21 JFK cops who heard a grassy knoll shot

Grassy knoll aftermath

A cop runs toward the grassy knoll on November 22.

Strange but true:

At least two dozen, and perhaps as many as four dozen, of the witnesses to the assassination of President Kennedy in November 1963 thought at least one gunshot came from in front of the presidential motorcade, a claim rejected by the Warren Commission and most U.S. news organizations..

Richard Charnin has proposed a statistical proof of a shot from the front.

Another way to think about the matter is to review the eyewitness accounts, especially those of people with crime scene training.

Assessing earwitness testimony

Defenders of the U.S. government’s semi-official theory that the 35th president, a liberal Democrat, was shot from behind by a psychopathic leftist will dismiss the earwitness accounts. Earwitness testimony, say crime scene investigators, is notoriously unreliable.

But not always. After all, it is well-documented that some earwitnesses of JFK’s assassination proved to have good hearing that day. Several dozen people reported hearing gunshots from above and behind the presidential motorcade. Their perception was accurate.

President Kennedy and Texas Governor John Connally were both wounded in the back. The location of their wounds proved that Oswald (or someone else) was firing from above and behind had assaulted the motorcade. The earwitnesses in Dealey Plaza proved right.

So what about the several dozen people who said a shot also came from in front of JFK’s car? Were they mistaken? Or could they have been right too?

The issue is well documented. Stewart Galanor says 52 earwitnesses said they thought one or more shots came from in front of the motorcade. Richard Charnin says 88 witnesses heard a knoll shot. Even John McAdams, a die-hard anti-conspiracy theorist, agrees that at least 33 witnesses spoke of hearing a gunshot from in front of the motorcade.

Railroad worker S.M. Holland, who was watching from the Triple Underpass, says he heard a rifle report and saw smoke from behind the stockade face atop the grassy knoll. (Watch Holland tell his story here.)

The area was searched by police within minutes of JFK’s assassination. No gunman was found.

Corroborating earwitness testimony

Law enforcement and criminal justice professionals agree that photographic evidence is more reliable than earwitness testimony.

What about the infamous home movie of the assassination made by Dallas dressmaker Abraham Zapruder. What does it tell us about the source of the shots?

The film captures, in terrible detail, the six seconds in which the commander in chief lost his life. The film shows Kennedy jolted forward when he was struck in the back by a bullet. A few seconds later, the film shows JFK head snapping backwards and to the left from the fatal shot.

The Zapruder film lends credence to — some say corroborates — the earwitness testimony that the fatal shot came from the front and to the right.

Among the earwitnesses to JFK’s murder were no less than 21 law enforcement officers.

While earwitness testimony is unreliable, these 21 cops were probably better earwitnesses than most. All of them were within 150 feet from JFK when the shots rang out. They were trained in the use of firearms and they were experienced in crime scene investigation.

Most importantly, they were dispersed at various around the park-like area of Dealey Plaza, which means they would have heard different echo patterns, a frequent source of faulty earwitness testimony.

What did these earwitnesses say about the origins of the gunshot killed JFK?

21 cops

Twenty one officers said their reaction to the gunfire was to go search the area famously known as “the grassy knoll.”

The unanimity of their reaction is striking. On November 22, after hearing gunfire near the presidential motorcade, they all converged on the parking lot and the railroad yard, lined by a stockade fence, on top of a grassy embankment overlooking the motorcade route.

The Warren Commission ignored all of this testimony, even from cops. The Warren Report said there was “no evidence” of a shot from the front.

That is the sort of misleading statement that prompted a majority of Americans to mistrust the Warren Commission’s conclusions about the causes of JFK’s assassination.

There was credible evidence, in the form of earwitness testimony, that JFK was killed by a shot from the front. Here’s some of it.

 

What 21 cops said — and did — after JFK was shot

1) Secret Service man Paul E. Landis, Jr., was riding the rear right running board of the third car in the presidential motorcade. After JFK’s assassination, he wrote:

My immediate thought was that the President could not possibly be alive after being hit like he was. I still am not certain from which direction the second shot came, but my reaction at the time was the shot came from somewhere towards the front right-hand side of the road.

2) Secret Service man Forrest Sorrels was riding in the lead car of the motorcade when he heard the shots. He said he “turned around to look up on this terrace part there, because the sound sounded like it came from the back and up in that direction.”

Like many other witnesses Sorrells used the term “terrace” to refer to the area famously known as “the grassy knoll.” There is a monument structure in this part of Dealey Plaza overlooking the street where JFK’s motorcade was passing.  Adjacent to the structure is a parking lot and a railroad yard separated by a line of trees.

Sorrells repeated this observation to the Warren Commission.

“And, as I said, the noise from the shots sounded like they may have come back up or the terrace there …

But the reports seemed to be so loud that it sounded like to me – in other words, that my first thought, somebody up on the terrace, and that is the reason I looked there.

3) Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry was driving the lead car in the motorcade. In a deposition taken in April 1964, Curry said:

I heard a sharp report. We were near the railroad yards at this time, and I didn’t know – I didn’t know exactly where this report came from, whether it was above us or where, but this followed by two more reports (Warren Commission, Vol. XII, 28).

The week after this deposition, Curry was in Washington testifying at great length before the Commission – but he was not asked about where he thought the shots came. He did say where he ordered his men to search for the gunman.

I said over the radio, I said: “Get someone up in the railroad yard and check.” (IV, 161)

After the shots rang out, Dallas police chief Jesse Curry ordered his men to search the railroad yard behind the grassy knoll.

Curry’s memory, though not his language, is confirmed by the audio recording of Dallas Police Department’s radio communications that day. On recording Curry is heard to say, “Get a man on top of that triple underpass and see what happened up there.” He was referring to the area in front of JFK’s limousine.

4) Deputy sheriff Eugene Boone ran towards the knoll and then the railroad yard as soon as he heard the shots (XIX, 507; VII, 105-9).

5) Deputy constable Seymour Weitzman, like most of the other deputies, was standing at the corner of Main and Houston when he heard the shots. He ran toward the President’s car and climbed over a wall in “the monument section,” looking for the assassin (IV, 161).

6) Roger Craig, too, on hearing the first shot, ran until he reached “the terrace on Elm Street” and then the railroad yards (XIX, 524.).

7) Harold Elkins was more explicit:

I immediately ran to the area from which it sounded like the shots had been fired. This is an area between the railroad and the Texas School Book Depository which is east of the railroad. (XIX, 540)

8) “Lummie” Lewis, 9) A. D. McCurley, 10)  Luke Mooney, and 11 ) W. W. Mabra all heard the shots the same way and ran to search the grassy knoll and the freight yard. (XIX, 526, 514, 541, 528).

12) The shots sent Deputy Sheriff J. L. Oxford running toward the triple underpass (XIX, 530).

13) L. C. Smith’s reaction to the shots was to climb the fence behind the grassy knoll and search the parking lot (XIX, 516).

14) Deputy I. C. Todd ran to the railroad tracks, as did 15) Ralph Walters and radio officer 16) Jack Watson (XIX, 543, 505-6, 522).

17) Harry Weatherford told much the same story about when he heard the sound of gunfire. He knew what it was: (XIX, 502)

“I thought to myself that this was a rifle and I started towards the corner when I heard the third report … By this time I was running toward the railroad yards where the sound seemed to come from.”

18) Deputy sheriff Buddy Walthers (XIX, 502) was riding behind JFK’s car in the motorcade. He wrote a memo about what he did on November 22. He told much the same story when he testified in Washington in July 1964.

Walthers heard three shots, ran across Dealey Plaza until he reached the parking are behind the now-familiar “concrete structure on the knoll” (VII, 544-6). He recalled

“At the time there was something in my head that said that they probably could have been coming from the railroad overpass, because I thought since I had got splattered with blood – I was just a little back and left of – a little back and left of Mrs. Kennedy but I didn’t know.”

His second choice for the source of the gunfire was the Texas School Book Depository. (VI, 294-5).

Two photos taken shortly after JFK’s assassination show Dallas deputy sheriff Clyde Haygood parking his motorcycle before he ran up the grassy knoll to investigate.

19) After the shots were fired, Clyde Haygood tried to jump the north curb of Elm Street with his motorcycle and, failing, parked it on the street and ran to the knoll looking for any sign of the assassin. (VI, 297-9).

20) Joe Marshall Smith had his back to the Depository on Elm Street when the shots rang out. “I didn’t know where the shots came from,” he said, but ran “to an area immediately behind the concrete structure” and checked the bushes and all the cars in the parking lot behind the knoll. (VII, 533-6)

21) Edgar Leon Smith, Jr., stood on the east curb of Houston Street about 150 feet from the Depository . He guessed the first two shots were firecrackers but, after the third shot, he drew his pistol and ran down Elm Street.

Wesley Liebeler, a Warren Commission attorney asked him to clarify by referring to a map before them: “You thought the shot came from this little concrete structure up behind No. 7?

Smith said, “Yes, sir.”

Given the unreliability of earwitness testimony, such accounts cannot be dispositive in determining the source of the gunshot that killed JFK.

Some people say it is foolish to think that President Kennedy was killed in the crossfire of two assassins. Others will say it foolish to dismiss the testimony of 21 cops at the scene of a crime.

What do you think?

 

———-

A note on sources:

This account is adapted from an essay “51 Witnesses: The Grassy Knoll,” written by Harold Feldman.

Stewart Galanor, a teacher and JFK researcher, did the most thorough accounting of eyewitness and earwitness testimony from the crime scene. He compiled the statements of 216 witnesses and provides links to their statements.

Professor John McAdams, a defender of the lone nut theory, says that “only” 33 witnesses thought a shot came from in front of the presidential motorcade. His efforts to dismiss evidence that conflicts with his theory are more revealing than persuasive. You can read it here.

261 comments

  1. JSA says:

    Witness Gordon Arnold claimed that he had attempted, prior to the arrival of the presidential motorcade, to film from the railroad overpass, but was waived off by someone who presented a Secret Service badge to him. According to Arnold, he moved to a dirt mound in front of the picket fence on the “grassy knoll” where he filmed the motorcade as it moved down Elm Street. He described two shots as being fired over his head from behind, stating that he “hit the dirt” after feeling the first just over his left shoulder. Arnold indicated that he remained lying down for the duration of the shooting until he was confronted by two policemen who confiscated his film and ordered him to leave the area. He suggested that he had been afraid to report the incident due to claims of “peculiar” deaths of witnesses to the assassination. //
    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Arnold

    Also, at least one Dallas policeman said that someone flashed a Secret Service badge when he rushed up the hill and encountered this man (who flashed the badge) behind the fence. From everything I’ve read, there was NO Secret Service detail behind the fence, in the adjoining parking lot, or on the railroad overpass. If true, this indicates (to me) that either the Secret Service was INCREDIBLY negligent or they participated in keeping away from this insecure and vulnerable check point in the motorcade.

    • Phil Gurholt says:

      I think Arnold’s claims are suspect because there is nothing that I am aware of corroborating him being in the plaza that day. I give more credibility to policeman Smith who reported encountering a man showing Secret Service credentials.

      • George Simmons says:

        I have always found the testimony of Dallas Police Officer Joe Marshall Smith to be intriguing :

        “I got to make this statement too. I felt awfully silly, but after the shot and this woman, I pulled my pistol from my holster and I thought this is silly, I don’t know who I am looking for and I put it back. Just as I did he showed me that he was a secret service agent…..he saw me coming with my pistol and right away showed me who he was.”

        As far as I understand it, the secret service stated that all their agents were accounted for and none were on the grassy knoll. Obviously, this leads you to the conclusion that someone was impersonating a secret service agent on the grassy knoll.

        • John McAdams says:

          Obviously, this leads you to the conclusion that someone was impersonating a secret service agent on the grassy knoll.

          No, merely that some agent of some kind flashed credentials at Smith, apparently from a distance.

          Remember, Smith said “Well, he saw me coming with my pistol and right away he showed me who he was.”

          All sorts of agents of one sort of similar looking credentials were around Dealey Plaza that day.

          http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ssknoll.txt

          The HSCA noted that many witnesses claimed to have seen “Secret Service agents” but were mistaken.

          • George Simmons says:

            You state that all sorts of agents were around Dealey Plaza that day. But Officer Smith stated he was a secret service agent:
            “he showed me he was a secret service agent”

            I really feel you should stick to the actual testimony.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Lone assassin proponents have also rebutted that it was an off duty Army Intelligence man with a special I.D. badge or card, but Debra Conway shows that the man had a camera, and Smith did not remark on that peculiar point.

            http://jfklancer.com/knollagent/index.html

          • mball says:

            Marshall said that the man showed him Secret Service credentials. Marshall said that he was familiar with those credentials. Further, I’m aware of a number of claims to have run into secret service agents in dealey plaza. I’m not aware of any on the knoll other than the report of marshall and a couple of other cops. And no one has come forward from any other agency to correct the reports.

          • Lawrence Schnapf says:

            John McAdams seems to make all encompassing statements so any statements on this page can be fit into his a priori, grand unifying conspiracy theory.

            To be more specific, at the time that the man supposedly flashed his secret service credentials, ALL the secret service agents have gone to Parkland. Later, some returned but that was after the incident discussed above.

            Im not aware of any non-uniformed agents in Dealey PLaza at the time of the incident of the man flashing credentials.

            Perhaps John Mcdams can enlighten us on the non-uniformed law enforcement officials who were in Dealey Plaza AT THE TIME of the man flashing credentials.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            “All sorts of agents of one sort of similar looking credentials were around Dealy Plaza that day”. Huh? More guy’s than Smith’s guy with dirty fingernails? The SS had no agents on the ground per them. Were they FBI, Military? Please provide documentation.

