21 JFK cops who suspected 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.

Their testimony was ignored or 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.

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.

Many pharmaceutical giants in America have strong lobbyists working to keep generic Viagra from India out of the market.

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.

How to corroborate?

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, independently, that their reaction to the gunfire was to go search the area famously known as “the grassy knoll.”

Dealey Plaza moment
The view of the grassy knoll, moments after the asssasination of JFK.

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 they did

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 gunman 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.


COME BACK TOMORROW FOR JFK STORY #13 What Bill Newman, the closest eyewitness, saw on November 22, 1963.




348 thoughts on “21 JFK cops who suspected a grassy knoll shot”

  1. James Feldman

    Those interested in the JFK assassination will find it helpful to read original source materials. My late uncle Harold Feldman wrote the first article supporting the argument that at least one gunshot was fired at JFK from the grassy knoll. In 1966, Esquire Magazine credited Feldman with “advanc[ing] the theory that there were [at least] two assassins: one on the grassy knoll and one in the Book Depository.” The article was “Fifty-one Witnesses: The Grassy Knoll,” published in The Minority of One (March 1965). See: http://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Jfk-conspiracy/51_wits.html

  2. I don’t believe earwhitness evidence should carry weight on the assisanation. Two reasons::::1..with all the tall buildings there was bound to be echoes just about everywhere. There was probably real booms in several places. It would be hard to tell if it was from guns ,a explosive device or an echo. PROBABLY all of above. Less face it, this assassination was not done by amateurs. Jimmy Hoffa was over the Teamsters union of all the movie studios.Also over the NRA . As well of the ironworkers union and the truckers union and much more.Jack Ruby had military experience..They put the assassination together. Instead of a military smokescreen, they used what I would call a soundscreen.They never planed the assassination without considering the sound.Not with Hoffa’s access to movie sets and virtually the gunmakers union.A movie maker thinks all these things out. Echoes and all. All the noise was a SOUNDSCREEN. 2::::::The gun that killed Kennedy had a silencer on it. Jimmy Hoffa got the gun and silencer straight from the factory..in fact the silencer was the first factory made silencer every ,factory made. Jack Ruby was supplied the items from Hoffa. Jack Ruby was supplied the items and he with two other men quietly killed president Kennedy behind the soundscreen and the assassin with the driver of the car quietly went back to Tennessee where Hoffa had waited with the assassin’s family till the assassination was complete. Written by G.W.Hicks

  3. Why is there not equal attention on the habits and murder of Officer JD Tippet? And the witnessed events at LHO’s boarding house, a housekeeper, who saw in a marked Dallas Police car, 2 uniformed officers who pulled up alongside at the curb, just outside LHO’s residence, while he was inside, and honked the horn two times, then immediately drove off. This signaling to LHO to take some pre-orchestrated action, is rather evident to me, but as an investigator this is how I am trained to think. This link between a Police Officer team (2 officers) and LHO is very significant. Yet rarely if ever gets addressed and discussed. Officer Tippet was murdered not long after this witnessed event.

    Furthermore, many eye witnesses — including two store employees and the store owner, a cab driver, several other drivers, one of whom Tippet made a stop on to search their vehicle, and another driver, a young woman, who was driving behind Tippet on the street where he was murdered, just a few seconds prior to his murder (she said that Tippet stopped suddenly and he then backed up, hitting this girl’s car; and that spot where he parked as soon as he backed up, is where the murder occurred). Clearly, Tippet was searching for someone and something. This was not part of his police duty either, due to the Dallas Police Dept Dispatcher transcripts data, which doesn’t lie; these data show Tippet as not even authorized to be in that area. His patrol duty zone was at least 6 miles away. So what in the hell was he doing in that area? What was he searching for? Who was he looking for? Why was Tippet out of radio contact with Dallas Police Dispatch just 10 to 12 minutes prior to his murder? Why are all these and related facts pertaining to Tippet and the Dallas Police, not discussed? This is not an anomoly. Tippet’s murder is tied to the JFK assassination in ways none of us have any awareness of. Residents and the cab driver serving that area testified as having seen Tippet in that area every day, yet he was not on duty in that area and didn’t live there. This is the area just one block away from the theatre. In addition, Tippet was a veteran police officer in his 40’s and not some rookie. Some whom I know speculate it was likely Tippet who fired the head shot from the Grassy Knoll. “Badgeman” fits his description — height and uniform both; and Tippet was within just a few blocks from DP, both before and immediately after the shootings. His car was spotted parked in a lot facing the Houston Viaduct Overpass, within minutes of the shooting. Witnesses who saw him that day during his shift, who knew of him, due to repeated encounters in the past, said he was very different in behavior that day, agitated, upset, worried about something, and that morning before leaving his home he returned a book he borrowed and also told his oldest son “no matter what happens today, know I love you” … now why would he say such a statement? The Tippet matter is a very intriguing, very big aspect of the JFK case.

