The Head Wound Explained

[Dawn Meredith]

The physics of high velocity rifle bullets defy any attempt to explain the backwards head movement as being a mere spasm.

Hi Erick, and welcome to the forum. A very interesting piece.

Have you studied the head movements, with the neck as a pivot, vs. the full backward jerk of the torso that clearly pivots from the pelvis/hips? If so, would the ballistics you have described account, by force isolated to the head, for the full body motion, and if so, how?

Ashton

I am isolating my comments only to the immediate movement of the head upon bullet impact. I will concede that after the initial impact, neurological spasms could have been a factor in any other bodily movements.

Excellent. I've done a small anim from the Zapruder film, below, focusing on "the immediate movement of the head upon bullet impact" to see if you could expand on that a bit.

First, allow me to credit, then apologize to, John Dolva: I've adopted his ingenious stablization technique for this short series—hence the credit—but haven't done it nearly as well as he does—hence the apologies. I feel it will suffice for these purposes, though.

I have the first three of four frames of the anim set to 1.5 second intervals so it goes slow enough to see, then the last frame lingers for 3 seconds before the anim loops.

In the first frame—Zapruder 312, immediately prior to impact—I have scribed a white line along the silhouette of JFK's back and head.

In the first bullet impact frame—Zapruder 313—I have done the same thing, but left the outline from the prior frame in place, connecting them with motion lines.

That stays essentially the same through the next frame—Zapruder 314—but there I have added an arrow to what clearly appears to be ejecta, which arrow happens to align almost exactly with the motion lines showing the sudden change of head position.

Finally, Zapruder 315 shows JFK's right arm swinging up after the side of his head has been blown out, as his body arcs back, bringing his head almost to the same position as Zapruder 312. Then the sequence starts again and loops:

I'm not really up on ballistics, so since this thread is "The Head Wound Explained," I hoped you could explain the ballistics to me of a frontal shot that would throw his head forward to that degree in the time of a single frame, and send ejecta that far forward in the same direction of the head movement by the next frame.

Ashton

Ashton,

I assume for the purpose of this thread that we are proceeding on the assumption that the Zapruder film actually depicts the terrible event within the capabilities of 8mm color film, and that the film has not been altered. There is a great deal of controversy as to whether the film has been altered, which would properly be a subject for another thread.

Pick up a stone and throw it forward like a baseball into water. Some of the water will splash forward of the stone’s impact and some will splash ahead and around the point of impact. Crime scene specialists and forensic scientists will tell you that when an individual is shot, there is ejecta coming backwards out of the wound. That is why, at close range, the shooter will get sprayed with blood and tissue.

Mrs. Kennedy would not have been reaching for a chunk of the President’s head on the trunk of the limo if the shot had come from the rear. Any chunk of tissue would likely have ended up in the front seat rather than on the trunk if the head shot came from the rear. Dallas Police Officer Bobby Hargis was on a motorcycle behind and to the left of Mrs. Kennedy when the head shot occurred. He was splattered with blood and brain tissue. This also indicates a shot from the front and to the right.

As regards the head movement upon the point of impact, remember, the President had already been shot in the upper torso. Undoubtedly he was reacting to that wound when the fatal bullet arrived. It was a natural reaction to the torso wound and the sound of gunfire, to hunch forward, which is what appears to be occurring as the limo appears after passing the Stemmons Freeway sign. The overall head movement is not just backwards, it is also to the left and downward, towards Mrs. Kennedy, which is consistent with a shooter in front and to the right. The head recedes from the camera. This is what appears to be happening from frame 312 to 315.

Each frame of the Zapruder film is 1/40th of a second. Moving objects will be slightly blurred in each frame. It’s not as photographically accurate as a video tape. A slight, rapid head movement in reaction to the initial impact will not be depicted as accurately as the overall head movement over many film frames. We cannot see what is occurring between each film frame.

Erick

Erick, Ashton:

You're both right. JFK was shot in the head from behind and from the front. The "hunching forward" to which you (Erick) refer is more like lurching forward, a response to a shot to the head, immediately preceeding the shot from the front, blowing his head almost off.