      • Joanie Marshall says:

        After reading many books on the Assassination of President Kennedy and seeing a fair few documentaries about the Assassination I am convinced it was a conspiracy and that at least one shot came from the front of the car. Any one with half a brain knows if the fatal shot was from the back JFK’s head would have gone forward instead his head went back and to the side. So simple and people are made to believe that all the shots came from the book depository. LBJ The Master mind behind the plot and the COVER UP with his best friend HOOVER made sure that the public would never know or so they thought. I wonder what their answer will be to God on judgement day. I believe in a second life to cleanse your self of all your evil deeds so HOVER and LBJ will come back as rats to be killed in a rat trap. Read the book LBJ the Master Mind behind the Kennedy Assassination. If not all of it is true some of it is.

        • Paul says:

          I think it was a conspiracy too, Joanie. I might point out, though, that from some of the pro-conspiracy books, it’s explained how his head was thrown forward before back. JFK was shot twice in the head, one shot coming almost immediately after the other. Articles and videos by researcher Robert Harris do a pretty good job in showing that Oswald(or whoever was in the 6th floor)couldn’t have fired both head shots.

    • Photon says:

      He wasn’t. There is no evidence that he was ever there; his excuse for not coming forward for over 10 years was bogus. Plus, he changed his story to fit descriptions made years later, contradicting previous claims.

      • Gerry Simone says:

        While there are several aspects about Arnold’s story that are questionable, I don’t think you can fault a witness who has reason to fear for their safety to avoid publicity or to come forward. After all, WC proponents favor Howard Brennan’s excuse for not identifying Oswald in a line-up fearful of an international conspiracy simply as a result of overhearing police officers or detectives speculate on this.

      • Tom says:

        I was with Gordon Arnold that day, and saw everything. There were men there, and I saw one put a large item like a rifle into a trunk

      • Jack Joseph says:

        Ralph Yarborough saw Arnold hit the floor, and remarked on seeing this that the man (Arnold) was obviously a serviceman or veteran by the way in which he dived.

        I would imagine that the then Senator’s testimony counts as evidence

        • Alex S says:

          He didn’t identify Arnold. I think it’s quite possible he was talking about Bill Newman.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            According to Henry Hurt (per an EF post dated June 19th, 2004), Yarborough contacted the DMN after the story about Gordon Arnold was published and remembered seeing someone like that. However, supposedly, he made a comment about how a combat veteran knows how to react which raises an interesting point.

            If GA was wearing a uniform and cap, the Senator wouldn’t have referred to him as a ‘combat veteran’.

            So was GA wearing a uniform?

            (In TMWKK and the Jack White/Gary Mack description of GA, he is wearing a uniform).

    • “The Ghost of Gordon Arnold”, as in the old EF thread?

    • JSA…I find Arnold’s entire story suspect for a few reasons. To hear Arnold tell his story, he relates how he had this prolonged conversation with an ‘assassin’. He relates how the ‘assassin’ told him to open his camera and take his film…etc.

      Are we suppose to believe this man had this conversation…while on his knees…at gunpoint…when about 50 people had reportedly ran the short distance up the knoll to the spot of the shooting (and would have had to go right up the steps toward this ‘assassin’ and Arnold having this protracted discussion.

      In my view he’s just a man peddling another story.

  2. Hans Trayne says:

    I remember one of my college professors remarking that had Hoover’s FBI, The Warren Commission & (later) the HSCA consulted with a couple of competent winning football coaches instead of all the other ‘experts’ the assassination puzzle could have been solved quickly.

    If it is true that ‘Dark Complected Man’ (aka ‘The Cuban’) was CIA Operation 40 operative Orlando Bosch at the scene on the Elm Street sidewalk with his arm in the air one cannot rule out the possibility that diversionary explosives were employed in the attack. Orlando Bosch = terrorist explosives. That was his specialty.

    Puzzling to visuals alterationists is why his presence wasn’t removed from the visuals. More than a few of them believe the shooter was the man with a small machine gun hidden under an overcoat that denied eyewitness Malcolm Summers access to the North Bryan pergola that Phil Willis accidentally captured departing Dealey Plaza in a motorcade vehicle (Willis slide #6).

    It would not surprise me if the entire ambush was accomplished with silenced weapons and the ‘gunfire’ ear witnesses heard were explosive diversions to draw responders away from a fleeing attack person or team.

    • Gil says:

      Not a machine gun, a long-barreled handgun. Summers later made a visual comparison ID that it was a Remington XP-100, a bolt action, single shot target gun that shot .222 caliber cartridges in its early prototypes. It became available to the general public in .221 caliber in 1963. Changes were made between prototype and production models to mitigate noise and muzzle flash. Some have argued that the noise and smoke from the fence line shot indicate an earlier prototype XP-100, with all of its implications for privileged access to a weapon the CIA was interested in as an assassination weapon. Whatever. The .221 “Fireball” XP-100 is still a very loud gun, consistent with the descriptions of the sound coming from the fence line.

      A high powered handgun like the XP-100 would be the weapon of choice for shooting from the fence line because of the awkward handling of a rifle shooting from behind the fence and the greater concealability of a handgun. The XP-100 would have all the accuracy an assassin needed up to 150 yards. Sam Holland’s description of a puff of smoke following the fence line shot is consistent with a short barreled weapon shooting a high powered cartridge, as the excess propellant would generate smoke from burning at a lower temperature as it left the muzzle.

      There are a couple of discredited leads centered on the use of a .222 caliber XP-100. The dented .222 casing found by the junk hunter near the concrete wall was in the wrong location (per Holland’s account) and manufactured after 1963 according to bunt markings. James Files’ story is hooey. The casing he supposedly set on the fence would have been found by Holland’s crew, who searched the area that the shot originated from. Files’ story does, however, suggest that he had some insider awareness of details of the operation, quite likely from his boss and father figure Charles Nicoletti.

      • Bill Clarke says:

        Gil July 23, 2014 at 8:34 pm

        Yes. The .222 chambered in the prototypes was “over-bored” which means it had too much powder to burn efficiently in the 10 inch barrel. That caused an excess of smoke and fire at the muzzle. That is why Remington shortened the case and developed the .221 Fireball with a smaller powder capacity to be used in the weapon.

        Later Remington used a 14 inch barrel and this did much to solve the problem. This weapon is almost always scoped and is very accurate at 100 yards. No doubt the CIA could have access to one of the prototype modes that made a lot of smoke and fire at the muzzle.

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        I’ve wondered about Files having some inside knowledge, probably post assassination, for some years.
        The gun would have been a great choice, lethal and concealable, for those with access to it at the time.
        It also plays into a interesting possibility to me.
        In the unsubstantiated/corroborated story of Evelyn King she says the guy who ran to the retaining wall (I know, in the hoodie) had a gun under the (sweatshirt?) in it’s pocket but it looked bigger than a (regular) hand gun.
        By the same token, someone firing from the fence in say a police uniform or suit w/SS ID could have handed it off as soon as the shot was fired to a spotter who concealed it under a coat and walked quickly immediately to the rear of the TSBD then to a waiting car on Houston.

  3. mitchum22 says:

    Awesome piece. Thank you.

  4. John Kirsch says:

    A question for Jeff. Why did you use the phrase “semi-official” to describe the government’s theory of the assassination?

  5. M.J. Harrington says:

    If it were true that Oswald acted alone in what was an opportunistic killing, it is hard to imagine why a raging controversy has gone on for 50 years. The attempts on the lives of Reagan, Truman, and Theodore Roosevelt and the murder of McKinley did not provoke anything remotely similar.
    No, the gaps, contradictions, and improbabilities in the evidence make clear that the lone assassin in the book depositary cannot provide the whole answer. Especially since he was himself murdered while in police custody.

    • S.R. "Dusty" Rohde says:

      If Oswald acted alone, could someone please explain the smoke from a shot fired from the grassy knoll in this video, and could they also explain why frames were removed from the film?

      *Note: The smoke is in the upper left part of the video, starting around the 20 second mark, just to the right of the person in red on the steps of the sidewalk at the grassy knoll.
      *Note: go to the 46 second mark to the 50 second mark, watch the action of the film speed up briefly then slow again….and Jackie and Agent Hill appearing to morph. This is caused by removing frames.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLERm5sKGSY

      This also reduced the visible smoke from a second shot, no telling what else may have been visible.

      • S.R. "Dusty" Rohde says:

        PS: The 12 second mark is when JFK is hit with the head shot. Note that the two middle Motorcycle officers slow to stop and both Officers are looking at the grassy knoll, from where the smoke is seen.

      • S.R. "Dusty" Rohde says:

        Sorry, but I have to add this also….it is significant….

        When the film speeds up due to frames being removed (46 second to 50 second mark)….this also happens to be the exact time that the president’s limo braked! If you watch the film, no tail lights come on….but anyone who saw this film in 1963 knows when the braking took place, inbetween Agent Hills first attempt to get on the back of the limo….and his second attempt. But this is now missing from this film. The brake lights coming on is still visible in the Zapruder film….if you can’t find it I can provide a link.

        • Paul Turner says:

          Dusty, you mention SSA Clint Hill. He’s quoted as saying he clearly saw blood spatter come out of the back of JFK’s ahead. It appears to me that had to come from an entrance wound to the front of his head. Researcher Bob Harris does a study on Hill’s actions on the JFKHistory page.

  6. William Kane says:

    I do wonder what Photon’s thoughts about all of this are? 21 policemen eh? Over to you Photon…….

  7. Photon says:

    How do you explain the Altgens photo?

    • Gerry Simone says:

      You’re referring to a SSA looking over his right shoulder around the moment that JFK is struck in the back. That doesn’t negate all the other accounts of a frontal shot.

      The HSCA’s examination of other photos of the TSBD proves that boxes were re-arranged after Oswald allegedly descended from the sniper’s lair and before the police arrived, proving that someone other than Oswald was up there. Furthermore, other witnesses claimed to have seen a shooter wearing light clothing vs. Oswald’s brown shirt, as well as someone lingering around after Oswald’s encounter on the second floor.

      A shot from the rear is not at issue (some say there’s evidence that points to the Dal Tex Building, not to mention an attempt to frame Oswald with shots from the TSBD), but it doesn’t mean that there was not shot from the front.

      • Paul Turner says:

        You mention the Dal-Tex Bldg. Let’s say someone was firing from that building, as researcher Robert Harris believes was a strong possibility(JFKHistory Page). Grassy knoll or not, there’s our conspiracy. But as for the grassy knoll, I think that;s where the huge blast came from.

    • PBR says:

      One agent looking back and at a low angle towards the steps of the depository? The other agents? The crowd? Hardly a substantial indication of anything regarding the source of the shot or shots.

  8. Eric says:

    Please point out the moment in the Zapruder film when JFK is “jolted forward” by the first shot. It might come as a revelation to the many people who thought the Stemmons Freeway sign blocked Zapruder’s view of JFK when JFK was first hit. It could also lay to rest many arguments about the timing of the first shot, whether the throat wound was one of entry, and might even solve the Single Bullet Theory conundrum.

    • S.R. "Dusty" Rohde says:

      Eric, I have covered this in a previous post on a different topic, don’t recall which one now. Let me give a short run down.

      “Please point out the moment in the Zapruder film when JFK is “jolted forward” by the first shot.”

      First, let me correct your statement…JFK is not “jolted forward” by the “first” shot, he is jolted forward by the second shot. In the very split second that JFK becomes visible (from behind the freeway sign) his hands start their motion, JFK has already just then been hit. His hands move towards his throat and his arms go up into the “thornburn” position. From that point, roughly two seconds later, JFK lurches forward, his head snaps back….and then forward again.

      The raising of the arms was a reaction to the first shot, the frontal throat shot. The forward lurch was the reaction to being struck by the second shot….the bullet to the back.

      The head shot has not yet been taken.

    • Gerry Simone says:

      The HSCA concluded that JFK was hit around Z 190. I concur for a variety of reasons. Barb Junkarinen has written an article on this point too.

      There is no forward jolt.

      When JFK is hit in the back, he begins to gradually lurch forward as “Dusty” mentions.

      The front neck wound may have been a shot from the front*, however, the bullet wound described as 3mm x 5mm was quite small (smaller than the WCC round used in the MC). It may have been an exit of a fragment from the head shot.

      *If so, is there an X-ray of the neck, assuming it would show the front to back track? Is there an exit wound for the neck shot(I always questioned a fleshy image at the base of Kennedy’s neck as seen on an autopsy photo)?

    • Paul says:

      The Single Bullet nonsense had to be developed after the later testimony of the other victim that day, Jim Tague. It was only then that it had to be orchestrated, because Governor Conally said he was not hit by a bullet that also hit Kennedy.

    • Paul says:

      JFK was “jolted forward”(your quotes)by the first of two shots to the head-that one was from the rear, the fatal one came immediately after that, to move him backwards and to the left.

      • Brian H says:

        AND the limo being stopped rapidly Paul seriously jfk was already starting to lean forward when several witnesses said that Greer came to a stop! Inertia pulled jfks head forward and the shot from the knoll forced it back and to the left…..

  9. George Simmons says:

    This is an excellent piece and highlights for me the evidence of a possible shot to the front.
    Seems quite bizarre that the Warren Commission would state there was “no evidence”.

    Mr Morley makes an excellent point regarding the earwitness accounts. If those who thought they heard shots coming from above and behind the president were right, then why can’t those many earwitnesses who thought they heard shots coming from the front also be right?

    And let’s not forget the Zapruder film, highly suggestive of a shot to the front.

    • Jason L. says:

      And let’s face it, if you had 21 cops testify in a trial that they heard a shot from the front, that would be a conclusively proved fact for the purposes of that trial.

      • Polly Gurunath says:

        Yes, the Zapruder film proves clearly beyond any doubt that the fatal head shot has come from the front right side of the President, probably from the Grassy Knoll, since the whole lot of crowd as well as the police officials run towards this area immediately after Kennedy’s head was blown off. Warren Commission’s Report is totally false and misleading to show this killing as executed by a lone assassin (LHO) from behind.