  4. Pingback: Das Schweigen der Akten | Heinrichplatz TV

  5. William Connor

    Our President was brutally and Publicly Murdered for all to see and our Government has done nothing to find the truth?
    The American People deserve the real truth on the Assassination. Who ordered, who participated, who covered the truth. Why the silence for so many years.
    1. Who paid for Oswald’s return to the U.S.
    2. Where is the evidence ordered by Hoover to be sent to the FBI
    3. Was there a bullet hole in the front windshield?
    4. Were the people who said Secret Service personnel were flashing credentials to people and police ever followed up?
    5. Where is the paperwork on the three tramps?
    There are too many unanswered normal questions that should have been answered!
    There are too many unanswered questions on JFK and RFK assassination that remains unanswered!

  6. Thomas Aldrich

    Exactly right Polly. I would also add to that the well known fact of a bullets entry and exit woulds. It’s a proven fact that the only way a bullet can take out a large piece of the skull in the back of the head is if it entered from the front of the subject, not the rear. That alone is more than enough to prove that LHO was NOT the killer of our President!

  7. Polly Gurunath

    Yes, I, for one, strongly believe that the fatal head shot was fried from the Grassy knoll region, one hundred percent, for sure. Ofcourse, all these eye witnesses who have testified that the fatal head shot was fired from the Grassy knoll is very important and genuine, I am sure, the video footage of Zapurder’s film, especially, frame #313, is more than enough for the whole world to see and accept that the fatal head shot was fired from the GK region only. There is no more evidence required to prove this issue.

    1. the ” Z ” film that the public saw had been compromised . Dino Brugione , one of the best photo interpreters in the country saw the real original and said it was nothing like was broadcast later on TV …… the big red blob was painted in by the conspirators so it would look like he was shot from the rear . At the right rear of his skull , where 30 doctors , nurses , medical attendants , FBI & S.S. saw a 3 to 4 inch blowout was covered by a bulk mat in the Z film …. confirmed by todays experts ……

  8. Jeremy Gilbert

    In the end, the fundamental problem with the earwitness testimony for those who claim there were two or more snipers is the fact that some 95% of those same earwitnesses report the shots came from a SINGLE direction. Given the multitude of witnesses who either saw a sniper firing from the TSBD, or a rifle in the window, or hearing shells dropping from overhead, there is no doubt there in fact were shots fired from there.

    Therefore, those who said they heard shots from the GK were in fact hearing the same shots as those who said they came from the TSBD – but were wrong about where the shots came from.

    If this was not so, we’d EXPECT to hear many, likely MOST, witnesses – instead of a small handful – reporting multiple sources for the shots.

    Further, a similar percentage report a maximum of three shots, when many of these scenarios require at least four shots.

    And, still further, Lee Bowers, who was watching the motorcade from the railway tower with an unobstructed view of the rear of the fence at the GK where, many here claim, a sniper was present, told Mark Lane “no one” was there at the time of the assassination.

    Bottom line – the WC conclusion of single sniper in facts matches the witness testimony given almost every witness said the shots came from a single source.

    1. If knoll shooter(and helper?) is exist.
      Clearly visible elsewhere.
      TSBD 6th shooter(If Oswald or not) witnessing by about 10 men(and women).
      Why no one see knoll shooter?
      Jean Hill and Ed Hoffman’s testimony are unreliable.

      I read and analyzed first-generation’s gunshot sound analyzed articles(“Rush to Judgement””Grassy Knoll,Fifty-one witness”).
      These articles are not fair.
      They counted foward running men and women as “knoll witness”.
      But in many footage,so many men and women going after the JFK’s car.

    2. The majority of witness testimony also reported, Mr. Gilbert, that the last two shots were simultaneous and right on top of each other; far closer together than a bolt action rifle would allow.

      How does this fit into your single shooter theory?