I make no claim to being any sort of expert in ballistics, and as you -(Erick)- well know I hate guns and have never fired one in my life. I base my claim of two shots to the president's head solely on the Zapruder film.

Dawn

[Charles Black]

Hello Erick

You are correct in that my post was really addressing the validity of the Zapruder film as we currently see it.

However, I have on several occasions fired a MC rifle. The kick is much lighter than an M1 Garrand or a 30 .06 hunting rifle. Firing this rifle with the butt against your forehead would definitely not produce the torso movement as seen following Z 313.

Some on this forum have commented that my referral to Nazi soldiers shooting prisoners who are standing or kneeling beside their graves is inconsequential. It is not. The rifles used and the proximity of barrel to target, if aything, should create an even more violent movement of the target.

As I stated before, it is obvious that the target is not "propelled" and that they merely fall forward.

I cannot argue your statement regarding what is thought generally of the validity of eyewitness testimony. However, in this instance, regarding this particular testimony, we are not asking for descriptions of exact hair color or facial features. We are faced with (I can't immediately quote the exact number without looking it up) multiple witnesses, who are all reporting that JFK "fell over" and was not propelled backward and upward by the bullet/bullets impact.

I also don't like the comparison of JFK to a deer,

but as a hunter, I am sure that neither you nor anyone else on this forum, have seen a deer's body being violently moved by the force of impact which would absolutely defy both the laws of physics and ballistics.

Perhaps in the future, when we might again be discussing the Zapruder film validity, you might wish to readdress this subject.

Thanks for your reply and input.

Charlie Black

[Bill Miller]

Ashton,

I assume for the purpose of this thread that we are proceeding on the assumption that the Zapruder film actually depicts the terrible event within the capabilities of 8mm color film, and that the film has not been altered. There is a great deal of controversy as to whether the film has been altered, which would properly be a subject for another thread.

I would think that by now that any controversary pertaining to alteration of the Zapruder film has all but vanished through educating ones self on the facts. Image sharpness pertaining to how an original film would look has been established by Robert Groden. David Healy, participant in the book "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax", openely admits that even a first generation copy of a film will show slight fuzziness. David is correct and mirrors what Groden has been saying all along. Other more technical issues pertaining to Kodachrome II film have been addressed by Rollie Zavada, who is the foremost authority on this type of film and has contended that altering Kodachrome II film and having it go undetected would be impossible. In recent times there has been key side by side comparisons of the asasination films only to find that they are running in sync with one another. What ever controversary still being discussed over whether or not the Zapruder film is a fake can only be due to a lack of research and knowledge of the subject matter.

Pick up a stone and throw it forward like a baseball into water. Some of the water will splash forward of the stone’s impact and some will splash ahead and around the point of impact. Crime scene specialists and forensic scientists will tell you that when an individual is shot, there is ejecta coming backwards out of the wound. That is why, at close range, the shooter will get sprayed with blood and tissue.

To simplify what was said in the quote above - A movie camera recording at only 18 fps cannot capture debris in motion traveling at nearly 3X the speed of sound. Between Z312 and Z313, the President's head has gone from undamaged to then the bone plate being captured in midair at the end of its tethered scalp. Back spatter moves slower than the forward debris carried by the bullet and this is why only the back spattered cranial fluid is visible by the time Z313 was exposed. However, the Orville Nix camera was capturing images just a fraction of a second sooner than the Zapruder camera and Orville's film does show the more narrow debris pattern being rifled out the back of the head while the wider back spatter pattern is thrown upwards and back towards the shooter.

As regards the head movement upon the point of impact, remember, the President had already been shot in the upper torso. Undoubtedly he was reacting to that wound when the fatal bullet arrived. It was a natural reaction to the torso wound and the sound of gunfire, to hunch forward, which is what appears to be occurring as the limo appears after passing the Stemmons Freeway sign. The overall head movement is not just backwards, it is also to the left and downward, towards Mrs. Kennedy, which is consistent with a shooter in front and to the right. The head recedes from the camera. This is what appears to be happening from frame 312 to 315.