        • Paul Turner says:

          Polly, your mention of those running up the hill toward the Knoll is equalled by the Dallas radio reporter in the overhead helicopter, who said ..”There’s numerous people rushing up the hill”

    • S.R. "Dusty" Rohde says:

      George, let’s also not forget the relevant positions of each of the “ear witnesses”…….Those closest to the TSBD were most likely those who heard the shots fired from TSBD. the “ear witnesses” closer to the grassy knoll would have heard the shots from the grassy knoll. It’s not really a case of either/or….more a casse of proximity.

    • Klaus Lebrecht says:

      Klaus Lebrecht I have been engrossed with the JFK assassination for over 30 yrs. Many theories have surfaced to try to explain what happened that day. Perhaps the greatest travesty is that most theories fail to take into account the overwhelming evidence the Zapruder film captures. How many murders or assassinations do you know of that have been captured on film? Yet debate continues which the film clearly contradicts. Perhaps most argued about is the (single bullet theory} the Warren Commission endorsed, no mater how you try to duplicate the single bullet theory in a forensics lab or aline Connelly with JFK, you cannot explain why Connelly is totally unresponsive to the bullet that just left JFK,s throat and seems to pause for a while before moving forward to strike Connelly,also note that Connelly is holding his Stetson hat in the very wrist that was shattered by the MAGIC BULLET. This is not a Oliver Stone hollywood lic. to create some drama to please an audience, but a factual frame by frame film shot by Abraham Zapruder that documents the assassination of a president. If the Zapruder film is used as evidence to set a time line of the shooting how could any reasonable mind conclude that the same bullet that struck JFK paused for a moment before it went forward, that would defy the laws of physics. Glad to see some people are thinking George, keep seeking and you will find, best of luck.

  10. Avinash says:

    Many others also claimed shots came from the Knoll.Jean Hill,the Newman’s etc. Even the HSCA claimed that there was a shot from the Knoll.

    • Phil Gurholt says:

      Jean Hill, in my opinion, has very little credibility given Mary Moorman’s statements.

      On the other hand, Ms. Roberts observations of the “honking” police car outside Oswald’s boarding room cinch a conspiracy if true.

  11. photon says:

    Jeff, what is Paul Landis doing in the Altgens photo?

    • mitchell says:

      Altgens 6 is not relevant to the question of whether ANY shots came from the front, but it would corroborated at least one shot to the rear (especially that shot causing the back and throat wounds, I’d think) – which no one is disputing.

      It’s worth noting that the SS Agents don’t seem to be looking up yet in that photo. They may be on their way to raising their heads, but they seem to be looking straight back in the photo. Add to that that you probably can’t objectively demonstrate that they’re looking at the Depository instead of the Dal Tex – which lines up with the 3 shots as well as the Depository, in my opinion.

      I’m more likely to believe anything out of the ordinary, any “commotion”, was a “distraction”. The head movement would just be a little bit of a coincidence. And not even that coincidental, since the movement is not straight away from the most likely location of the disturbance.

      • Photon says:

        ” the shot causing the back and neck wounds, I’d think…”
        Do you realize that you just proved Single Bullet Theory?

        • Paul says:

          So an anonymous comment on a chat board “proves” the SBT? Wow.

          Rather your standard is that anything anybody says that you agree with constitutes “proof,” while any contrary assertions are automatically false.

          BTW, who are you? You act as if people know your name and you have some expertise that qualifies your statements.

        • Jason L. says:

          Hardly, there’s no doubt really that the back wound came from a shot from behind, but there is plenty of doubt as to whether the bullet that caused this wound traversed JFK’s body.

          The Single Bullet Theory is actually plausible with some alterations, i.e. that the shot came from a lower rearward position than the “sniper’s nest” and the bullet that traversed both bodies was not the relatively pristine CE399 but rather a higher velocity round. A lower rearward shooter also better explains the wounding of James Tague.

          • Photon says:

            So a rifle bullet traveling at supersonic speed would not cross the tissue equivalent of 2 boneless chicken breasts? Because that is what had to have happened once you accept that the back wound on JFK was an entrance wound. The round never hit anything more solid than white meat.
            A .22 short would have gone through the neck following the same path.

          • Jason L. says:

            You would think so, but according to the Sibert and O’Neill report, the bullet hole in the back wasn’t very deep and the end of the hole could be felt with a finger. Perhaps the round was a dud, maybe it hit something first, who knows. If it wasn’t so, the round also would have emerged from JFK’s chest, as is demonstrated by one of the History Channel programs trying to prove the SBT.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            @ Photon:

            If we are to assume back through to front, how the heck is that the equivalent of two chicken breasts?

            And how on earth would a supersonic bullet through the equivalent of two chicken breasts slow down enough to allegedly not be deformed (a LAT factoid in my view)?

          • Gerry Simone says:

            @ Photon again:

            Oh I forgot to add one more point about your statement of “two chicken breasts thick”.

            I could never be convinced that a supersonic bullet would tumble if passing through this analogous material.

            (Another LAT factoid).

  12. It should be added, that cop No. 20, Joe Marshall Smith, while checking the grassy knoll immediately after the shots stopped a man there who showed him a genuine looking Secret Service ID – but there were no real Secret Service agents posted on the Plaza this day ! And who provided the Seceret Service IDs these days? The CIA’s Technical Division headed by Sidney Gottlieb. There were two other men in front of the TSBD showing SS-IDs’s to cops after the shootings. That these fake agents were never investigated by FBI and the Warren Commisssion is imho clear evidence for the non-investigation of JFK’s murder and the involvement of the intelligence-military-industrial complex

    • John McAdams says:

      Smith apparently never got close enough to see the ID clearly. He said the fellow “saw me coming with my pistol and right away he showed me who he was.”

      Unless Smith managed to sneak up on the guy and get very close before the “agent” saw him coming, he could not have gotten a very good look at the ID.

      Here is what Posner says:

      And immediately after the assassination, different groups of law enforcement officials (most of them having been there to watch the motorcade from nearby government buildings) spread out in Dealey–they included Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) agents, postal inspectors, officers from the Special Service Bureau of the Dallas Police, county sheriffs, IRS agents, and even an Army Intelligence agent.

      I’m sure you don’t like Posner, but he’s demonstrably correct on this.

      So somebody flashed some credentials at Smith.

      • leslie sharp says:

        John, How does your quote from Gerald Posner negate the fact that Officer Smith reported an encounter with a person holding a Secret Service ID? The fact that other people in Dealey held various official ID’s does not prove that Smith was in error. Maybe you could elaborate?

        “Unless Smith managed to sneak up on the guy and get very close before the “agent” saw him coming, he could not have gotten a very good look at the ID.”

        This is a purely subjective assessment, and a good attorney questioning Officer Smith might well extract further proof that he saw an individual holding an SS ID. Why was the Warren Commission so quick to dismiss these eye witnesses?

        • John McAdams says:

          How does your quote from Gerald Posner negate the fact that Officer Smith reported an encounter with a person holding a Secret Service ID?

          You are begging the question here.

          Smith had his gun drawn.

          Smith said the fellow “saw me coming,” and “showed me” he was Secret Service.

          Unless Smith managed to sneak up on the fellow, he could not have closely examined the ID.

          So Posner, like the HSCA, pointed out that there were numerous people in the Plaza that day who could have flashed some kind of ID that Smith would have thought was Secret Service.

          • leslie sharp says:

            John: Posner, as he did so often in “Case Closed,” found a way to diminish (or sometimes avoid entirely) testimony and witnesses like Officer Smith that were cumbersome to his final destination. Any good screenwriter knows the process … how do we get this particular scene to fit in with our finale?

            I’m not begging any question, but rather challenging you that “lumping” Officer Smith’s testimony into a generic argument about various credentials rather than confronting the issue of Smith’s experience independently and head on is you avoiding the question, full stop.

            The HSCA was shadow boxing as we now know, and not fully informed. Their conclusions indicate a high degree of uncertainty, and experiences such as Officer Smith’s must have given them cause to question what was really going down in Dealey that day.

          • Lawrence Schnapf says:

            There he goes again. NO secret service agents remained in Dealey Plaza at the time of the Smith incident.

            John mcAdams- do you know who the non-uniformed law enforcement personnel were in Dealey Plaza that day?

      • Mike Rago says:

        John McAdams cannot quote the actual testimony of Officer Smith because the actual testimony conflicts with the way that Mr. McAdams wants to spin it. Instead he goes to Posner.

        As we all know you have to go to the original source to get to the fact of the matter.

        Officer Smith did not say someone flashed credentials at him. He said he showed him he was a Secret Service Agent.

        Joe Marshall Smith has been very clear on this subject in his testimony. He said the man he approached showed him he was a Secret Service Agent.

        Here is what Officer Joe Marshall Smith said…

        Mr. LIEBELER. There is a parking lot in behind this grassy area back from Elm Street toward the railroad tracks, and you went down to the parking lot and looked around?

        Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; I checked all the cars. I looked into all the cars and checked around the bushes. Of course, I wasn’t alone. There was some deputy sheriff with me, and I believe one Secret Service man when I got there.
        I got to make this statement, too. I felt awfully silly, but after the shot and this woman, I pulled my pistol from my holster, and I thought, this is silly, I don’t know who I am looking for, and I put it back. Just as I did, he showed me that he was a Secret Service agent.

        Mr. LIEBELER. Did you accost this man?
        Mr. SMITH. Well, he saw me coming with my pistol and right away he showed me who he was.

        Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember who it was?

        http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/smith_j1.htm

        • John McAdams says:

          I quote his actual testimony here, a page to which I have linked a few times on this site:

          http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ssknoll.txt

          The testimony you quoted shows that, unless Smith was able to sneak up very close to the fellow, the credentials were flashed from a distance.

          • Mike Rago says:

            The testimony I quoted is his testimony, without spin.

            You did not quote it because it did not fit your spin.

            And you are again spinning.

            The testimony shows that Smith was able to clearly see the credentials.

            He specifically says he showed him that he was a Secret Service Agent.

            Let us not forget that we are talking about a Policeman, not a simple citizen. He is a man that is trained to look at credentials.

            He did not say he showed him he was an FBI agent.

            He did not say he showed him he was a detective.

            He did not say he showed him he was an ATF agent.

            He did not say he showed him he was an IRS agent.

            He said that he showed him he was a Secret Service Agent.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Unbelievable spin.

            Deborah Conway at Lancer also wrote an excellent paper that Officer Smith could not have confused the phony SSA for the Army Intelligence guy who was carrying a camera like any tourist or citizen wanting to take a picture of the President that day.

          • John McAdams says:

            The testimony I quoted is his testimony, without spin.

            So you think that Smith did manage to sneak up on the fellow, so that by the time the fellow produced credentials Smith was able to read that they said “Secret Service?”

          • Rick Milam says:

            I have a simple, common sense question about this: Regardless of how close he was to the ID, i.e. close enough to read it, why would Smith say that he was Secret Service? Be reasonable, please. It would seem apparent that he either saw ID that informed him of that or the person in question verbally told him and flashed an ID that may not have been discernible. They both lead to the same conclusion. I think there was a conspiracy. I don’t know if it was for the act itself or a cover up. I do know that a lot of people on both sides don’t seem to be willing to look at things rationally. “Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind’s made up.”

      • Bill Hogan says:

        “IRS agents” in Dealey Plaza? I don’t believe Posner provided any source(s) for the assertions in this paragraph, so I’m wondering how we can judge whether he is correct.

        • Paul Turner says:

          Posner’s book should have been titled “I Can’t Prove Oswald Was The Only Killer, But Here’s Why It Wasn’t A Conspiracy”. When all you do is disagree with a certain point of view, you really don’t support the opposite point of view. To me, that’s what Posner’s book was all about.

    • Brian H says:

      The problem here is that the secret service has stated time and again that they did not have anybody stationed on the Knoll or behind the fence!
      They were only assigned to the motorcade that day ‘ further they also said none of they’re agents reported having to show they’re credentials to a DPD officer with a “Drawn” weapon in the reports filed from that day!

  13. S.R. "Dusty" Rohde says:

    I find this comment both interesting and telling…..

    “President Kennedy and Texas Governor John Connally were both wounded in the back. The location of their wounds proved that Oswald (or someone else) was firing from above and behind had assaulted the motorcade. The earwitnesses in Dealey Plaza proved right.”

    The comment is interesting because it readily accepts the back wounds as evidence of shots fired from behind. Yet, at the same time offers no such equality of recognition to the frontal throat wound, and while naturally denying a frontal shot to the head, (in absence of any absolute proof, thanks to vanishing Parkland photos and “doctored” Bethesda images.)

    Also telling because witnesses who “heard” shots from the grassy knoll outnumbered the witnesses who “heard” shots from the TSBD, by what, a minimum of 11 to 1? Yet, the minimum amount of witnesses testimonies was promoted, while the majority were ignored. Let’s not forget that witnesses claiming to have seen the smoke from shots fired on the grassy knoll were all but ignored. And for the most part, the smoke filmed in the Oliver Nix film totally ignored.

    It seems to me there is a term for only seeing things the way we “choose” to see them…..it is called “wearing rose colored glasses”. Otherwise, what might be called a falsification of reality or truth.

    JFK was shot from behind and from the front, witness testimonies support this, film evidence documents this as does audio evidence.

    Most telling of all may be this, isn’t it interesting, that a President “soft on Communism” is assassinated by a Lone Nut who is “Pro-Communism”, who happened to also kill one of DPD finest police officers? How utterly convenient for any potential corrupt conspirators. Get the commy loving President out of the way, get rid of the Top Cop likely to pursue any leads and blame the nut that defected. While we are at it, we can blame LHO for the General Walker thing too, after all, Walker was anti-Kennedy and LHO was Pro-kennedy and somehow that makes sense to some people. Maybe we should blame LHO for Tiananman square while were at it.

    Isn’t it also interesting, that witnesses from all four Cardinal directions either saw gunman or smoke or heard shots from the grassy knoll, but have either been ignored or killed?

    Deception layered upon deception is better known as a “Stacked Deck”.

