[William Charleston]

Quote:Back to the original question: MULTIPLE witnesses in the three YOUTUBE videos say they saw a clean bullet hole through the windshield that looked like it was fired from the front. IF you hypothesize the shot that hit President Kennedy in the neck came through the windshield, then the diagram is a reasonable starting point.

If it can be hypothesized that the shot that hit President Kennedy in the throat came from the left front of the limousine, then WHEN might that shot have been fired?



As President Kennedy emerges from behind the sign in the Zapruder film, he is moving his hands toward his throat. JFK was obviously shot in the throat BEFORE this frame.




President Kennedy's right hand is waving and is near the top of his head



At Z frame 205 JFK's right hand is still near the top of his head


By frame 207, JFK's right hand is out of view because it is being lowered



Zapruder's film speed was measured at 18.3 frames per second which means he lowered his right hand from the top of his head to his neck in about one second. That movement is consistent with a shot to his neck around frame 202.

As you look at James Altgen's photograph taken a few seconds AFTER the time JFK had to have been shot in the neck, it can be seen that any shot that passed through the windshield and hit President Kennedy in the neck would have had to of come from about street level, it could NOT have been from a location any higher than Altgens was located.

[Patrick C]

It could have come from higher and been deflected by the glass....

Personally I find the notion of a frontal shot through the windshield with other people in the way from a low vantage point rather an ill conceived plan in the first place - granted one might say that the plan was not necessarily to fire through the glass......it just happened that way.......

[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:It could have come from higher and been deflected by the glass....

Personally I find the notion of a frontal shot through the windshield with other people in the way from a low vantage point rather an ill conceived plan in the first place - granted one might say that the plan was not necessarily to fire through the glass......it just happened that way.......

Sheer speculation.

You've been handed your head on the origin point of this shot, and you're quite desperately clinging to having a shooter on top of the overpass...

It's understandable why you want to put a shooter there... because such a location is patently silly.

This actually is a good example of how WCR Supporters filter the evidence... rather than allowing the evidence to show you what happened - you filter everything through your 'established fact' that Lee Harvey Oswald, alone; shot JFK. Time and time again, Supporters are unable to accept the actual evidence, and must try to massage the data to get their desired result.

There is, of course, even more evidence that the shot went through the windshield on it's way to JFK's throat. I'm quite sure you're aware of the evidence for "shrapnel" wounds in JFK's face... You have no explanation for it... that JFK was shot through the windshield naturally explains it. How much would you care to bet that had those wounds been dissected, they'd have found a tiny piece of windshield glass in the skin?

[Patrick C]

Ben Holmes Wrote:I'm quite sure you're aware of the evidence for "shrapnel" wounds in JFK's face... You have no explanation for it...

No evidence at all for wounds to the face and I have NEVER read that before either. That said I do not claim to have read everything on the case - far from it.

As for the low level shot - I have not been handed my head on a plate at all. It is my OPINION only that your suggested location is not a good one. I have been there too. I lived in Dallas for several months and know every inch of the plaza (or did).

Plus there was NO hole in the windshield - there was a crack. We have been through this before.

[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:I'm quite sure you're aware of the evidence for "shrapnel" wounds in JFK's face... You have no explanation for it...

No evidence at all for wounds to the face and I have NEVER read that before either. That said I do not claim to have read everything on the case - far from it.

Then you've been schooled.

Joe West interviewed mortician Thomas Evan Robinson - one of the JFK embalmers, here's his notes from that phone interview:

Patty C Wrote:As for the low level shot - I have not been handed my head on a plate at all. It is my OPINION only that your suggested location is not a good one. I have been there too. I lived in Dallas for several months and know every inch of the plaza (or did).

Yet you can't explain the trajectory.

There's no possible way that a shooter on top of the overpass could have hit the windshield with a bullet that went on to hit JFK in the throat.

The trajectory is an obvious one, and the only thing you can do is complain that the windshield hole didn't exist, and that the evidence for wounds in JFK's face you didn't know about.

Patrick C Wrote:Plus there was NO hole in the windshield - there was a crack. We have been through this before.