The head sits on the neck which is attached to the spine. JFK was sitting with his head tilted forward. A bullet traveling downward and hitting the front top portion of the President's head will rock the head forward while driving the shoulder's backwards as the energy from the impact is absorbed through the trunk of the body.

The result was the head tiltling forward upon impact and the shoulders being driven backwards which caused a type of whiplash effect to the President.

Each frame of the Zapruder film is 1/40th of a second.

The Zapruder camera recorded images at 18 fps.

Moving objects will be slightly blurred in each frame. It’s not as photographically accurate as a video tape. A slight, rapid head movement in reaction to the initial impact will not be depicted as accurately as the overall head movement over many film frames. We cannot see what is occurring between each film frame.

Stabilized overlays can be put into motion so to track body movements from point A to point B. The avulsed bones depict the direction that the bullet was traveling and is why the public was never allowed to see all the autopsy photos. The Zapruder film does show the avulsed bones which supports a shot passing through the President's head going from front to back. (see below)

According to blood spatter expert Sherry Gutierrez, a second shot hitting the President's already weakened head would have caused a similar impact spray, if not more pronounced, than what is seen in Z313. No such imapact is ever seen on the Zapruder film.

Bill Miller

Edited July 24, 2007 by Bill Miller

[John Dolva]

The frame rate or the rate of the camera advancing the film for the next recording was 18.3. The film is exposed to the impact of photons for a set period of time. Lets say it's 1/40th of a second.

The film doesn't pick and choose which of those photons will react with the emulsion. It doesn't say, hey you, you come from a fast travelling obect, go away. The photons travel at the speed of light. In 1/40th of a second ejecta at the speed of sound will traverse 8 meters across the field of view, and if travelling away or towards the film it will traverse a shorter distance. Naturally the ejecta during this time will be reflecting (and refracting) photons and these will impact the film leaving an imprint.

(Z313 occurred a split second before N23, not after.)

[Ashton Gray]

Ashton,

I assume for the purpose of this thread that we are proceeding on the assumption that the Zapruder film actually depicts the terrible event within the capabilities of 8mm color film, and that the film has not been altered. There is a great deal of controversy as to whether the film has been altered, which would properly be a subject for another thread.

Well, Erick, you brought the Zapruder film into evidence for what you proffered as "The Head Wound Explained," so I rather think you "opened the door," counselor.

As to the validity of that particular piece of filmaking: despite wondering why you would call it into question now after introducing it as evidence at the outset of your argument, I am painfully aware of the temperature of the debate over whether it is newsreel or cinéma verité. But there already is a very active thread in this forum wherein John Dolva, Frank Agbat, et al. have done, and continue to do, an astounding job of comparing the Zapruder film to the Nix film (and now others) in terms of sync. And I am on record of having said before they began their riveting work that I believed that the Zapruder film and the Nix film shared, I believe I said, "a cruciform concordance"—which confused the hell out of several people, I think, and with sound reason.

I meant only that from my lay observation they did synchronize in ways that could not be faked. They cross. They overlap. They intersect at and around the head shot depicting the same event. We'll see.

Meanwhile, I'm going to continue using the Zapruder film in the discussion you started by calling upon it as evidence for a frontal head shot. To that end, I've made a somewhat longer clip that I include below, after some discussion, to attempt to provide a little more visual context regarding some of the points you raised. I'll put it in the message where I feel it's most pertinent.

Regarding the forward ejecta I pointed out in my first four-frame exhibit, you said:

Pick up a stone and throw it forward like a baseball into water. Some of the water will splash forward of the stone’s impact and some will splash ahead and around the point of impact. Crime scene specialists and forensic scientists will tell you that when an individual is shot, there is ejecta coming backwards out of the wound. That is why, at close range, the shooter will get sprayed with blood and tissue.