    • John Kirsch says:

      S.R. “Dusty” Rhode, you’ve touched on one of the many aspects of the official story that don’t add up to me. If you stipulate for the sake of argument that it was Oswald who fired at Walker, that makes a strange kind of sense because Walker was a right-wing rabble rouser and Oswald, at least according to the official story, was a communist or marxist or leftist of some kind. But even that only makes sense if you accept the WC’s portrait of Oswald as a violent loner, even though he was married and had a circle of friends, some of whom were, admittedly, unlikely. But JFK is a different story entirely. About 5 months earlier Kennedy had given his American University speech, which could be interpreted as a call to wind down, if not actually end, the Cold War. It isn’t hard for me to imagine the overlords of the “military-industrial complex” (Ike’s words, not mine) interpreting the speech as the first step toward kicking them off the gravy train. I believe Oswald himself expressed admiration for the president’s family. Doesn’t mean Oswald wasn’t the shooter or one of them. But it would be kind of like Booth saying maybe Lincoln isn’t doing such a bad job after all and then shooting Lincoln anyway. Makes you scratch your head in puzzlement (as do so many aspects of the official story).
      Maybe Kennedy had to be dragged kicking and screaming into acting on civil rights, but he did. In other words, Kennedy was at the other end of the ideological spectrum from Walker, which has always made me feel that this particular aspect of the official story, ie, that Oswald shot at Walker, a right-winger, and assassinated Kennedy, a liberal, is implausible.It doesn’t make sense, unless, again, you accept the official view of Oswald as a loser who wanted attention. But if that’s true, then why didn’t Oswald stand in front of the cameras at the police station and tell the whole world he had just shot the president of the United States? Again, it doesn’t make sense.

      • Photon says:

        Actually they weren’t Ike’s words – they were Malcolm Moos’ words.

        • leslie sharp says:

          Photon: Many of us have studied that differentiation. Moos wrote the phrase and Ike liked it. Something about it must have struck a cord with Ike, and he agreed to include it in the speech. Perhaps that cord was his conscience?

          • DRB says:

            Dusty,
            The House Select Committee on Assassinations determined there were 4 shots, one of which missed. The WC decided there were 3 shots, one of which missed. If Kennedy got shot in the back before and after emerging from the Stemmons sign and also got shot in the head later, then you must agree with the HSCA that there were 4 shots. If so there had to be a second shooter as everyone agrees that the shooter in the 6th floor fired only 3 shots. Comments?

        • Gary says:

          No…Photon…once again you are wrong. Eisenhower’s farewell address warns us of the Military Industrial Complex. You have stated many “errors” in this conversation but this is on the record.

      • S.R. "Dusty" Rohde says:

        John, you have struck on precisely the point of my previous observation. Walker and Kennedy were at opposite ends of the spectrum. LHO had stated that he felt Kennedy was doing a good job and that he liked JFK. In that vein, it would be far more logical for LHO to shoot Walker, not JFK. Somewhere along the line, there needs to exist a motive for this behavior. Currently, those motives are non-existant, except for opinion.

        • Photon says:

          Actually the night before the assassination at dinner LHO made a derogatory comment about how Joe Kennedy got his money.

          • John Kirsch says:

            So I guess we are to infer that Oswald shot JFK because Oswald had a low opinion of JFK’s father.

          • Photon says:

            No, but it calls into question the accuracy of the previous claim by Dr. Rohde that Oswald liked JFK and felt that he was doing a good job.
            It may well be that Oswald’s motives had more to do with his desire for recognition and belief that he was a revolutionary fulfilling his destiny than any personal animosity to JFK. Oswald was going to strike a blow for Socialism-JFK fit the bill. We will never know why he crossed the Rubicon to kill twice on Nov. 22, 1963.

          • S.R. "Dusty" Rohde says:

            Your comment makes little sense

            “No, but it calls into question the accuracy of the previous claim by Dr. Rohde that Oswald liked JFK”

            ….but then many of your posts don’t, nothing new there.
            However, the very last sentence, I think you have gotten very accurate.

            ” We will never know why he crossed the Rubicon to kill twice on Nov. 22, 1963.”

            In that comment, you are exactly right, we will never know why he (LHO) crossed the Rubicon to kill twice…..because he didn’t, as such, your statement would be the logical conclusion.

          • John Kirsch says:

            This is a response to Photon’s Sept. 27 comment responding to my comment.
            This is from sworn testimony that Francis L. Martello, a lieutenant with the New Orleans police dept., gave to Wesley Liebeler, an assistant counsel with the WC in April 1964. The exchange between the two pertains to Martello’s interview with Oswald in 8/63 after Oswald’s arrest following his activities in connection with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee:
            “Mr. Liebeler: Well, your recollection is quite clear that, in spite of the fact that Oswald demonstrated a general inclination to favor the Soviet Union and its institutions, he did in spite of that indicate a preference for President Kennedy as opposed to Premier Khrushchev?”
            Mr. Martello: That is correct, sir.”
            Mr. Liebeler: And that he in no way demonstrated any animosity or ill feelings toward President Kennedy?
            Mr. Martello: No, sir; he did not. At no time during the interview with Oswald did he demonstrate any type of aggressiveness in any way, shape or form, other than his demonstration on Canal Street with the picket sign.”
            Earlier in his sworn testimony, Martello said that Oswald “showed in his manner of speaking that he liked the president.”

          • Photon says:

            Well by golly,that must mean that he was sincere and obviously he was completely forthright. What I don’t understand is why you have completely left out the part where Mr. Martello stated that at the same time Oswald pretended to want to join a local anti-Castro group in order to provoke an incident by making similar false claims.
            Or the fact that he handed out FPFC pamphlets with a phony address.
            As he was under arrest in NO he likely said what he thought the cops wanted to hear. As he lied repeatedly after being arrested in Dallas I am not as confident as you are in LH Oswald’s honesty while in police custody.

          • John Kirsch says:

            This is a response to Photon’s 9/29 comment. Let me say first of all that I appreciate your response, Photon. You’ve given me so much to work with. The first thing I noticed was the sarcasm, as in “Well by golly,that must mean that he was sincere and obviously he was completely forthright.” You are obviously free to cast doubt on Oswald’s veracity. But that isn’t really the point. The point is that you had questioned the “accuracy of the previous claim by Dr. Rohde that Oswald liked JFK …” and the record indicates that he did. I noticed that you didn’t try to undermine Martello’s sworn testimony to the WC but instead sought to cast doubt on the veracity of the accused assassin, who was murdered before he could defend himself in court.
            Then, after some comments designed to confuse the issue, you write “As he was under arrest in NO he likely said what he thought the cops wanted to hear. As he lied repeatedly after being arrested in Dallas I am not as confident as you are in LH Oswald’s honesty while in police custody.” As a reporter I learned never to assume, but I will go out on a limb here and assume that you were not present when Martello interviewed Oswald. But that doesn’t stop you from speculating about what was going through Oswald’s mind during that interview. I would describe that as speculation, which the Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines as “ideas or guesses about something that is not known.”

          • Photon says:

            What record? One excerpt from an interview where the interviewer expressed doubts about his sincerity? For a guy who repeatedly lied, used aliases, couldn’t hold a job, had extreme difficulties with relationships with virtually everybody he met? The fact is that even his closest family members had no idea what Oswald truly thought about JFK- the subject was rarely if ever brought up. How you go from that to “Oswald liked JFK” is a stretch. You want to give Oswald the benefit of the doubt. As he was a cold- blooded murderer who destroyed two families and deprived the country of its President I would rather not.

          • John Kirsch says:

            Photon, re: your September 30, 2013 at 3:10 am comment. Again, I thank you. You never fail to provide me with interesting material to deconstruct.I was surprised at your dismissive attitude toward the official record of the Warren Commission, the group of esteemed persons appointed to investigate the assassination. You obviously find Martello’s interview with Oswald just months before 11/22 to be inconvenient. I was going to pull apart the rest of your comment but it’s really just bluster and misdirection.

          • Photon says:

            It is always easy to use a story to support your position if you leave out parts of the story that do not support your position.
            It seems to be a policy of conspiracy buffs to read 80% of a source and then come to a conclusion without caring about the rest of the story.
            Like claiming that earwitnesses heard shots from the front, when the same witnesses in the same sources made statements like ” I can’t be sure of the direction” or ” it seemed to come from the front, but I really couldn’t tell”, etc.
            Or like claiming that the Parkland doctors all thought that neck wound was an entrance wound without mentioning that some of those witnesses never saw an unaltered wound.
            Or claiming that certain MDs examined the head wound while leaving out statements from the same quoted source expressly mentioning that they only performed a brief, incomplete exam.
            If you use the Cliff Notes version of the assassination you can never get a complete and accurate story.

          • Jay says:

            Guessing what’s going on in LHO’s head is one of the slipperiest slopes. His actions and statements in the months leading to the event are vague and make sense when understood as part of the ‘patsyfication’ process. He had contacts in the FBI. The NO pamphlet thing he did as an operative. He was an operative, he did these jobs for money. He didn’t know where it was leading to. At some point, while working in the TSBD, finding out the president’s motorcade would travel near there he then realized he was being set up for something really big. Shots came from multiple angles that day. Some from the TSBD, he was in the building, he didn’t even have to pull the trigger, being in that building was enough.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Acknowledgement of Papa Joe’s alleged shady past doesn’t necessarily mean you detest JFK.

            How many Texans discussed that at the dinner table the night before the President visited?

            What about the John Birch Society that put out the ad or posters that JFK committed treason?

            Are they equally suspect?

      • S.R. "Dusty" Rohde says:

        PS John: Those are the types of things that LNT’s would rather not contemplate.

        • John Kirsch says:

          S.R. “Dusty” Rohde, I agree. There are so many contradictions and loose ends in the official story that you almost don’t know where to start. I do think that people such as Martello, a police detective who personally interviewed Oswald just a few months before 11/22, and the statements by Dr. McClelland, who actually saw the president just after the shooting — I think the witness of people like that has to be given great weight.

          • S.R. "Dusty" Rohde says:

            John, the subject of the following quote has been on my mind a lot the last few days.

            “The location of their wounds proved that Oswald (or someone else) was firing from above and behind had assaulted the motorcade.”

            The more I think about this, I’ve come to some theories. I have never doubted someone fired from behind JFK and Connally. However, I don’t think the shots were ever intended to be the “fatal” shots. These shots were a form of multi-tasking in the following areas.
            1) To provide cover for the kill shot from the Grassy Knoll.
            2) To set up the “frame up” for the supposed snipers nest, placing the rifle and shells.
            3) To create misdirection and conflicting witness testimonies, laying the ground work for subversion of evidence.
            4) To provide a plausible excuse to draw attention away from the grassy knoll on the day of the assassination, (assisted of course by one or more phony SS agents herding people away from the grassy knoll).

            I could be wrong, but it will take some outstanding evidence to convice me otherwise.

    • Photon says:

      Connally’s surgeon stated that all of his wounds were from a single bullet fired from behind- in a nationally televised press conference. He also had the luxury of a full examination under general anesthesia over more than an hour, not the rushed 8-10 minute evaluation done on JFK in an ER crowded with 10-12 people.

      • Notohp says:

        Yes but before there was any coercion or influence, he got to the tell truth….a bit different than the latter.

        Kinda like that Mauser, 6.5 mm, now they wouldn’t get that wrong like that would they?

        C’mon you taking a p*ss, ha hahaa DINOSAUR, it is really past the point of absurb, LHO did it, alone, yeah, right………..

      • Gerry Simone says:

        You should seriously watch Reasonable Doubt: The Single Bullet Theory by Chip Selby. In it you will see in an interview, that Dr. Shaw (Connally’s surgeon) doesn’t believe that CE399 did all that damage. Also, the nature of the wound to Connally’s back could’ve been a first, tangential strike as opposed to a tumbling bullet.

      • Paul Turner says:

        Getting away from Connally for a bit, Photon, didn’t Kennedy’s surgeon make a nationally-televised statement in which he pointed to his right front temple, indicating Kennedy received a bullet there? Who put that bullet there? I really doubt it came from the TSBD.

    • Klaus Lebrecht says:

      I would like to add comment to the Walker debate, despite the obvious difference between Walker and JFK I find it hard to believe that this expert LHO performance of world class shooting that to date only one expert has duplicated after three attempts. Yet he missed Walker who was sitting at his desk in his office (a none moving target) hard to believe.

    • Joanie Marshall says:

      You are right president Kennedy was shot from the back and the fatal shot came from in front of the car. The Warren Commission chosen by LBJ The Master Mind behind the plot and his master blackmailer friend Hoover covered it up so well or so they thought. The CIA, The Mafia, The Military, The Cubans LBJ, Hoover all had a hand in the crime of the Century. It seems anyone who wants to do good for this earth is killed.

    • Rick Milam says:

      Again, I don’t have a point of view that I’m pushing. Some things don’t add up in the official account. The investigation was shabby to say the least. Many of the claims for conspiracy don’t make sense to me, as well. The entrance wound in the throat is one of those. I maintained that for years until I finally had it pointed out to me that, if that was the case, where did the bullet go? I don’t know the answer.

  14. Moderators says:

    Dear readers, this is a general etiquette reminder that is a bit overdue. We recognize that the subject generates passionate debate, but there are some general guidelines we would like to maintain. First and foremost, we ask that you address the issues and not indulge in personal attacks, however subtle. Our patience is growing thin when it comes to snide remarks or condescending language. You may have a truly insightful comment, but if you add an unnecessary jab at those who might disagree, you put your comment at risk. We also ask that individual comments grow no longer than the original posts. Policing comments is a subjective art and we try to be consistent. Please try to respect the guidelines so we can keep the debate a robust and compelling one. Thank you. (This reminder will appear in all the most recent threads and does not necessarily speak to comments within this thread.)

  15. S.R. "Dusty" Rohde says:

    Looking at the top two images provided in this article, one thing immediately caught my attention when I first saw this and continues to draw my attention each time I see it….

