head in the Angel orientation--something he admitted wasn't true back in 2013). 

In any event... bullet #2 enters near the temple and blows out the Harper fragment...which is kind of weird when you think of it.  Wouldn't a bullet creating a large defect create a hole near the middle of that defect, or on bone on the margins of that defect? Mantik cites no hole and no such defect. The only bullet defect he claims for the Harper fragment is the entrance by the EOP. 

Now here's where things get tricky/stinky. For over 20 years Mantik has been claiming there was a bullet entrance on the forehead. When doing so he has misrepresented the statements of Tom Robinson, who said there was a tiny hole that was not a bullet entrance by the temple, and then later on that there were two or three tiny holes on the cheek. In any event, Mantik has routinely claimed Robinson saw a bullet entrance high on the forehead, that was not observed by others. But no, he has now taken to claiming the spot of blood Marion Jenkins thought he saw by the left temple which was presumed to have confused McClelland was actually a bullet hole on the right forehead. And, If I'm not mistaken, that McCelland had in fact observed this as well, even though McClelland had long-claimed he saw no such wound. Well, it should come as no surprise then that Mantik would encourage Chesser to go to the Archives, and that Chesser would come out claiming there was evidence for an entrance wound high on the forehead on the lateral x-rays that had gone unnoticed and unreported by all the radiologists to view the x-rays...that was not visible on the A-P x-ray in which the forehead is featured. Well, okay, so why was this largely unsupported and unsupportable entrance wound necessary? Well, Mantik had long observed that the "trail of fragments" on the skull x-rays ran pretty much straight across the head, and that was inconsistent with trajectories of BOTH the bullet entering by the EOP and the bullet he presumes entered near the temple and exited low on the skull. So a third bullet was required. I mean, why not, the more the merrier. So where did this bullet exit? Well, he has it exit at the beveled bone on the mystery photo, which, he interprets as existing at the LEFT side of the back of the head--due to his placement of the Harper fragment within the photo. So...yeah, Mantik and Horne claim a bullet entered high on the right forehead (where no credible witness noted a wound) and exit from the left side of the head (where no witness of any kind saw a wound). And that's bullet #3.

Well, there's still a back wound and throat wound, which Mantik attributes to separate bullets, with the bullet creating the back wound falling out and the throat wound being caused by a shard of glass created when a bullet passed though the windshield. Now, I tend to agree with the former, but the glass shard theory was debunked decades ago when clear copies of Altgens' photos became available which proved the the crack on the windshield appeared at the time of the head shot, and not at the timeJFK reached towards his throat. 

 

 

[Pete Mellor]

9 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

I believe he is one of the 2 boys standing in front of the TSBD barely visible in the Altgens 6 photo, one of whom can be seen to be running after the limo in the Couch film. I also think he may have been misquoted, and that he actually said "I was standing...on the main street" (as opposed to the small access road that ran in front of the TSBD). (Or he may have gotten the name of the street wrong. I don't consider this to be a "biggie.") But he was standing almost directly below the TSBD window from which the shots were fired--which is important.

Gotcha Denise, cheers.