JFK RFK MLK Assassination Forum

ThomZajac wrote:Bob wrote:Right where the massive head wound was found by the Parkland doctors.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhWJowvb ... relatedThe confusion was about whether it was an entrance wound or an exit wound when two shots actually caused horrific head damage.Also, if the bullet entered there (in what eventually became the massive blowout exit wound) where did it exit? It would seem that it didn't, which I guess is possible. But again, there does not seem to be any real evidence of a head shot entering from behind.That's not to say it didn't happen. But as there is no medical evidence to support it, it appears to be to be far more likely that the president was hit only once in the head, from the front.On one side you have Files and maybe Zapruder. On the other, you have every medical witness.All very valid points. The only thing I can say is that if the shooter from the rear was not using a frangible bullet, it probably would not have created much of a recognizable hole, particularly if the frangible bullet from the front created all that damage.Still, you make very valid points.

Thanks. Pasquale. I'm trying to refocus on what we know absolutely without doubt.We know the president's head was hit from the front.It's possible the president was hit in the head from behind- but we don't know that. Unless I'm missing something. Until a few days ago, I was confident the president's head had been hit from behind. Now I don't think so. I certainly don't know so.

ThomZajac wrote:Thanks. Pasquale. I'm trying to refocus on what we know absolutely without doubt.We know the president's head was hit from the front.It's possible the president was hit in the head from behind- but we don't know that. Unless I'm missing something. Until a few days ago, I was confident the president's head had been hit from behind. Now I don't think so. I certainly don't know so.If I can find it, I'm sure there's a "autopsy" photo showing the back of his head and rounded hole. I always thought that was made there because they seemed to point at it like it was the only headshot, but it could be the evidence of the additional shot from the rear that you're looking for. I'll try to find the picture.Then again, weren't those autopsy pictures altered and totally contradictory to what all the doctors (and ambulance attendants) said? I'll try and find the picture anyway, unless one of you guys can find it first...pleeeeeese.

Thanks, Pasquale, I've recently looked at it (though I forget where), but more importantly I think it has been proven beyond question that the autopsy photos are bogus. These photos show the back of JFK's head to be intact, and they don't show an entry wound at the right temple (among other things). Anything that the autopsy photos show but aren't supported,or are contradicted by doctor and technician testimony, I think can be safely categorized as things the conspirators wanted us to believe, but were in fact, not at all true.

Pasquale, hope these pics help[img]HSCA_Vol7_0057b.jpg

You all bring up good points. I think I'm leaning to 2 head shots right now. I don't know if you guys have seen this presentation by Pat Speer or not but here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEvZWeYX ... re=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXg98M6lF68 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eg1rW_v ... 148D119EB4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_O1rS7Y ... B4&index=4

Good link Ken. I have seen Pat Speer's presentation before and he brings up a lot of very interesting points. However, the doctors that would have the best interpretations of JFK's wounds would be those at Parkland right after the shooting, as opposed to Bethesda, where the is speculation that JFK's wounds were altered before his arrival. BUT...before a thorough examination of JFK's wounds by the Dallas coroner could be done after he was pronounced dead, JFK's body was spririted away by the secret service to Air Force One and Washington. Also, although there is evidence that the Zapruder film was indeed altered, the fatal shot or shots was/were horrific, no matter how they altered the film. Based on the film and evidence I have read, plus Dr. Wecht's interpretation, I am leaning towards two simultaneous head shots, but I am not close minded about the issue.

Here is an article from Gary Aguilar from 1999 with assistance from Cyril Wecht: http://www.consortiumnews.com/1999/c010699b.html

bob franklin wrote:Pasquale, hope these pics help[img]HSCA_Vol7_0057b.jpg

Pasquale DiFabrizio wrote:bob franklin wrote:Pasquale, hope these pics help[img]HSCA_Vol7_0057b.jpg