    “The Zapruder film lends credence to — some say corroborates — the earwitness testimony that the fatal shot came from the front and to the right.”

    Isn’t it interesting that of all the people in Dealy Plaza, the man, woman, and child laying on the ground are precisely between the corner of the wooden fence (approximate location of smoke in Oliver Nix film and stated by several witnesses where they saw the smoke), and the location of the limo when the head shot was taken?

    A most intriquing bit of evidence.

  16. Kurt Wallander says:

    Garrison was onto something much bigger than he ever guessed. Oswald’s activity in New Orleans contains a key to his killing Kennedy. Just go “on the trail” in New Orleans and check the building with two different street addresses— Camp and Lafayette Street-Guy Bannister’s office next to the ” Fair Play for Cuba Committee.” Oops–urban renewal, they’re gone, but check the area anyway for a feeling of the place. So is the Reilly Coffee Company’ but the keystone marker is still over the entrance to building of Dulles’s United Fruit Company. Quite a group with the old Office of Naval Intelligence there too.
    Well at least go to LaFitte’s Blacksmith Shop and the Masquerade Bar. You’ll get the picture.
    In Dallas of course Ruby’s Carousel Club is long gone as are Ruby and “Oswaldo.”
    Guys put the books down sometimes and walk the walk.Visit New Orleans and Oswald’s room in Dallas and the school book depository so you can speak with some real life experience. Dealey;Plaza will surprise you -it’s a postage stamp. Walk the supposed route he took when he killed Tippet. With a friend try to re-enact that and you will be surprised but do your homework first !
    Good Luck guys and keep investigating– the truth is out there.

  17. Gary says:

    Keep this in mind Photon…Connally admitted that he wasn’t hit with the first bullet….then he was hit. Then he heard the 3rd shot that struck JFK in the head. So my question is, ….if you so believe in the WC….which bullet hit James Tague….which bullet hit the front windshield (from the front)…which bullet hit the dashboard. Even if you believe that Connally had a delayed reaction to the first shot….how do you explain the other bullet evidence in the car and James Tague?

  18. Alex Grills says:

    Convenient how nobody mentions that a majority of people thought the shots came from the observatory(wasn’t it something like 60 percent?), that there were only 3, and it seems beyond crazy that a mass conspiracy involving the top agencies in the U.S.A. would ever give John F. Kennedy an option to stay alive on the day of the attack. When they arrived at the airport, JFK was asked whether or not he wanted the “bubble” on his car. Basically a removable bulletproof window like on the popemobile used to protect Kennedy while he was in the convertible. He chose not to since it was a nice day, but it still seems ridiculous they’d give him the option. If anything, on that day of all days, they would conveniently “forget” to offer the choice.

    Also, the book depository was a well-selected position to fire from, unlike the grassy knoll. JFK was surrounded by positions where he could’ve been shot from, but every theorist chooses the grassy knoll because smoke was seen there by ONE witness afterward and the story was printed as if a second shooter had been seen, and Oliver Stone promises that’s where the shots came from. I’ve heard conspiracists say the shot Oswald took was too hard, too fast, he lacked the ability. And then, I’ve actually fact-checked those claims. Turns out, it was a sharpshooter’s wet dream, novice documentary filmmakers(but, of course, expert conspiracist forensic investigators) have accidentally cycled three bullets in a Carcano in under the time Oswald did, and Oswald once came within a hair of being declared a sharpshooter in the U.S. Army. Did I mention he was discharged for erratic behaviour?

    Every claim has been a lie so far. I’m sorry, but I refuse to go along with conspiracies without evidence being provided. I guess I’m too sheepish, but I have a problem with the idea JFK was killed by a guy with a musket on a slight incline by the greatest, or at the very least most creative, assassins in history(the CIA). There are a few thousand ways they could have finished him without a messy display, pictures and videos, questions and commissions. The official story may have inconcistencies, but not nearly as many as the conspiracists bring up. Just because something is a “coverup” doesn’t mean you don’t have to provide one single shred of legitimate evidence. Otherwise 9/11 was an inside job, the moon landing and Holocaust were staged, the illuminati is watching, and we all might as well blow our own heads off. I had high hopes for this website to offer more facts than fiction.

    • jeffmorley says:

      Actually Alex you are factually mistaken about what the witnesses said about the origins of the gunshots.

      The most conservative estimate, done by anti-conspiracist John McAdams, holds that 33 witnesses thought shots had come from the grassy knoll area.

      A more generous estimate by Harold Feldman, a writer who suspected conspiracy, found that 51 people thought a shot had come from the grassy knoll area.

      The statements of the witnesses are subject to differing interpretation but there are can be no doubt that a significant minority of the witnesses thought a shot had come from in front of the motorcade.

      I did my own research for JFK Facts and found 21 law enforcement officers on the scene who investigated by going to the grassy knoll area.

      These are facts, not fiction.

      • John McAdams says:

        Jeff,

        If you admit that any shots came from the Depository, then you have to deal with the fact that only three witnesses (by my count, 4 or 5 by others’) heard shots from two directions.

        Does this suggest shows from two directions, or shots from one direction, with witnesses being confused as to the origin?

        • Jason L. says:

          This is such nonsense. The fact that not many people heard shots coming from both directions could equally be used to try and discredit “only TSBD” or “only grassy knoll” witnesses. It’s a curiosity, nothing more.

        • leslie sharp says:

          John McAdams: picking up on a recent thread relating to ear/sound witness testimony, the following are excerpts of an exchange I had with Jean Davison:

          Leslie, Jean Hill testified under oath that she heard 4 to 6 shots coming from the knoll. S.M. Holland testified to 4 shots, only one from the knoll. Others said 3 from the TSBD. And many other variations. ….. They’re all correct?

          Jean, you make my point for me. There were shots from both directions, and the number {of shots} is in dispute only because of the position the various witnesses held at the time/intervals of each shot. Why is that so unreasonable? And why are you so inclined to believe the shots came from the TSBD but NOT the Knoll?

          Jean says: The vast majority said either one direction or the other — not both. You “restate” this as, “There were shots from both directions.” That’s your opinion about what their testimony means, not what their testimony actually says.

          Jean, we’ll have to disagree on the semantics. Their testimony, when considered in the collective, indicates {there were} shots from both directions, not simply one or {but not} the other. I dislike football metaphors, but: The quarterback testifies that he threw the ball, and the tight end testifies that he received the pass; the testimony in its entirety describes the play. That is not opinion.

          • John McAdams says:

            The quarterback testifies that he threw the ball, and the tight end testifies that he received the pass; the testimony in its entirety describes the play. That is not opinion.

            The problem is that your quarterback and your end are telling consistent stories.

            Hearing the shots from the Depository and not the Knoll, and hearing shots from the Knoll and not not the Depository are inconsistent.

            Both count not be correct. They flatly contradict each other.

            Do you actually believe that witnesses who thought the shots came from the Knoll simply failed to hear the shots from the Depository?

            Or did they hear them, being confused about the direction.

          • leslie sharp says:

            John, my analogy drives home the point that testimony from two or more witnesses that are present during the same event will provide a far more complete description of the event.

            It is revealing if you opt to consider only the testimony of the quarterback but not the wide receiver. Both shared the event, both testimonies must be considered.

            Obviously you have known this for quite some time; your argument reverted to a fallback position: “no eyewitness testimony can be trusted – not the quarterback and not the wide receiver.” That position attempts to negate all eyewitness testimony, but what you are left with is a straw man, Lee Harvey Oswald.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Leslie,

            “Testimony considered in the collective”? Really?

            A gunman robs a bank. It’s a slow day and two tellers are the only witnesses. One says the gunman wore a red cap and ran away going east. The other said his cap was gray and he ran west.

            Does this mean the gunman wore a red and gray cap and ran off in two directions?

            If you think eyewitnesses don’t give conflicting accounts of the same incident, please watch this National Geographic’s Brain Games episode called “Remember This!” Several people in a public park witness a staged mugging. How good are they at describing what happened and ID-ing the thief?

            The mugging is shown at the beginning of the program and again about 25 minutes in. Memory expert Elizabeth Loftus comments.

            http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xq2gon_national-geographic-test-your-brain-episode-3-memory_shortfilms

            This kind of experiment has been done time and again with similar results.

          • John McAdams says:

            Both shared the event, both testimonies must be considered.

            But I trust you are aware of the many witnesses who saw a shooter in the sniper’s nest.

            So witnesses who heard only shots from the Knoll must be wrong about there being no shots from the Depository.

            Those who heard shots only from the Depository may be correct.

            So: do you believe there could be shots from two directions without any substantial number of witnesses hearing shots from two directions?

            Or could it be that a fair number of witnesses heard shots from only one direction, but were confused as to what that direction was?

          • leslie sharp says:

            Jean, there weren’t just “two tellers and a robber” present in the area of the crime scene on November 22; there were hundreds of witnesses – old, middle age, young, elected officials, secret service, public servants and policemen included. And this is not a discrepancy over the color of a baseball cap; this is eye and ear witness testimony describing the same event – an assassination of a president – from various perspectives. Rather than consider all of the witnesses and develop a hypothesis to incorporate pertinent testimony, the Warren Commission cherry picked the witnesses, and the testimony, (manipulating much of it) to support their foregone conclusion that Oswald acted, and acted alone. That is a tragic reality of the Warren Report.

            Many are familiar with the Rashomon Effect, and I’ve studied the theory that there is no objective reality – that everything is subjective; however, Kennedy’s brain was splattered to kingdom come in front of hundreds of witnesses – a different scenario than a relatively isolated bank robbery involving three parties, or an isolated rape in a forest.

            The only reason to discount certain testimony and yet rely on or at least use as support other testimony (Howard Brennan) is to avoid the discrepancies that strongly suggest the Warren Commission got it wrong. To revert to National Geographic programs to reinforce an argument is not very scientific.

      • Lawrence Schnapf says:

        as an experienced lawyer, I can tell you that eyewitness testimony is inherently unreliable especially and I suspect it would be even more so for just a startling event like a presidential assassination. Earwitness testimony is even less reliable than eyewitness testimony. It is best used to confirm what the “hard evidence” shows or if it leads to “hard evidence”. So while the analysis is interesting, I would not rest the case on the analysis.

    • RICH RUSSO says:

      People visit Dealey Plaza, do some research, look at photos of that day. There is no doubt that there was more than one gunman. Smoking Gun(TV Special) points out that head shot was much different than other wounds because it was caused by a different type of bullet. Also it was pointed out that many witnesses on ground level smelled gunpowder that day and it is impossible for that to happen with a shooter firing 6 floors above street level. There had to be another shooter on ground level firing a different type of bullet. Read about James Files, it all makes sense………..2 shooters that day.

      • Gerry Simone says:

        A frangible bullet, according to decorated ex-Marine Drill Instructor Orlando Martin (from his book, Analysis of a Shooting), not a FMJ. For if the head shot was from the MC using a WCC, it most likely would have gone through and out the left front side or forehead of JFK, deformed but not broken up. The particle cloud seen in the right lateral X-ray of JFK could not be from a FMJ bullet.

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        2 shooters…yes, most likely more. But Files was not one.

    • Jay says:

      The bubble was not bulletproof

  19. Dan says:

    Apparently, if the first shot that missed came from where Oswald was supposed to be, he missed 20 feet high and 30 feet wide, making the official theory even more unbelievable.

  20. Richie (from Sunny South of France) says:

    I always thought that motorcycle patrolman Clyde Haygood left an “incomplete” testimony in front the W.C…..as Haygood said, when reaching the top of the grassy Knoll, he didn’t notice unusual ? …Lee Bowers Jr, on the other hand, declared to the W.C….the suspects were still behind the fence, when the motorcycle patrolman (Haygood)was seen by Lee Bowers …..

    • John McAdams says:

      Bowers saw two men, said they were not together, and didn’t see them doing anything suspicious.

      One clearly stayed around after the shooting. Bowers said he could not tell about the other, since his clothing blended in with the foliage.

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        Then he was ran off the road and died.

      • Paul Turner says:

        If that’s true, shouldn’t they have been warned to leave the area? Apparently no one flashed any badges at THEM, and it may be that because of that, JFK was killed.

      • phd says:

        file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Administrator/My%20Documents/My%20Pictures/fileswalkingaway.jpg

      • Paul Turner says:

        That may(or may not)be true about Bowers, John, but witness Ed Hoffman saw two men who, as he clearly stated, WERE together-in the same location Bowers was talking about. I think Bowers and Hoffman witnessed the same 2 men.

  21. [...] "21 JFK cops who heard a grassy knoll shot, " (Sept. 24, 2013). [...]

  22. RDE says:

    One thought always made me wonder – I’ve hunted many time. If I’m LHO, why wouldn’t I take the shot(s) when the motorcade was closest AND coming at me (no means of escape?) – i.e.. before the left turn. Strange that one would take a shot at a target going down and away from you ??

  23. Matthew Patnoe says:

    I find it interesting that with all the theories, evidence, reports, testimony that we still (after 50 years)can’t come up with an answer. Some theories seem better than others. I’ve heard people talk about cover ups and how our country wouldn’t do that but there isn’t a country in the world that hasn’t covered up something or did something they wouldn’t want to advertise. The case with the JFK assassination, unless we build a time machine and are in the exact spots where the action took place, there is never going to be one answer.

    • Lawrence Schnapf says:

      some time in the future, the american people will learn that the JFK’s assassination-just like much of his presidency– was all about cuba. the CIA-trained exiles were the shooters and the government had to hide the truth.

  24. DCH says:

    This is a followup comment from comments by Alex Grills about convertible bubble top.
    I’m certain that a bubble top would be bullet proof. It makes sense in order to protect the total interior and the occupants that the windshield would be bullet proof as well. How is it then that a bullet hole has been reported, and this was the frontal shot that struck JFK in the throat just below his adams apple?