Mrs. Kennedy would not have been reaching for a chunk of the President’s head on the trunk of the limo if the shot had come from the rear. Any chunk of tissue would likely have ended up in the front seat rather than on the trunk if the head shot came from the rear.

With all due respect—and not stipulating for a moment that Mrs. Kennedy was on a bone retrieval mission when she climbed onto the back of the limo—you seem to be arguing vigorously against yourself. Convincingly, from here.

Unless I'm badly misunderstanding you, ejecta reasonably could be expected from both the entrance and exit points of a projectile—or, in your "concussion" model of the head explosion, "backwards out of the wound" (unless you are now abandoning the concussion model).

Therefore, your argument on the subject of ejecta alone now supports a hypothesis for the head wound coming from either the front or the rear. Is that correct, or do you want to amend that argument?

Dallas Police Officer Bobby Hargis was on a motorcycle behind and to the left of Mrs. Kennedy when the head shot occurred. He was splattered with blood and brain tissue. This also indicates a shot from the front and to the right.

Hmmm. Well, I'm a bit more simple minded. I observe the motorcade moving in a direction that necessarily would carry Officer Hargis into a cloud of relatively lightweight particles suddenly dispersing into the air in many directions—particularly on a day with wind (which seems to be uniformly left out of the equation). It's also my understanding from the record that Officer Hargis wasn't the only one in the area splattered with blood and brain tissue.

And again we are back to the duality of the ejecta question. You seem to have argued successfully already that Hargis very well could have been hit with ejecta caused by a shot from behind.

As regards the head movement upon the point of impact, remember, the President had already been shot in the upper torso. Undoubtedly he was reacting to that wound when the fatal bullet arrived. It was a natural reaction to the torso wound and the sound of gunfire, to hunch forward, which is what appears to be occurring as the limo appears after passing the Stemmons Freeway sign. The overall head movement is not just backwards, it is also to the left and downward, towards Mrs. Kennedy, which is consistent with a shooter in front and to the right. The head recedes from the camera. This is what appears to be happening from frame 312 to 315.

I'm sorry, but it is here we have to part ways entirely. That is why I'm now including an expansion on the earlier animation, adding more frames before and after. I had hoped to demonstrate in the smaller anim in favor of bandwidth considerations, but allow me to direct your attention to the following series beginning at Zapruder frame 308.

Please note the relatively static position and attitude of JFK's body for five frames prior to the head shot. I assure you that it changes very little prior to that as well, but this will illustrate. There is almost no movement of his body or head at all for five frames. And then there's the head shot. And in the time allowed by ONE frame, Kennedy's head flies forward at least two inches, perhaps more (estimated by head and ear dimensions).

And yes, it most certainly is forward—not "left and downward, towards Mrs. Kennedy," because there is no possible stretching of a human neck in that direction relative to the camera position that ever could account for what is depicted in the violent forward motion of the head, pivoting at the neck. Here is the longer animation:

It is inarguable that at the moment of impact the head flies violently forward. I don't care how many times Oliver Stone had Kevin Costner drone, "Back, and to the left. Back, and to the left. Back, and to the left." The animation above demonstrates a violent and abrupt forward change in the positioin of the head at the moment of impact, and in the next frame a considerable chunk of ejecta appears to be shot out of the President's head in precisely the direction of the head movement.

And no other thing or person in the moving vehicle exhibits anything even remotely close to the violent sudden forward jerk of John F. Kennedy's head as the right front portion of his forehead explodes outward, to the front.

And only after the head has flown forward, only after the skull has been blown open, only then, in frame 315, does the torso arch "back and to the left," the right arm beginning to flying upward in an uncontrolled, autonomic motion.

Each frame of the Zapruder film is 1/40th of a second. Moving objects will be slightly blurred in each frame. It’s not as photographically accurate as a video tape. A slight, rapid head movement in reaction to the initial impact will not be depicted as accurately as the overall head movement over many film frames. We cannot see what is occurring between each film frame.