This is certainly the official claim. But you know, and I know - that there's considerable eyewitness testimony otherwise. A fact you cannot deny.

[Patrick C]

I was aware of those notes, but I have always had the view he was describing an additional wound on the right temple which was a next to the tear he describes - caused by the fatal bullet exiting the side of the head.

I would also think it is possible he could be wrong.

As you know I do not accept there were any shots from the front and certainly not one that went through the windshield - it is utter hogwash - you are living in fantasy land.

Anyway we have been through all this many times. All I will say is that very few pro C authors on the subject believe it is likely.

It is also utterly incredible that the wound would just happen to be right there where you would expect a bullet to exit having struck the back at some 2000 ft per second.

It is astonishing what you people believe.

[Garry Puffer]

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:No evidence at all for wounds to the face and I have NEVER read that before either.

Joe West interviewed mortician Thomas Evan Robinson - one of the JFK embalmers, here's his notes from that phone interview:

  Robinson.png (Size: 18.5 KB / Downloads: 236)

I was aware of those notes, but I have always had the view he was describing an additional wound on the right temple which was a next to the tear he describes

Me:
See, Patrick, this is why Ben keeps telling you you're lying. First you tell us you have never heard any evidence of shrapnel wounds to JFK's face, which is fine - you can't be aware of everything - but then when Ben provides the evidence, you tell us you were aware of the notes but presumed the mortician was wrong. Please note, though, in your explanation you refer to a singular wound. How can that morph into "wounds," plural, as in the notes? You are avoiding the shrapnel wounds here, and off topic in discussing the right temple wound. Plus the notes specify shrapnel wounds to the face.

But what is your basis for presuming he was wrong? I submit that once again you are begging the question.

[Patrick C]

Garry,

I stated that I WAS aware of those notes when I saw them here, I had long forgotten about them, but as I explained my opinion is that he is describing damage to the skin on the forehead, which understandably considered by some to be the face. What I was disputing was that a frontal shot had caused additional damage to the face.

If you want to try and catch me out all the time, fine if you get some satisfaction from that....I have forgotten a lot about the JFK case and there will be some material I have never come across.

If I changed wounds to wound that was my mistake, I was not deliberately trying make one cut disappear.

I do not accept there was damage to the face - as in a shrapnel wound. I think there is an inaccurate memory situation here and possibly a semantic issue over face and forehead.

Perhaps your approach to this discussion is different to mine.......I do not view this forum as akin to being in a court of law. It is an amateur discussion on a 52 year old murder.

I for one do not have the time to research every point made and cite. Perhaps you do.....

Incidentally as I recall (but I am not going to dig out), but there were comments from others attending the autopsy that JFK's face showed no damage, other than the eyes being slightly bulbous.....

[Garry Puffer]

Patrick C Wrote:Garry,

I do not accept there was damage to the face - as in a shrapnel wound. I think there is an inaccurate memory situation here and possibly a semantic issue over face and forehead.

In other words, you have no good reason for not believing the statement, it's just that you don't accept it.

I submit that in such a statement, "face" and "forehead" are quite different.

And how about that "large gaping hole in the back of the head"? A misstatement or a misremembering also? Food for another thread, I think.

[Patrick C]

"face" and "forehead" are quite different."

Yes I agree, but where are the shrapnel wounds to JFK's face in the autopsy photos....which were taken hour before the mortician did his work...?

Why is there no report of cuts to the face in the medical reports or for that matter in the oral testimonies of the surgeons for example the JAMA interviews of the 90s........

"And how about that "large gaping hole in the back of the head"? A misstatement or a misremembering also? "

Oh absolutely a miss remembering - there can be no doubt about it. The wound is above the ear as the Z film shows - though I accept the Z film does not prove where the shot comes from.

Dr Robert Grossman is pretty clear on where the wound is in his BBC Radio 4 interview which he gave post 2000 (above the ear). His role was minor so he was not focused on resuscitation and he was staring into the wound.

And of course we need the X rays and photos to be faked for a hole in the back of the head.......another fantasy of course.