  25. Steve D says:

    I’m not going to get into a technical discussion other than to say that CBS did a special on the Warren Commission report with Cronkite narrating. I don’t recall the year but I think it was in the late 60′s or early 70′s. It included a re-enactment of the assassination.
    While the program concluded the WC’s conclusion was probably correct on Oswald, there was one point made during that program that always stayed in my mind. Based on experts interviewed and testimony if there was a shot from the front coming from the grassy knoll area there was just one frame in the Zapruder film where that shot could’ve been fired without some obstruction, frame 313. Sure enough that was the frame Kennedy was hit – the only frame CBS concluded it was possible! Frankly, if you add all the witness testimony there are enough doubts to make you question the WC’s findings. I don’t think there can be convincing proof one way or the other. I still wonder how CBS could come to the conclusion the WC was right.

    • Klaus Lebrecht says:

      In reply to Steve D comment, One thing that keeps confusing me is so many comments keep getting made regarding the WC findings and debate as to if the findings are valid. HSAC findings were that they concluded that there was more than one gunman and further investigation should take place. This in my mind would nullify the ongoing debate as to a single shooter theory. Why does the main stream media accept the WC and ignore or fail to acknowledge the findings of the HSAC? It is seldom ever mention when debating the JFK shooting by any media outlets, yet the WC finings remain the final authority on the assassination.

  26. Steve D says:

    Just a quick follow up. I checked and the CBS program was in 1967 and the full episode is on YouTube.

  27. Kryton says:

    Ladies & Gentleman,
    Many times new eyes are the best weapons in the search for
    Fact…BOTH ER nurses at Parkland Hospital ” especially the male ER nurse …said that the BACK of the Presidents head had a massive wound..Bullet goes in small ..comes out large..I am sure Utube has that interview with the male nurse wearing his scrubs making this statement to a movie camera. I know the female nurse’s statement said the same thing.
    Krypton

  28. Kryton says:

    This is the ER’s nurse’s written statement as
    shown on Utube concerning the large in wound in
    the BACK of the head
    NOT rocket science here team.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpdjZB-qNA0

    • John McAdams says:

      NOT rocket science here team.

      No, but only one piece of evidence out of dozens. And not nearly as reliable as the photo evidence, both from Dealey Plaza (Nix, Muchmore and Zapruder) and the autopsy.

      Check this out:

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/head.htm

      • leslie sharp says:

        John, I notice your particular list does not include Diana Hamilton Bowron, another Parkland ER nurse. Her testimony reads:

        Mr. SPECTER – And what, in a general way, did you observe with respect to President Kennedy’s condition?
        Miss BOWRON – He was very pale, he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy’s knee and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other side of the car I saw the condition of his head.
        Mr. SPECTER – You saw the condition of his what?
        Miss BOWRON – The back of his head.
        Mr. SPECTER – And what was that condition?
        Miss BOWRON – Well, it was very bad—you know.
        Mr. SPECTER – How many holes did you see?
        Miss BOWRON – I just saw one large hole.
        Mr. SPECTER – Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
        Miss BOWRON – No, sir.
        Mr. SPECTER – Did you notice any other wound on the President’s body?
        Miss BOWRON – No, sir.
        Mr. SPECTER – And what action did you take at that time, if any?
        Miss BOWRON – I helped to lift his head and Mrs. Kennedy pushed me away and lifted his head herself onto the cart and so I went around back to the cart and walked off with it. We ran on with it to the trauma room and she ran beside us.

        Can you comment?

        • leslie sharp says:

          Notice how Arlen Specter’s questioning diverts immediately from Ms. Bowron’s statement relating to the “very bad condition of the back of the head” to “how many holes” and was there a “smaller hole.” Had Specter pursued Ms. Bowron’s observations of the condition of the back of the head – hers being among the earliest – we might have been left with a less contaminated and confusing record of the condition of the victim prior to being taken inside Parkland. I contend that Specter was leading the witness.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            There are better examples of leading questions by WC lawyers.

            However, in this last dialogue that is quoted, Specter did not want to open doors or go down a certain path. Instead, he changed the topic to avoid hearing what they didn’t want to hear or go on record.

          • Paul Turner says:

            Specter was under pressure to lead witnesses. John E. Hoover and LBJ were calling the shots.

          • Paul Turner says:

            Specter led-and THREATENED-many witnesses. Clearly, huge pressure was on him to “convince the public that Oswald was the only assassin”(as the WC was formed to do).

        • John McAdams says:

          If you would bother to look at the page I linked to, you would see that Parkland witnesses are all over the place.

          You quote Bowron. But then here’s Nelson.

          http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/nelson.jpg

          It’s not hard to find witnesses who support your pet theory if there are a lot of witnesses, they are under stress, seeing things from all sorts of different angles, etc.

          • leslie sharp says:

            John, could you (re)post the link from your site that references Bowron as a Parkland witness? I must have overlooked her name.

            “It’s not hard to find witnesses who support your pet theory …”

            I don’t see how Ms. Bowron’s witnessing the gaping hole serves a ‘pet theory.’ As I understand the facts, she was the first medically trained person to view the President’s wound, independent of any interference or influence.

            You did not comment on Mr. Specter’s line of questioning which seems to have been intended to clarify how many holes she saw rather than to elicit from her the precise size and position of the gaping hole. Was Specter attempting to build on the Warren Commission “pet theory” which included a magic bullet rather than pursue Bowron’s testimony in earnest.

          • Michael Hogan says:

            “It’s not hard to find witnesses who support your pet theory if there are a lot of witnesses, they are under stress, seeing things from all sorts of different angles, etc.”

            The Warren Commission did exactly that.
            They took measures to avoid witnesses and testimony that did not support their pet theories.

      • Gerry Simone says:

        Z335-337 shows an avulsion to the rear of JFK’s head consistent with what the nurses said.

  29. TimT says:

    Until the laws of physics are repealed “that for every action, there is an equal an opposite reaction”, the violent reaction of Kennedy’s head “back and to-the-left” and corresponding skull and brain matter blown backwards onto the trunk, alltogether is concrete visual evidence that the killing shot came from the grassy knoll. End of discussion.

    • GJones says:

      The Zapruder film is the best evidence. Not sure how the WC apologists can argue that the fatal shot was not from the right front into his right temple, and threw brain matter to the left and rear. But, there are a lot of authors that have made a lot of money doing just that, like …. Posner. I find the James files interview to be very believable and corroborates this point of view (Shot from the front). He (Files) has nothing to prove or anything to gain. He says he was just a driver for Johnny Roselli. He had military infantry experience. He was put in place at the Grassy Knoll as a last chance back-up and was not supposed to fire unless there was no head shot. He did not come forward, the journalists found him after an FBI tip. The Zapruder film tells the story. Can you imagine a defense attorney for Oswald in a trial using this to discredit the prosecution not winning an acquittal? Reasonable doubt for the jury trial that mobbed up Jack Ruby was ordered to stop from ever happening. One lone nut we might buy. Two lone nuts? Come on.
      [edited by the moderator]

    • Paul Turner says:

      Tim, James Tague points to the “law of physics” a few times in his book LBJ And The Killing of Kennedy. To your post, I’ll just add that the shot that resulted in the “back-and-to-the-left” simply couldn’t have come from the TSBD.

  30. Zapiler says:

    Ref the “grassy knoll” Aren’t people running up the hill to follow where the Presidents car seems to be going?

    • Paul says:

      Clearly they are, Zapiler. . That was even reported by the overhead helicopter covering the parade for a Dallas radio station.

      • Gerry Simone says:

        Only if the limo crashed into the GK.

        Police officers ran up the knoll as did other spectators as they felt it was a source of shots too.

  31. Joman says:

    As to the exploding of Kennedy’s head, I think it is uncertain as to where that shot came from because as the bullet enters the skull the pressure ramps up and whatever part of the head is weakest will give way.
    A foremost national forensic scientist that studied the forensic evidences once they were released after decades stated that…

    a) Kennedy’s brain is missing. (The brain being the most revealing artifact of bullet path.)
    b) There is a bullet hole four inches down from the back top of Kennedy’s shirt collar.
    c) That the forensic photo’s of Kennedy have been doctored. (seemingly to hide visible evidence of enterance and/or exit wounds)
    d) That doctoring the photos destroyed any forensic value.

    • GJones says:

      JFK’s brain is not missing. The Zapruder film clearly shows it was vaporized and blown all over Dealey Plaza, to the rear and left of the Limo. Also, note Jackie recovering a piece of the back of his head from the trunk lid. The emergency room doctors and nurses have also made statements to this affect. They knew JFK had a fatal wound but he was still breathing and his heart was still beating so they had no choice but to try.

    • mball says:

      I read once that the pressure build up inside the head would cause matter to escape through the easiest (weakest, I suppose) access. That would be the hole caused by the bullet entry. It seems clear that the fatal strike on Kennedy’s head is to the righ front, somewhere in the vicinity of the forehead/right eye socket junction. The damage there is pretty obvious.

  32. Coyote says:

    Gorden Arnold WAS on the knoll, read Senator Yarborough’s statement. He said that during the shooting he saw a young soldier (hit the ground) Yarborough stated that he (Arnold) must have been a well trained soldier. Gorden Arnold just got out of basic training.

    • Gerry Simone says:

      Lone assassin proponents say Yarborough might have been referring to Mr. Newman who hit the dirt.

      Did Yarborough actually say he saw a ‘soldier’ or ‘soldier in uniform’?

      This is a crucial distinction.

      (I question certain other statements made by GA, and sometimes witnesses embellish their accounts to taint their credibility, but perhaps it’s possible that GA wasn’t seen in any photos because he lay flat on the ground, until he got the heck outta there later).

      • John McAdams says:

        An historian friend of Dave Perry’s asked Yarborough, and the Senator made it clear that the fellow was not in uniform.

        Yarborough inferred the fellow had military training by the way he reacted.

        Yarborough also said the “soldier” jumped “up against a wall.” (video interview) But Arnold, behind the retaining wall, would have simply disappeared behind the wall, if seen from Yarborough’s perspective.

        BTW, behind the retaining wall is the 1988 TMWKK version of his testimony. An earlier version to Earl Golz has him out in front of the Stockade Fence.

        But numerous photos of the Plaza at the time of the shooting show nobody there.

        • Gerry Simone says:

          Dr. MrAdams, I later commented elsewhere on this site that Senator Yarborough referred to a combat VETERAN when he called the DMN following Golz’s published story.

          Soooo, I guess this precludes GA or anyone in uniform.

        • Gerry Simone says:

          Further to my previous responses, I cracked open my DVD set of TMWKK after the 50th anniversary (I felt nostalgic).

          Saw the episode with GA who reenacted his position on the GK.

          In that documentary, he was standing in front of the picket fence, not far from the corner.

          Anyone viewing the GK westward from Elm Street would have seen GA standing left of the end of that retaining wall.

          After some digging, the Bond-5 photo right at the top of this very thread shows that just moments after the shooting, there’s nobody lying on the ground or standing where GA was alleged to have been (if GA got up and gave his camera up to cop as the story goes, it probably would’ve had to happen near the time that this photo was taken, but there’s no evidence of that or its immediate aftermath).

          Reitzes probably covers this in his essay Nowhere Man.

  33. Gerry Simone says:

    This is an excellent compilation of PROFESSIONAL witnesses for a GK shot.

    @ Jeff Morley: How many of these accounts were made or repeated before the Warren Commission (as opposed to FBI reports or statements to the press or researchers)?

  34. Tom Wendt says:

    I watched an interview that Mark Lane did with S.M. Holland. In his documentary “Rush to Judgement”. Very convincing! No one ever mentions this eyewitness account. The Warren Comission just blew him off also!

  35. LYLE B says:

    LOOK AT JFK ASSASSINATION IMAGES BLOG;MARTIN/HUGHES FILMS SYNC.LEE HARVEY OSWALD IS MAN ENTERING BUILDING AT TOP OF TSBD STEPS.HIS SHIRT IS VERY NOTICABLE. BILLY LOVELADY IS LOOKING RIGHT AT HIM.LEE OSWALD WAS NOT IN 6TH FLOOR AT TIME OF SHOOTING.

  36. Mike Rago says:

    John McAdams ear witness data needs to be checked for accuracy.

    He also puts people in the Not Sure Category who heard shots from both the Knoll area and the TSBD area….

    An example is Harry Weatherford

    Harry Weatherford is put in the “Not Sure” category.

    Here is what Harry Weatherford stated

    “I heard a loud report which I thought was a railroad torpedo, as it sounded as if it came from the railroad yard. Thinking, this was a heck of a time for one to go off, then I heard a 2nd report which had more of an echo report and thought to myself, that this was a rifle and I started towards the corner when I heard the 3rd report. By this time I was running towards the railroad yards where the sound seemed to come from.”

    So Harry Weatherford was not sure if the shot came from the Railroad Yard or the Depository.

    There are over 35 people in the “Not Sure” Category.

  37. Mike Rago says:

    John McAdams says “His ‘where the shots seemed to come from’ could not have been his perception”.

    Mr. McAdams you always try to say that someone did not say what they actually did say.

    Here is what he said
    “I heard a loud report which I thought was a railroad torpedo, as it sounded as if it came from the railroad yard.”

    Weatherford is “Knoll ear witness” and should be counted as such. He may have misidentified an echo as a shot and maybe he did not. The important fact is he identifies himself as a Knoll ear witness.

    You cannot arbitrarily say he did not mean what he said.

    This is just one of many ways that your bias shows up in the tabulation.

  38. Arnaldo M Fernandez says:

    A lone gunman is hard to swallow, but saddling him with the shooting a magic bullet is beyond human understanding.
    There is no quantum of proof that the bullet in evidence could pass through JFK and Connally and remain as we can see it.
    On the contrary, there is a conclusive evidence that it couldn’t happen: the ballistics tests carried out by the Department of Defense at Edgewood Arsenal in Maryland.
    See the report Wound Ballistics of 6.5–mm Mannlicher–Carcano Ammunition, CRDLR 3264,and the comments made by the US Army’s most senior expert in wound ballistics, Dr Joseph Dolce.
    From the incredible CE 399 the right inference is that at least a second shooter was at Dealey Plaza.