    3. Lawrence P. Schnapf

      this 95% that people heard a shot from a single location is a meaningless and absurd statistic that is used only to discredit otherwise credible witnesses. why would people have heard only one shot from one location. easy. the crowd noise and the vehicle noise could gave drown out early shots. moreover, natural human reaction is that witnesses were focused on watching the president and probably not aware of shots until he started reacting to the shots. and if those witnesses were located near the GK, it would only be natural for them to think that the shots came from the GK.

    1. I have this book,perhaps you have it.
      This book contain many pictures.
      In 72p,from upper picture,perhape all man and woman
      understand matter,if knoll shooter(s and helpman) is exist,
      clearly visible elsewhere.
      You understand it?
      Conspiracy theory is only theory,imagination,not a truth,fact.

      1. Fact: I believe conspiracy.

        Not because of Oswald’s intriguing intelligence community background, not the Mexico City impersonations, not the single bullet theory, not witness testimony and witness reaction, not the Zapruder film, not “back & to the left,” not the credentialed secret service agents atop the grassy knoll, not the Parkland doctors, not Ruby’s underworld ties, not the CIA’s post-assassination misinformation campaign, not the intimidated and perjured testimony, not bungled investigations nor autopsy, not the mysterious deaths or murders, not the House Select Committee’s conspiracy finding, not confessions or revelations of the participants or those in power, not the decades-old coverups, and it’s not the continued withholding of information & files.

        The reason is: all the reasons put together.

  9. Most absurd insist in JFK assassination conspiracy theory.
    Until now,so many experiment carry out.
    Conspiracy or not,Grassy Knoll shot is not exist.
    Grassy Knoll Shooter is uran legend.
    I not agree Sherry Fiester’s final conclusion(“Enemy of Truth”),
    but I agree her brave conclusion,”Grassy Knoll shooter is not exist”,100% agree.

  10. In the picture with the policeman and his motorcycle, there is an opening in the roadside. Not sure what you call them in the USA (storm drain? culvert?) as I am UK based. A friend mentioned a documentary which suggested there is enough room down one of those things for a person to be concealed. Only speculation but the right place for the head shot and also for the bystanders to assume it came from the knoll. Sorry if this has been posted previously and I missed it.

    1. That theory of a storm drain shooter was in Nigel Turner’s outstanding documentary “The Men Who Killed Kennedy”. I went to dealey plaza several years ago and looked into that storm drain. It is only about 3’ high inside and unless it’s been modified since 1963, I’m not sure how a shooter could be positioned inside, or how a shooter from there could even see the President with such a low angle. A part of the storm drain system could have been used as an escape route, but the drain opening on Elm Street itself couldn’t have been where a shooter was stationed.

    1. You would bet all you own that the JFK head shot was fired from in front?

      Congratulations, you win the bet. AND here is WHY you’d win the bet.

      When the US government and the presstitutes tell you a fact is a fact, do you believe them? OR do you verify what they said is true? What do you do when the information is too complicated for you to evaluate, do you just believe them? Here is why these questions are relevant to you winning your big bet, was the JFK head shot fired from the front?

      Instead of verifying that the most important evidence in the jFK case is valid by the methodology that the US government “experts” used, let’s do something a bit easier not only to do, let’s do something that is easier to understand.

      It turns out that it is possible to prove that a conspiracy killed President Kennedy. It uses information available that any JFKer can easily verify. Repeating again, if you want to know the truth about who killed JFK and why, you simply cannot use any forged evidence.


  11. I’ve been a student of the assassination since 1978, read the WC, Posner, Bugliosi, Fetzer and everyone of importance. Yet I probably know less about what ‘truly’ happened now, than I thought I knew when I first read Robert Sam Anson’s book “They’ve Killed The President” in 1976. But what I feel extremely confident about is this: the HSCA film blur evidence, coupled with JFK’s ‘severe’ reaction (a.k.a “the handsnap”) convinces me, beyond a reasonable doubt, there was a fourth shot; that’s about all I really know with a certainty. And a fourth shot means a second shooter. My website explores the hand snap in much detail.

  12. In a lifetime of seeing and experiencing shocking and harrowing events I have learned that eyewitness and ear-witness accounts can be extremely poor and inaccurate.A sudden devastating event can blur memory images and recall. Opinions are not facts and without knowledge they are pointless banter. The Warren Commission may well have failed to uncover some detail but their conclusion was correct. If there ever was a conspiracy to kill JFK those involved would never have believed their luck, being hunted by clowns in a circus of fantasists.