Having studied each frame above in excruciating detail, having traced the dark outline of the head and back—discernible even in frame 313 where the obfuscating mist is greatest—I disagree emphatically. But others can look with their own eyes and judge for themselves.

Ashton

Edited December 22, 2006 by Ashton Gray

[Trygve V. Jensen]

Bobby Hargis was on a motorcycle behind and to the left of Mrs. Kennedy when the head shot occurred. He was splattered with blood and brain tissue.

The overall head movement is not just backwards, it is also to the left and downward, towards Mrs. Kennedy

The "hunching forward" to which you (Erick) refer is more like lurching forward, a response to a shot to the head.

I am not either an expert within the field of ballistics at all. Maybe I am nitpicking (if that's the right word?), but I just want to share what I observe.

Again maybe I am wrong, but I do think I remember (atleast when I heard of it), that when the "lurching forward" - motion, which appears in frame Z313, was "discovered", some(many?) stated that this would support the theory that Oswald fired from behind. I wouldn't even know if the movement indicated anything "ballisticly" speaking, I just know that the motion to me seems like just as much as a "tilt" or "flick" sideways, turning the president's head sideways, and forward (just as if he had turned his head towards Mrs. Kennedy.) It seems to me, that the head goes forward in a direction to the diagonal right (towards the knoll), as it simultaneously is "twisting" left. Just as you can move your head forward, or diagonally, and at the same time turn it to the left.

As said I am by no means an expert. But if that "lurching" - motion which appears in a fraction of a second, WOULD indicate a shot from behind, it would then seem to me that this hypothetical shot had to have come from another location than the "nest" at the depository, just anglewise. A location to the rear and left of the Lincoln. (atleast more left than right) That of course relies on the positioning/aligning of the Lincoln in the street, etc. I am just speculating widely, and because of lack of expertise herein, and vocabulary, the circumstances and motions are hard to describe. Personally I do believe the head shot was just that. A shot. One and only one shot. Not two fired almost simultaneously. But that's not even the topic here.

Sorry for the rambling. As I said I just wanted to share my observations, primarily to the movement of the neck/head. Maybe it is just a case of me needing glasses. It may very well be that. Anyway, I appreciate it very much, following this topic. Aquiring information from people who unlike me, know what they are talking about.

Especially one I would like to ask one question if I may; I am not so steady in the English language, so I had trouble with the term "avulsed bones". Mr. Miller, is the avulsed bones the "area" at the back of the head, where it kind of looks like the president's hair is sticking out? (in theory the exit). I took it that way, and not you meaning a bone fragment in the air. By the way, terrific merging/looping Mr. Gray and Mr. Miller.

[Bill Miller]

(Z313 occurred a split second before N23, not after.)

John, there seems to be a bit of confusion on my part in trying to understand what it is you are saying. I am not even sure if the FBI N23 is the same as yours, but what I do know is that if the debris and bones leaving JFK's head in N23 has not yet expanded away from the point of impact as seen in Z313, then N23 exposed its frame ahead of Zapruder's frame 313. What I am stating here is basic physics. Unless I am missing something ... I read what you are saying as telling me that two photos for instance of someone throwing a bucket of water taken just a moment apart - the photo showing the water closest to the bucket came after the photo showing the water further out of the bucket and that is not possible IMO.

Can you clarify your position for me?

Thanks,

Bill Miller

[Dawn Meredith]

So Ashton: Let me see if I have this straight: You discount an entrance throat wound (on a different thread); see the head shot as solely from behind? ( I don't need Stone to tell me what I see with my eyes: Backward motion, in response to a hit).

I am not certain if you just love to be argumentative for its own sake or if you are coming rather close to endorsing a position not terribly removed from that of the Warren Commission.

Most odd, this.

Dawn

[Charles Black]

Ashton Gray

Was it a "TYPO" ? Or did you actually express that you see JFK's head "fly forward".

When most express something as "flying forward" it has always been my conception that it means a movement with great speed or force !

Do you claim to see JFK's head moving forward with great speed or force ? If so, how would you express the immediately following rearward movement of that head ? An acceleration so fast that it must have approached Mach III speed ?

