How Many Headshots?

[ThomZajac]

Excellent link, Ken, hadn't seen that one before. I think the bogus autopsy photos are essentially worthless though for determining the nature of JFK's wounds, and I think it's clear that the autopsy doctors are all lying through their teeth.Bob, I am curious as to Dr. Wecht's interpretation regarding the possibility of two head shots. I read some testimony of his last night and it was apparent that he- at that time anyway- was unquestioning as the the authenticity of the Zapruder film. He used it as clock in discussing when JFK and Connally were likely hit. But I haven't yet come across his theory that JFK may have been struck twice in the head. I'd love to see it- can you steer me to it?

[Bob]

Steer you to it? You're talking to a guy that flipped his car 6 times. I'm certainly no Bill Greer, as I didn't obviously brake and stop! Seriously, I'll look for it...I think I posted something recently about his testimony to the HSCA when he first brought the subject up.Okay...here is what I posted awhile ago...Here is part of Wecht's testimony to the HSCA in 1978..."If the President had been struck in the head with a second bullet, then it would have been fired in synchronized fashion simultaneous with the shot that did strike him in the rear of the head, as has been presented here today." He theorized the bullet could have been made of frangible ammunition. "It is, therefore, possible that that extensive deformity of the scalp, underlying galea, underlying bone calvarium, could also be the locus of the second shot of some kind of frangible ammunition." This was in 1978 again folks. Well before anyone had ever heard of James Files and his confession as the grassy knoll shooter, along with participation from Chuck Nicoletti from behind. I have heard Dr. Wecht talk about this again more recently, but I have to look for it.

[ThomZajac]

Thanks again, Bob. It is worth noting, I think, that Wecht starts with the premise that a 'first' shot struck JFK's head from the rear, and that a 'second' shot with frangible bullet may have been necessary to cause all the damage. Still, I don't know if Wehct is going by the autopsy photos to establish a shot from behind. I know he did not seem to doubt the authenticity of the Zapruder film, so I suppose it is possible that he also did not doubt the authenticity of the autopsy photos.Regardless, it seems we have two head shot possibilities-1) simultaneous shots striking JFK from behind and from in front. The shot from behind striking in the rear of JFK's head and not exiting. The shot from the front (a frangible bullet) entering at the right temple, exiting through a gaping wound in the back of JFK's head, taking with it, evidence of the rear entry.2) a single shot with a frangible bullet, striking in the right temple and exiting the back of the head, leaving a massive exit wound.Fair enough?(I'm still a little confused by the splaying (is that the right word?) or mushroom effect to JFK's right temporal area. I'll look it up, but does anyone know offhand if that was noted at Parkland?)

[ChristophMessner]

This photo most probably has to be turned 90 degrees anti-clockwise to set it straight. Dr. Humes said, the headshot bullet from behind would have exited to the most part at the right temple, but some fragments would have gone into the brain. Well well. If it really exited at the right temple and the entrance was at the occipital, then the trajectory does not lead back to the 6th floor window, but rather to the DalTex or Records Building.

[kenmurray]

Thom, this is an interesting presentation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVfIh-8nXyQ

[Bob]

kenmurray wrote:Thom, this is an interesting presentation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVfIh-8nXyQI had seen that presentation before Ken...thanks for bringing that to our attention again. That same researcher also proved that Dale Meyers animated 3-D work on the Discovery special about the JFK assassination was completely wrong in another video presentation. The guy is good, and once again this presentation proves it. My only disagreement is at the end when he mentions that Lee Harvey Oswald was probably involved in the shooting, but not alone. Other than that, his presentation was excellent.

[ThomZajac]

Okay, now I'm confused (which isn't all bad, consfuions being the first stage to higher consciousness). Thanks for posting that- I will watch again and search for nirvana.

[ThomZajac]

Okay, I've watched it a number of more times,,,,All of the evidence presented in this video comes from the Zapruder film and the autopsy photos, both of which I think have been significantly altered. Again, I think we can all agree that the best evidence would be the president's body, and the testimony and observations of the medical staff that treated the president at Parkland- and none of them described what the Zapruder film and autopsy photos depict.The explanation on the video simply is at complete odds with what was witnessed at Parkland Hospital.

[ThomZajac]

Here's an interesting ditty on a related matter (from Wikipedia)DougIas Horne was Chief Analysis for Military Records for the ARRB, a small federal agency created by the 1992 JFK Records Act. In that capacity, Horne spent some three years investigating the medical evidence. He supervised the calling of witnesses, in the medical area, before the ARRB, and--besides General Counsel Jeremy Gunn--is one of the few people who has actually attended testimony given by all three of the JFK autopsy doctors. Horne's job--in accordance with the mandate of the ARRB, was to “clarify the record.” Horne, who is currently completing his own book on the medical evidence, issued the following statement in 2004 (and it can be found on the Spartacus website, run by Professor John Simkin, in London):"David Lifton's thesis in his 1981 book "Best Evidence" has been validated by the work of the ARRB staff. Our unsworn interviews and depositions of Dallas (Parkland Hospital) medical personnel and Bethesda autopsy participants confirm that the President's body arrived at Bethesda Naval Hospital in a markedly different condition than it was in when seen at Parkland for life-saving treatment. My conclusion is that wounds were indeed altered and bullets were indeed removed prior to the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital. This procedure altered the autopsy conclusions and presented a false picture of how the shooting took place. In most essential details, David Lifton "got it right" in his 1981 bestseller. (He has modified his views since his book was published on the "when" and "where," and I concur with his changes, which he will publish at a later date.)"

[kenmurray]

Here is Dr. David Mantik from TMWKK series: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btPXzX1D ... re=related