    1. As we’re not under moderation at the moment:
      Matt, do you read, much? The Warren Commission was shredded by Sylvia Meagher in 1967 and has since been further discredited by many respected researchers.

    2. Lawrence P. Schnapf

      It is true that eyewitness and earwitness testimony can be unreliable and is best used to corroborate physical evidence. marcello confessed to planning the assassination to Van Laningham who was Marcello’s cell mate as an undercover informant . He has him on tape. Hoover could not pursue the mob connection because he was compromised in a number of ways.

  13. We also can hear truths shining through on Air Force One Tapes.

    I can understand Military Brass heading back to Washington. I dont understand the Military being in charge of the Official Autopsy. Or a likely Secret Autopsy. But they were.

    Arlen Spector finally owned up to coming up with SBT without being allowed to see JFK Autopsy photos. See Shenon book. That’s quite a revelation right there.

  14. Missing frames from Zapruder Film likely show the shooter from the Grassy Knoll.

    Conspirators werent counting on a film of the Assasination.

    In one of the darkest days in our lifetime truths shine through in this film.
    There was a shooter on the Grassy Knoll. Single Bullet Theory was a lie.

    Those at the highest levels knew how many shots & from which direction.

    We were being protected from the truth at the very least. It continues to look however like the truth is much more sinister.

    1. Missing frames from Zapruder Film?
      These frames included “SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS”(1967).
      These frames missing from original ver film,but remain in copy ver film.

  15. None of these individuals deeply involved in the case believed in a lone gunman:

    Senator Richard Russell, member of the Warren Commission
    John McCloy, member of the Warren Commission
    Rep. Hale Boggs, member of the Warren Commission
    Senator John Sherman Cooper, member of the Warren Commission
    Rep. Henry Gonzalez, chair of the HSCA
    Rep. Don Edwards, chair of the HSCA
    Robert Blakey, Chief Counsel for the HSCA
    Robert Tanenbaum, Chief Counsel for the HSCA
    Richard A. Sprague, Chief Counsel for the HSCA
    Gary Cornwell, Deputy Chief Counsel for the HSCA

    1. Add to that list Lyndon Johnson. Who had access to more or better intelligence, FBI/CIA connections than this man? From the very beginning LBJ said it was a communist conspiracy. Then he told many behind the scenes Fidel Castro did it. Then he told two of his closest that the CIA killed Kennedy.

      LBJ later said he never once believed the Warren Report. Then he dropped the deflection nugget that the USA was running “Murder Inc.” in the Caribbean which implied blowback killed JFK.

      Richard Nixon thought the Warren Report was garbage.

      By 1973 Barry Goldwater was telling friends that Lyndon Johnson killed JFK.

      The KGB thought LBJ Did It (by 1965).

      Charles DeGaulle was convinced a high level domestic American conspiracy had murdered JFK.

    2. Can you document that with something better than rumor? For instance, what is your proof that Blakey thinks that there were two gunmen?
      What is the proof that John McCloy thought there were two gunmen?
      Russell was so “deeply involved” that Warren had to send him a note complaining about his non-attendance and lack of interest in the case. Why CTers latch on to the one guy on the Commission who knew the least beats me.
      And really, what do the opinions of these people matter? Take Gonzalez, for example. He went to his death believing in a conspiracy behind the shooting of George Wallace.
      George Wallace?

        1. These information is too old.
          McCone’s comment quoted by Schlesinger(“Robert Kennedy and His Times”,1978) and (“Journals:1952-2000”,2008).
          But from today’s circumstances and today’s viewpoint,these opinion is worthless as a fact.
          Because Grassy Knoll Shooter is not exist.

          1. What in the world are you talking about? You think McCone’s opinion is “worthless” because it’s “too old”? That’s certainly a novel argument, considering that all of the evidence in this case is more than 50 years old.

            McCone — like Johnson, Hoover, RFK, Ford, and the other high-ranking officials who talked about the possibility of a conspiracy — was in a position to know when something looked fishy. That’s why their suspicions of a conspiracy, however wispy, still matter.

          2. This comment is my answer to J.D.
            Thanks J.D.
            In fact,McCone’s comment quoted by many assassination reserch books.
            “Brothers”,”Mary’s mosaic”…

            But we lived 2016 A.C.
            Not 1963 A.C.
            Today is 07/06/2016(Japan time,I’m Japanese).
            We can use newest tecnique.
            These tecnique can’t used McCone’s era.