Do you actually not accept that the violent rearward movement of JFK's head and body almost makes the prior slight forward movement almost negligible?

I suppose that you mean to be saying something valid, but you have certainly lost me, and no doubt most of the forum, in whatever it is that you meant to be expressing.

My perception is and has been, that after a slight forward movement of the head, JFK's body seems to lift and be slammed backward and to the left. In my opinion a movement so pronounced, that if it were caused by a missile impact, it would have been with the force of an RPG !

Charlie Black

[Ashton Gray]

Hi Dawn,

So Ashton: Let me see if I have this straight: You discount an entrance throat wound (on a different thread);

Yes. And have asked several times for a proponent of the alleged "throat wound" to start a thread on the subject, which I will be happy to discuss there.

What is in evidence is a tracheotomy opening where a "throat wound" is claimed by some to have been (under what circumstances such claims were made would be of interest to pursue in its own thread).

see the head shot as solely from behind?

From somewhere behind; yes, that's precisely what I see, and what I have invested more than a little time and effort in attempting to demonstrate clearly, illustrating on the film the outline of the head and back and shoulders with a grid of motion lines showing the very sudden forward motion of the head between frame 312 and 313.

Do you see, with your own eyes, the extraordinarily abrupt and forward pitch of Kennedy's head in what I have posted, or do you not? I'm simply asking you what you see, with your own eyes. Forget about the Warren Commission, forget about Oswald, forget about Oliver Stone, forget about the Badge Man, the Dog Man, the Umbrella Man, the Sewer Man, the Candy Man, the Piltdown Man, and Manfred Mann.

Just look at what happens in the animation above and tell me what you see in regards to the motion of the head at the moment of impact.

( I don't need Stone to tell me what I see with my eyes: Backward motion, in response to a hit).

Yes. I agree. There unquestionably is a backward motion of the torso, and the head unquestionably goes with it. The question is what happens to the head at the moment a projectile of some description hits the head (or concusses the head, take your pick), and the further question is whether it is a projectile that drives the entire torso backward, or whether it is an autonomic seizure of the nervous system in the close aftermath of a good deal of the brain having been blown forward out through the right front of the forehead/temple area at the moment of impact—when the head plainly, significantly, inarguably jerks forward.

And the latter is my position from what I see with my eyeballs and have attempted in good faith to show visually.

I am not certain if you just love to be argumentative for its own sake or if you are coming rather close to endorsing a position not terribly removed from that of the Warren Commission.

I'm not certain if you are being argumentative for its own sake, or if you really can't comprehend any other possibilities than the two you attempt to limit me to.

I don't "endorse." I never argue "for its own sake." I look with my eyes, I observe for myself, and I say what I observe. I don't ask permission to look, and I never check to make sure I'm following the tail of something or somebody in front of me first. So I've said here what I see with my eyes.

What do you see?

Most odd, this.

Ain't it, though.

Ashton

Edited December 23, 2006 by Ashton Gray

[Robin Unger]

[Robin Unger]

Edited December 22, 2006 by Robin Unger

[Robin Unger]

Edited December 24, 2006 by Robin Unger

[Dawn Meredith]

Hi Dawn,

So Ashton: Let me see if I have this straight: You discount an entrance throat wound (on a different thread);

Yes. And have asked several times for a proponent of the alleged "throat wound" to start a thread on the subject, which I will be happy to discuss there.

What is in evidence is a tracheotomy opening where a "throat wound" is claimed by some to have been (under what circumstances such claims were made would be of interest to pursue in its own thread).

see the head shot as solely from behind?

From somewhere behind; yes, that's precisely what I see, and what I have invested more than a little time in effort in attempting to demonstrate clearly, illustrating on the film the outline of the head and back and shoulders with a grid of motion lines showing the very sudden forward motion of the head between frame 312 and 313.