    • Jonathan says:

      Arnaldo,

      You, I, and most everyone else here know the SBT is a lie. Richard Russell, John Sherman Cooper, and Hale Boggs knew it was a lie. So did LBJ. If one believes H.R. Haldeman, so did Richard Nixon. Bill Clinton populated the ARRB, which GHWB refused to do; Clinton knows the Warren Report is B.S.

      The problem isn’t the Warren defenders. The problem is the MSM, which is devoted to propagating the lie.

      I welcome Photon and John McAdams here. They force Warren critics to sharpen their arguments rather than rely upon accepted truth of the Research community.

      The MSM is the real enemy in terms of getting the American people to grasp the facts of the case. The facts will sell themselves to the people. Not all the people; probably about two-thirds.

      Thanks for your comments here and your writings on CTKA.

    • Paul Turner says:

      It becomes a matter of common sense when you have Connally testifying that he was hit by a different bullet than any that struck JFK. And he took that testimony to his grave.

  39. heather says:

    To say that eyewitness testimony is unreliable is correct. To say that 21 trained police or professional were all unreliable and all wrong is ridiculous.

    if 21 Policeman testified to hearing a shot from the same point or near the same point in ANY trial today that would be pretty damning testimony.

    • John McAdams says:

      The point is: very few heard the shot and thought it was from the Knoll.

      Jeff includes a bunch of Sheriff’s Deputies who were in front of the Criminal Courts Building, with no line of sight to either the Knoll or the Depository.

      He also includes a bunch of cops who had somebody tell them that “somebody was shooting from the buses,” or some such.

      In other words, a bunch of witnesses who did not actually hear shots from the Knoll.

      • Brian H says:

        That’s a bogus claim Mr McAdams…..

      • mball says:

        If they were just reacting to people who did hear the shots and thought that they came from the knoll area, and followed those folks there, that still leaves a pretty good number of people who thought the shots came from the knoll. In The Lost JFJ Assassination Tapes (correct name?), there is one scene right near the front of the TSBD, and there are a whole bunch of people headed straight west. I don’t see anyone headed for the TSBD.

      • Ronny Wayne says:

        Asst. Prof. McAdams, if you stand in front of the Criminal Courts building looking out on Main your right ear is pointed towards the triple underpass and Grassy Knoll. That’s why 1960 “Man of the Year” Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig started running towards it when the first shot sounded.
        If your on the corner of Main and Houston as was Weitzman, watching the cars go by you face Main, then the triple underpass, then the TSBD – about 50 yards away. Facing it your left ear would be pointed at the underpass/knoll.
        The point is, multiple peace officers, all familiar with guns and gunshots heard shots from the knoll area and ran there to investigate. ONE was told “they are shooting him from the bushes”, I.E. a civilian confirmation of what the cops heard and ran to.
        It’s important here to note why the deputies were out front/on the corner. dallas Sheriff Bill Decker had told them to go out and watch the motorcade but to NOT participate in the security of it. Yes, that’s the same Sheriff Decker who years before was a character witness for dallas mob boss Joe Civello. Not that the mod “did it”. But any assistance they might have offered before or after, in conjunction with a corrupt Sheriff’s Office, members of the DPD & DA’s office would have facilitated set up and cover up.

  40. heather says:

    One more thing. Eyewitness testimony is still used and valued in any court of law. The Warren Comission hand picked who they would “testify” and who they ignored. Oswalds lawyer would have had the luxury of calling every one of these 21 witnesses.

    • Jean Davison says:

      Heather,

      These 21 cops (most of them standing just outside Dealey Plaza) thought that ALL the shots were coming from the GK/railroad yard. Do you agree with that?

      At least 10 of these witnesses gave testimony to the WC along with a good many other “knoll witnesses” like Jean Hill.

      What evidence is there that policemen in particular are better at determining where shots are coming from than, say, experienced hunters like John Connally?

      • leslie sharp says:

        Jean, if you don’t mind could you clarify – ALL of the 21 cops thought they heard shots coming from the Grassy Knoll .. or … the 21 cops thought that ALL of the shots came from the Grassy Knoll. There is a difference.

        Relating to the credibility of police testimony vs. that of “a hunter” (in this scenario John Connally) , I would argue that John Connally was not trained to listen to the nuance of an active crime scene; in fact, I would argue that John Connally was somewhat of a champagne hunter, and I can say that with some certainty.

        • Brian H says:

          Leslie if 21 officers testified that they heard a shot came from different areas on the “grassy knoll” area chances are that a shot came from that area.
          Most peoples perception of an event will differ slightly that’s why there is always a search for more than one witness in order to establish a consistent idea of any single event.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Brian, I’m with you on this. My question of Jean was whether or not her position is that 21 cops could not possibly know/believe that ALL shots came from the Grassy Knoll. I want to understand why that degree of certainty by that many trained policemen would fall into question by amateur researchers. Does Jean know something ‘we’ don’t know? And how would the recollection of a seriously injured man (John Connally) trump the spontaneous reaction and follow-up testimony of these 21 cops. Connally may have been a hunter, but my guess is that most of those hunts were controlled, most of the gunfire choreographed.

          • Brian H says:

            That’s a fair point Leslie having been in Dealey Plaza in February I can tell you this much the area where the shots were being fired too and from is SOOO small it’s hard to imagine anyone near the general are could have mistaken where the shots came from! The pictures and film of this area make it look three times as big as it actually is in reality.
            Being and avid hunter I can tell you any shots that close would be loud and unmistakeable I’d even go so far as to say the only shots that would be hard to discern would have been from the sixth floor window that would have required a great deal of skill and a lot of luck and would have been the hardest to hear of all of the shots.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Brian, I lived in Dallas and worked in the area, spending a good deal of time in the West End, so I’m familiar with the scale you are emphasizing. As someone said earlier, it really is the size of a postage stamp metaphorically speaking. The closeness drives home the vulnerability of Kennedy that day, and suggests a colossal failure on the part of his security team and the city of Dallas; it is impossible to accept that those in charge did not give serious consideration to the potential for violence against the president, particularly John Kennedy in Dallas, let alone to choose to relax almost every procedure in the book. This was a plot, on a major scale.

    • Jonathan says:

      Heather,

      You are correct. Eyewitness testimony is admissible in a trial court, subject to the usual rules: must be subject to cross-exam, no leading questions on direct exam, etc.

      The assertion here and elsewhere that eyewitness testimony is unreliable may be accurate but is meaningless in a trial court proceeding. Totally meaningless. The jury weighs the testimony allowed by the judge, and that’s pretty much that.

    • Photon says:

      Name one trial that ever used “ear witnesses ” to establish a source of a shooter.None of the 21 were “eye witnesses”, so your statement is pointless.

      • Jonathan says:

        In response to Photon, but for everyone here:

        An individual may testify as a witness to a matter if he or she has personal knowledge of the matter (as opposed to second-hand knowledge) obtained by the individual from any of his or her sensory perceptions. Federal Rule of Evidence 602.

        An individual who is not an expert may testify as to his or her opinion of a matter if the opinion is

        “(a) rationally based on the witness’s perception;

        (b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony or to determining a fact in issue; and

        (c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge….” Federal Rule of Evidence 702

        In other words, eyewitnesses, ear-witnesses, smell-witnesses, taste-witnesses, and touch-witnesses all may testify as to what they personally perceive. Any assertion to the contrary is contrary to the law.

        • Photon says:

          So you can’t give a single example of a trial using an “ear witness” to establish the direction of a shot.
          Heather described these individuals as “eye witnesses”.
          That either means that 1.- she is confused about the facts or doesn’t understand the difference. 2. -she is purposely misrepresenting the evidence in an attempt to support a point of view.

          • Jonathan says:

            Photon,

            Trial court decisions are almost never reported in the legal reporters.

            The reason is that the trial court’s main function is to determine the factual record, which is generally not subject to review.

            The appellate courts accept the factual record and rule on law.

            Look, Photon. You’re a well-informed person. But you do not understand the judicial system. That’s not a criticism, just an observation for all here.

      • John Kirsch says:

        Do you have any legal training or experience?

        • John Kirsch says:

          My previous comment was directed at Photon.

          • Photon says:

            I am not sure what that has to do with the question of whether there are any records of “ear witness” testimony being used in a trial to establish the source of a gunshot.
            I have been an expert witness. The time wasted during those exercises is unbelievable but financially rewarding.

      • Arnaldo M. Fernandez says:

        However, earwitness seem to be admissible in court if their testimonies are supported just by Physics.
        A 1962 paper on the dynamics of terminal ballistics by the Denver Research Institute explains that a bullet breaks up depending on impact obliquity. If it is less than 20°, there is no break-up; from 20° to 60°, the bullet breaks up. The fragmentation increases with the angle because of the increasing of the bending forces. Over 60°, a rebound turns more likely.
        Thus, the fragments “like grains of sand scattered near the front head wound” remarked by eyewitness Dr. Humes in the autopsy must come from an oblique impact at 20°-60°. It could not be possible for the shoots fired from the TSBD, since the lateral angle was about 10° and the downward one, about 12° (Please, do your graph).
        Kennedy’s head was pushed backward more violent than usual because it was struck at around 60° obliquity, and such an angle points… to the Grassy Knoll! And a nervous reaction cannot explain JFK reaction: no human reflex is faster than a bullet passing a human head.

        • Photon says:

          What paper?
          What kind of bullet?
          The Denver Research Institute is a health care organization founded in 1997.
          You realize that corporate names are registered and cannot be appropriated by other institutions-right?
          Besides, you are supposed to be a legal expert. When did you ever take a physics class?

          • Gerry Simone says:

            You’re on the wrong trail my friend.

            Mr. Fernandez was probably referring to this which bears a similar name but is associated with the University of Denver.

            http://appliedmechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/article.aspx?articleid=1395883

          • leslie sharp says:

            Photon,
            http://www.denverpost.com/ci_18141650

            DU institute goes ballistic, testing materials’ strength for clients
            By Steve Raabe
            The Denver Post
            POSTED: 05/26/2011 01:00:00 AM MDT

            “Need something blown up? Then DU has a deal for you.
            A team of trigger-happy explosives and ballistics experts from the University of Denver stands ready to assist — for a fee — businesses and government agencies seeking to blow things to smithereens in order to build them better. . . . .

            An offshoot of the now-defunct Denver Research Institute at DU, the nonprofit Applied Research and Technology Institute is seeking to build its business. It had revenue of about $265,000 last year. . . . “

    • Paul says:

      That’s the key issue here. The Warren Commission, in their “handpicking” of evidence, told witnesses words to the effect “It couldn’t have happened that way”. How ridiculous of the WC to say that, when none of them were actually there to witness it for themselves.

  41. anonymous says:

    “If you have anything to add to Earl Golz’s reporting about Secret Service imposters in Dealey Plaza”

    Mark Lane might have something – He describes a DPD (deputy sheriff Clyde Haygood?) dropping his motorcycle, running up the grassy knoll and Arresting a suspicious perp behind the fence who offered SS ID @5min: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg2AFtIdkk8#t=310

    Here are more suspicious perps who don’t offer any ID @3.5 min:”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5y8PtfKA14#t=151

    Also @6min: a CITIZEN LANE (a new documentary on Mark Lane ) screening party some youngster asks where is are Mark Lane now?

  42. Brian H says:

    I have something to add! When I went to Dealey plaza in February I did a little exercise in research in three different spots behind the fence on the “Grassy Knoll” after I had picked up a roughly 2 inch thick peice of tree branch and cut it to the approxamite size if a rifle I then put my keys in my pocket put the car in a close proximity to where I was on the fence line with one just on the bridge over the triple underpass I was able to simulate firing a shot then calmly walking over to my car pulling the keys out of my pocket opening the trunk placing my weapon under a blanket closing the trunk walking around the car climbing in starting it up and driving out of the parking lot and turning left on Houston st! I did this twice in 27 seconds and once in 29 seconds!!!!!!!!!
    In other words anyone that wasn’t up there within 30 seconds would have had NO CHANCE of catching or even seeing anyone! So just because no one was caught doesn’t mean what they saw and heard should be ignored!

  43. Jonathan says:

    John McAdams,

    Why isn’t it clear who killed Kennedy?

    Tell us, if you will.

  44. Jonathan says:

    Facts and only verifiable facts count.

    JFK was killed by one or more shots to his head.

    A bullet ploughed through his head.

  45. Jonathan says:

    There is some disinformation in this thread about earwitness testimony in a trial court I want to address.

    First, as to admissibility. An individual who hears a gunshot may testify as to what he or she heard. He or she may even give certain opinions, such as the direction from which the shot was fired, if the opinion is rationally based on what the individual heard.

    The trial judge determines the ADMISSIBILITY of the statements elicited from the individual witness on direct examination. The jury alone assigns WEIGHT to the testimony.

    Second, as to instances in which earwitness testimony has been admitted as evidence in a trial court: To keep this comment brief, I’ll cite just one case that holds earwitness testimony is simply a subset of eyewitness testimony and is admissible subject to the same rules: U.S. v. ANGLETON, 269 F. Supp. 2d 868 (N.D. Tex. 2003).

    • Photon says:

      Please correct me, but didn’t that case deal with voice identification issues, not the source or location of the origin of a sound?

      • Jonathan says:

        The reported ear-witness cases are voice recognition cases.

        A non-expert opinion as to source or direction can be admitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 602, which I quote for you above.

        The law in this area consists of (a) statutory law (the FRE) AND (b) case law (law as expounded by judges in reported cases. The statutory law is plenty broad enough to permit admission into evidence of all kinds of perceptions and eveopinions rationally based on those perceptions. The case law on perception-based evidence is not especially deep in this country and is limited as far as I can tell in the ear-witness arena to voice recognition testimony.

        But lack of case law on other ear-witness testimony only means there’s a void in the case law. The whole body of law is FULL of such voids. That’s why courts are kept in business.