            For example,we can see Grassy Knoll
            area from JFK’s car viewpoint by google
            earth street view.
            If shooter is exist,clearly visible from JFK’s car and next car.
            1963 era picture and 8-mm film’s resolution is low,we can’t realized this common-sence.

            Recently assassination reserch tv-program team often used 3D-CG maked by 3D scanning machine.
            Front shot is nothing,impossible.

            In 1998,at Dealey Plaza’s trejectory reconstruction,Robert Groden and test team used laser trejectory machine.
            Test result is below.
            “Front shooter is not exist”.
            “Especiall knoll shooter existence denied at first”.
            “Most probable shooter point is TSBD 6th sputheast window”.
            “Dal-tex 2th shot is probable”.

            But groden neglect his own conclusion.
            His recently picture book “JFK:ABSOLUTE PROOF”(2013) contain his past work.
            “JFK”,”EXECUTIVE ACTION”,”RUBY”,”Forrest Gump”(as Movie Consultant).
            “THE ASSASSINATION FILMS”(as DVD maker).

            He blamed Discovery Channel’s “Unsolved History” series(JFK’s probelm),JFK’s trejectory reconstruction by Dale Myers’s CG in this book.

            Why he not refer his own experiment?
            Why he not admit his own conclusion
            “Front shooter is not exist”.
            “Especiall knoll shooter existence denied at first”?

            I’m so tired resercher’s side disguise and deception and cover-up!

          3. McCone — like Johnson, Hoover, RFK, Ford, and the other high-ranking officials who talked about the possibility of a conspiracy — was in a position to know when something looked fishy.

            What, precisely, did McCone say?

            I’d like a direct quote, in context.

          4. This comment is answer to Prof.Adams.

            “All the pressures in Washingnton were toward a quick and uncomplicated verdict.Robert Kennedy,I believe,had his own thoughts.We spent the evening of December 9 together.”I asked him,perhaps tactlessly,about Oswald.He said that was still argument if he had done it by himself or as part of a larger plot,whether organized by Castro or gangsters.The FBI thought he had done it by himself,but McCone thought there were two people involved in the shooting””
            (Arthur Schlesinger,”Robert Kennedy and his times”,paperback,p664).

            His source is “Author’s Journal,December 9,1963”.

            After the his death,this journal is published.
            I get and read this,but I can’t find this book.

      1. Lawrence P. Schnapf

        you need to catch up on your reading,
        Russell did not believe in the single bullet theory. He papers are available for review at the University of Georgia Libarary. Professor Donald Wilkes wrote about Russell’s dissent. I can share articles if you want to read them.
        Russell’ legal aide, Alfreddo Scobey, kept him informed of all developments and wrote one of the first legal articles exposing the holes in the official theory in January1965 in an American Bar Association publication. Again, I can share the article with you or post it.

        Did you read Blakely’s book or for that matter the HSCA report? he believes the mob was involved.

  16. Zapruder Film shows evidence of a shot from the right front and/or Grassy Knoll.

    It’s one of the main reasons we could never believe WC Report.

    Untrained eye has always been able to see this.

    Lee Bowers in railroad tower also saw figures behind picket fence. Flashes of something. Gun with a silencer it seems. Cars racing away.

    Some have alleged there are frames of the Z Film missing. Something has always looked wrong with that frame of the devastating head shot. Yes, looks like frames are missing. But it shows shot from right in progress.

    What do the missing frames show?

  17. Why would any individual read a single story about what the Dallas PD had to say about the JFK assassination. Accounts from them are ludicrous. From stopping in the Middle of Elm Street, to circling back to see JFK Shooting Scene….just a bunch of cops with ‘stories to tell’.

    Simply put: Poor police work….poor protection…and a single man (or with Ruby et-al) with a desire to step out of the shadows of his bullshit life.

    Kennedy said it best: ‘We’re in Nut Country now Jackie’.

  18. One thing about the Grassy Knoll is that there were three men on the path or stairs that lead up the hill to behind the picket fence at the time of the shots. You can see this on the Nix film.

    These men do indeed also run right up there to behind then fence, and would have been there within seconds of the shots being fired. Certainly if there were men firing there, they’d have been found by these men.