Do you see, with your own eyes, the extraordinarily abrupt and forward pitch of Kennedy's head in what I have posted, or do you not? I'm simply asking you what you see, with your own eyes. Forget about the Warren Commission, forget about Oswald, forget about Oliver Stone, forget about the Badge Man, the Dog Man, the Umbrella Man, the Sewer Man, the Candy Man, the Piltdown Man, and Manfred Mann.

Just look at what happens in the animation above and tell me what you see in regards to the motion of the head at the moment of impact.

( I don't need Stone to tell me what I see with my eyes: Backward motion, in response to a hit).

Yes. I agree. There unquestionably is a backward motion of the torso, and the head unquestionably goes with it. The question is what happens to the head at the moment a projectile of some description hits the head (or concusses the head, take your pick), and the further question is whether it is a projectile that drives the entire torso backward, or whether it is an autonomic seizure of the nervous system in the close aftermath of a good deal of the brain having been blown forward out through the right front of the forehead/temple area at the moment of impact—when the head plainly, significantly, inarguably jerks forward.

And the latter is my position from what I see with my eyeballs and have attempted in good faith to show visually.

I am not certain if you just love to be argumentative for its own sake or if you are coming rather close to endorsing a position not terribly removed from that of the Warren Commission.

I'm not certain if you are being argumentative for its own sake, or if you really can't comprehend any other possibilities than the two you attempt to limit me to.

I don't "endorse." I never argue "for its own sake." I look with my eyes, I observe for myself, and I say what I observe. I don't ask permission to look, and I never check to make sure I'm following the tail of something or somebody in front of me first. So I've said here what I see with my eyes.

What do you see?

Most odd, this.

Ain't it, though.

Ashton

Ashton:

I have a copy of the film and when I am in less a good mood then I presetly am I will watch it several times and be open to seeing new things. I have not viewed the film in some time and have never seen it where it did not upset me greatly. I think it would be upsetting for me to view anyone's muder on film. Seeing any form of pain is distressing to me. Worse for me is that he was a president I truly loved. Pretty damn rare. In fact he's the only one I can say this of.

I recognize and respect that you do not follow the crowd and I am always open to be shown if I am wrong. But, that said, it was this very backward motion that permitted the earliest critics to see that the WC's conclusions of three shots, from behind by LHO were so misguided.

Bottom line, he was killed by the highest level of our government and we have been lied to by this government and the press and our educational insititutions our whole lives. On this we agree.

I hope you also reply to Charlie Black's post.

Dawn

[Pat Speer]

I've been trying to make this point for two years but here I go again. Lean slightly forward. Look at your left knee. Now from behind your head SLAP your head above your right ear downward. Voila! Kennedy's movement in the Zapruder film has been replicated! No mystery about it at all. The x-rays show the fractures at the top of the head preceded the fractures at the back of the head. The x-rays show that bullet fragments were scattered all over the ENTRANCE location above the right ear. The section of brain purportedly holding these fragments DID NOT exist, as there was no cerebrum in the upper right quadrant. Furthermore, there is no backspatter squirting from the back of the head in the Zapruder film. There is NO impact on the back of the head apparent in Z-313. As the skull was travelling forward at almost a foot per frame, and the flight of the Harper fragment indicates the impact occurred midway between 312 and 313, there should be a cloud of blood stretching 6 inches to a foot behind Kennedy's head, IF there was a high speed impact on the back of his head. And yet there is nothing. Sturdivan's and Lattimer's filmed skull tests ALWAYS showed forward AND backward spatter. Sturdivan testified about this before the HSCA and showed them an impact on a can of tomatoes. The explosion goes both ways. One should conclude therefore that there is NO impact on the back of the head at 313. Only by the temple. FROM BEHIND. Dr. Clark testified that the large head wound was in his opinion a tangential wound, a wound of both entrance and exit. Tangential wounds leave keyhole entrances. When placed into position on Kennedy's head the Harper fragment forms the upper margin of a keyhole entrance.

This is all discussed and demonstrated ad nauseum in my presentation.

P.S. Shock of all shocks Ashton and I agree on something...

Edited December 23, 2006 by Pat Speer