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      Jonathan, I’m not a lawyer. I don’t know where to look for your reference to US VS Angleton. Is it about James Jesus Angleton?

      • Jonathan says:

        No, Ronnie, it’s about a guy in Texas named Robert Angleton who was accused and convicted of murdering his wife.

  46. Arnaldo M. Fernandez says:

    The earwitness are supported just by Physics. A 1962 paper on the dynamics of terminal ballistics by the Denver Research Institute explains that a bullet breaks up depending on impact obliquity. If it is less than 20°, there is no break-up; from 20° to 60°, the bullet breaks up. The fragmentation increases with the angle because of the increasing of the bending forces. Over 60°, a rebound turns more likely.
    Thus, the fragments “like grains of sand scattered near the front head wound” remarked by Dr. Humes in the autopsy come from an oblique impact at 20°-60°, which could not be possible for the shoots fired from the TSBD, since the lateral angle was about 10° and the downward one, about 12° (Please, do your graph).
    Kennedy’s head was pushed backward more violent than usual because it was struck at around 60° obliquity, and such an angle points… to the Grassy Knoll! A nervous reaction cannot explain JFK reaction: no human reflex is faster than a bullet passing a human head.

  47. Cousin Jack says:

    3 shots or 4. That’s the Occam’s Razor of all this. The televised testimony of Abraham Zapruder, who was likely paying closer attention than most on that day, said he couldn’t tell if there were 3 or 4 shots. Clearly others agreed. Good enough for me. “Magic Bullet” theory may well be a red herring because it is aeronautically plausible. Make the case for a shot from the front and you make the case for a “conspiracy” (double-blind or not).

    • Gerry Simone says:

      Aeronautically possible for a highly advanced micro-guided missile.

      Not only is the Magic Bullet’s trajectory fraught with difficulties, so is its physical condition or state, its lack of normally-expected forensic attributes, and defiance of Newtonian physics.

      Read G. Paul Chambers’ “Head Shot”, Orlando Martin’s “Analysis of a Shooting” and Barry Krusch’s series “Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald”.

      • Paul Turner says:

        Gerry, Krusch’s book is next on my list. It’s described in Jim Tague’s book “LBJ And The Kennedy Killing” how Krusch concludes through evidence that there were only two spent shells fired from where LHO was supposed to be, and a third one was planted later. That leads to a lot of evidence of a conspiracy, I’d say.

        • Gerry Simone says:

          Krusch also comments on the disparity of reports or accounts by Captain Fritz which tends to discredit him.

          Captain Fritz is said to have kept on shell casing for analysis, but what was the result of that?

          I’d like to check if there’s any proof about ‘further analysis’?

          Did Lt. Day do any further work? Why didn’t Day or whoever mention ‘one shell retained for further study’?

          Wasn’t Day the forensic guy at the DPD?

          Something seems out of place here.

  48. Jonathan says:

    Jean Davison has written on this forum that she believes Oswald “blew JFK’s brains out.”

    If I were a man from Mars and looked just at the autopsy photos, I’d say, “That’s impossible. His brains couldn’t have been blown out. His head is intact.”

    I were a woman from Venus and looked just at the X-rays, I’d say, “Of course. They were blown out the right top of the skull. There’s a big black space there on the X-rays. The back of the head is densely white and solid.”

    But if the man from Mars and the woman from Venus got together and discussed what they had viewed they’d agree certain Earthlings had pulled a fast one. Right after the woman from Venus saw the head photos and the man from Mars saw the right lateral X-ray of the skull.

    • Paul Turner says:

      The shot that “blew JFK’s brains out” simply didn’t come from the TSBD. The “brains” were splattered in the direction of the cars and motorcyclists BEHIND JFK(that is, in the direction of the TSBD). Oswald may have hit him with one shot, but not the fatal one.

      • Gerry Simone says:

        Oswald or someone else from either the TSBD, Dal-Tex building or County Records Building.

        Most likely Connally was hit twice by separate bullets from the rear. There definitely is a shooter or shooters from the rear too.

  49. Randy says:

    From my viewing of the JFK motorcadet is clear there was a second shooter .

    • Paul Turner says:

      Randy, do you mean what was happening IN the motorcade as it progresed past the TSBD? I, too, think there was a second shooter(if mot more), but I just wanted to be clear about your comment.

  50. Let’s take a detailed look at the Dealey Plaza witness surveys: McAdams vs. Feldman, Galanor and Adjusted: http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/02/26/jfk-dealey-plaza-witnesses-john-mcadams-strange-list/

  51. My visit to Dealey Plaza and the ‘Grassy Knoll’. I spent a weekend, not long ago, walking around the scene. My first impressions MAY be helpful for those who’ve never been there. First: How incredibly small the place is. When we see the films (Zapruder, Nix, etc) everything appears soooo much farther away than they are in real life. So, I’ll give you some distances to consider: From JFK’s head to Zapruder’s lens at frame 313 is only 16 paces. 16 paces from the middle of the street to the small pedestal that Zapruder was standing on. Another observation: The Moorman Photograph. While much his made of the ”Badge Man”. Hogwash folks. I took the time to bring a buddy who I had stand at various points behind the stockade fence (pretending to be targeting Kennedy). I can assure you that, I had gone there to establish that there was a shooter…but, amazingly, the fact is this: If ANYONE had even begun to peek their head over that fence, let alone stick a rifle up over to it, they would appear to be as large as Charlie Brown’s GREAT PUMPKIN. The would be incredibly VISIBLE, EXPOSED, and CLEARLY seen in any photo (vs. having to be ‘interpreted’ by looking at shadows. Just not happening. I was also taken by surprise at how much of a ‘hill’ the limo was going down as well. It is…well….a hill. Period.

    I stood out there in Elm Street and also took HD photos of the ‘alleged’ snipers perch. I used a HD Camera and spent a great deal of time creating on the camera the same ‘life-sized’ aspect. Oswalds (or another shooter) were so close. So close. When I grew up seeing this scene on film I was sure that it had to be a 2nd shooter. However…when going to see the site I became keenly aware that we were all being sold a bill of good by circus-geeks. One shooter…whether or not it was Oswald is the question: I still am waiting for someone to explain how this was printed up at 1:40 pm, Nov 22, BEFORE Oswald was even in custody. Ideas?

    http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0133a.htm

    • JSA says:

      Bill,

      Take a look here, at a contemporary shot of someone standing behind the fence on the knoll (picture on the top right–click on it to see enlarged view):
      http://www.clarke.k12.ga.us/webpages/rrichards/

      I wouldn’t say “great pumpkin” if they were crouching and in a sniper’s position. More like: Can see someone, but once they fled the scene nobody could PROVE they were there.

      But you’re right: it is a small arena. Perfect for a crossfire set up, IMO. Fairly easy getaway from behind the fence, especially if you have someone wearing a badge to slow down pursuit, and if you hand your gun to someone else to get rid of.

      It’s the acoustical evidence that has me convinced that there were at least two directions of fire: from behind and from the front of JFK. The kill shot was fired from in front, behind the fence, on the knoll. You can read what Donald Thomas says in “Hear No Evil”. He breaks down the acoustics evidence quite well. I don’t rule out Oswald as a shooter, since you cannot prove either way; but I AM saying he couldn’t have been both in front and behind, as the acoustics shows. That’s a conspiracy.

      • JSA. I did visit that page. I would note the following from your page. You are clearly visible standing there. If you think about the ‘mechanics’ involved, whether sighting a weapon, peeking over that fence, with only the upper portion of your head visible would still, and I do repeat my initial notation, make one appear to be as large as the Great Pumpkin. Even yourself, while standing where you had me look, would be clearly visible in the Moorman Photo had it been taken back then. Her photo is important because of the ‘timing’ of the Presidents head erupting into fragments, etc. What was noteworthy for me was actually standing EXACTLY where she stood and taking a 1:1 photo, showing just what the human eye would have seen from the curb to the fence. While the technology was ‘ancient’ back then….I found that it wouldn’t matter. There would still be something to ‘see’…and not just leaves and vague shapes. Actually, there is a better view of Moorman’s Photo. Get a copy of Four Days In November. Her photo takes up a full page and one can clearly see, without any doubt, just empty space along the fence. More importantly, the gentlemen who were on the steps, applauding (just before taking off up those stairs), would only be 17 feet from that position….and you can clearly see how large their heads are…and, in my view, how large only a portion sticking up would be if they had been behind that fence.

        I actually always thought there was someone in those shadows…I actually wanted someone to be there. But realistically, anything above that fence would stand out and be seen on her photo….even smoke..which is also absent.

        But more importantly to me….How was it that the police had Oswald accused as being the killer of JFK, Tippet, and shooter of Connolly, at 1:40 pm. He wasn’t even in custody yet. Who signed the affidavit? That’s where the conspiracy lies….Cops on the take, Ruby on the Mob, and Oswald being the patsy.

        • Jean Davison says:

          Bill,

          I completely agree about the visibility of a shooter behind the fence, and how much larger DP seems in photos.

          The 1:40 on the arrest form gives, I think, the approximate time of Oswald’s arrest, not the time the form was filled out. I notice the names of several officers at the bottom, including McDonald and Bentley. If a clerk at police headquarters filled this out, he’d have to collect all that information first.

          • Thanks Jean…..I just wish it was signed. Also…I do find it pretty unusual in that it contained so much information. I mean…as far as the charges…Oswald wasn’t actually bought before a judge until pretty close to midnight as I recall. The time issue may be as you wrote…but I’m not ready to pass it off as a clerical issue. You’re right about the arrest time it appears…but the charges, even if filled in an hour our two later…are pretty inclusive. Agree?

          • Jean Davison says:

            I see your point, Bill, but we don’t know when the remarks were filled in. Could’ve been hours or even days later, who knows?

            It sounds to me like an afterthought someone added later, especially the reference to Connally.

  52. While visiting Dealey Plaza on a recent trip I noted the following: The direction or sounds that someone could hear depend on just where you’re standing in relation to building that toss the sound back to you. For example: I made very loud clapping sounds (we went very early in the A.M. and even the birds scattered off of the roof). I clapped on 4 second intervals. My buddy, standing along the route said that he heard 4 and sometimes even 5 claps ( I only clapped 3 times). He also mentioned that he felt that he could ID where I was making the noise(s) from. He picked the knoll as being the place my ’4th’ clap came from. I had never left the front corner of Houston and Elm. What he ‘reported’ hearing were echoes. We noted that, IF one were on a direct line from the TSBD and not subject to echoes bouncing off the Plaza, you could hear exactly when I clapped. My observation is this: What you heard depended on the movement of the sound waves bouncing around and then returning to you. If you were out toward the middle of the street where there was nothing to bouncy the sound ‘back’ to you…you got it right. FWIW.

  53. http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0133a.htm

    I am still hoping for someone to comment on how this report could be written at 1:40 pm on 11/22..right down to specifics…and yet LHO was not even in custody yet. Comments welcome.

  54. Allen Lowe says:

    Mr Morley: please note that all the analyses I have seen of where the shots came from seem to be missing one crucial point: if you want to devise a survey of who thought what came from where, you need to sample the people who were IN THE RIGHT PLACE to have a real opinion – in other words, those who stood either on the knoll or between the knoll and the Depository. You don’t question witnesses that were too far away to know; so the question is: what percentage of those who were standing WHERE THEY COULD HEAR THE DIRECTION OF THE SHOTS thought they came from the knoll?

    • Allen Lowe says:

      let me add, that I am willing to bet that an overwhleming majority of such would say the shots came from the grassy knowll, McAdam notwithstanding.

  55. Paul Turner says:

    The radio reporter in the helicopter said “several police officers are rushing up the hill at this time”. That’s what he saw, so of course that’s why he reported it. The officers running up the hill far outnumber those who converged around the TSBD, or went inside.

  56. Ronnie Wayne says:

    Jeff, this is one of the best articles you have done since I started first reading the site about a year ago (IMHO).
    The documented statements of the 21 cops, your comments and the context they are reported in taken in conjunction with other facts make a compelling case for a shot from the right front. Thus a conspiracy, and, the Warren omission (in part by ignoring the statements of the 21 cops) not only falls apart, but becomes suspect itself.
    When you add statements from civilian witnesses corroborating these Peace Officers to photographic evidence of people hitting the ground and running to the knoll it further supports such a conclusion.
    Then we have gun smoke seen and smelled there. Plus the statements of Powers, O’Donell and Yarborugh. Lest we forget part of that photographic evidence, back and to the left.
    Thank you, and, excellent work.

    • Gerry Simone says:

      Nice summation for a jury in any trial of LHO.

      This isn’t to say that there weren’t shots fired from behind or that witnesses didn’t hear them (to have a conspiracy, we can’t discount shots fired from the TSBD or other rear buildings).

  57. NO! If a cop says he does not know where the shots came from, that settles the question. It doesn’t matter that he searches the GK area, since he obviously did that for reasons other than what he personally, heard.

  58. John Kirsch says:

    Photon, do you consult with legal experts in the preparation of the comments you write about the legal aspects of 11/22? If your answer is yes, what are the names and credentials of these legal experts?

  59. John Kirsch says:

    Photon, re: your March 18 response to my question, “No. Do you? Have you ever been in a courtroom?” No, I don’t consult with legal experts. That is because I avoid commenting on the legal aspects of the case because I have no background in legal issues. I covered a number of trials as a reporter but I don’t believe that makes me any kind of legal expert. Do you believe being an “expert witness,” as you have claimed, gives you legal expertise?

  60. John Kirsch says:

    Just an addition to my prvs March 19 comment.
    I did well enough on the LSAT to be admitted to law school.
    Would that make me qualified to comment on the legal aspects of 11/22 (or anything else), Photon?
    P.S., I changed my mind about law school when I realized I didn’t actually want to be a lawyer.

  61. Photon says:

    No. Do you? Have you ever been in a courtroom?

  62. Photon says:

    Which one?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more