    But who were these men? One was the groundskeeper of Dealy Plaza. I know that. I would like to know more about these three men and their testimony. I’m not saying we can simply take his testimony without applying critical thought – if there was a conspiracy, he’s certainly not someone whose actions you could leave up to chance on that day. But it would be interesting to now.

    1. Don. Most people don’t want to deal with the reality of your point. The men that bolted up those stairs, beginning in the same second of JFK’s head shot were questioned.

      Isn’t it amazing that the story…and I do mean STORY, of Gordon Arnold is completely shredded by this fact?? The way that Mr. Arnold tells his story he see the man with his ‘gun’, the man asked him if he had a camera, the man open it and took his film, the man then threatened him. All while all hell is breaking loose and yet nobody sees this amazing disappearing man.

      Comical. You sum it up correctly. IT JUST NEVER HAPPENED and everyone and his ‘Badge Man’ brother will swear it does.

      Nothing but sensationalism.

  19. Not to rain on the parade but if the Plaza caused echoes (which Bowers said in his testimony) then the fact that witness heard shots from the knoll only means they correctly heard the echo. Earwitness testimony is even more unreliable than eyewitness testimony. Unfortunately, our memories do not function like taperecorders or video cameras and are highly susceptible to error and bias–especially during a tramautic event like an assassination. Without corroborating evidence in the form of “hard” evidence, or expert testimony dismissing the effect of echoes, the earwitness testimony should not be given much weight.

    1. There’s plenty of other corroborating evidence, most of it indirect, the problem as usual is the investigation and “evidence” are biased and flawed.

      The same logic could be used the other way around: there was a shot from the grassy knoll but due to echoes sounded like it came from the TSBD.

  20. Photon-looks like you’re blinded by your own light. If you watch a high quality version of the Z film in very slow motion, you can actually see some flesh colored material sliding towards the back of the trunk at Z345. Indeed, at Z236 it almost looks like Jackie’s right hand was trying to catch something in mid-air, she waved at it and missed, and then got up reach back for it. It was NOT trying to escape. Look at her body. She was stretching her arms and torso to reach something. Beginning at Z377, you can see she has reached her maximum stretch and in the next slides begins to pull back her right arm. It would appear she grabbed what she was reaching for. Her legs never left the seat. All this happens before before Hill pushes her back in.

    Also- if you compare Z313 (moment of impact) and then compare later frames Z335 and after, you can see some coating on the trunk that was not obvious at Z312.

  21. If one accepts the possibilities that a) Witnesses were coached/coerced b)Silencers were used c) One shot can make up three large noises on its travels d)there may have been echoes e) Firecrackers may have been used as decoys etc etc then earwitness testimony doesn’t get to the truth and a statistical analysis of it is meaningless. The Zapruder film must have some truth within it, but possibly not enough to say much about shots, certainly not much about shots from other than behind.
    The best shot direction evidence comes from the eyewitness testimony of the people who saw the president before any doubt about wound tampering. That is of the medical staff at Parkland hospital whose testimony was supressed until its newsworthiness had diminished dramatically.

  22. If the shot came from behind, and the missile’s trajectory caused the organic material from the President’s brains and skull to follow in a compatible array then why is the First Lady picking up pieces of the President’s skull off the back of the limo? This, for me, is the best evidence for a low flat angled right/front assault with a frangible bullet. That is the only evidence necessary to prove a second shooter, let alone, a third or fourth from any number of other locations suitable to cause a series of triangular kill-zones. It is my humble, but serious, opinion that the shooters were situated to accomodate the ideal “turkey shoot” parade route through the plaza, but allowed for the original route that excluded the dangerous plaza, as well.
    Mrs. Kennedy’s reaction, however visceral and instinctual, is the best evidence for the momentum of an impact originating from the President’s front to carry a detached piece of skull to the rear of the limo. No one (so far as I am aware) has contested Mrs. Kennedy’s motives for being on the back of that limo in such a dangerous predicament other than to retrieve a piece of skull debris. If there exists another explanation for why a piece of the President’s head would (or could) find its way to the trunk behind him if that is where the shot eminates, I would be extremely happy to be able to sleep assured that all facets of American society have not been compromised by the lack of moral integrity necessary to continue a murderous plot even to this day.

    1. She was trying to get out of the line of fire, particularly after hearing John Connolly scream ” they are going to kill us all”.
      There was nothing to retrieve from the back of the limo-look at the Zapruder film-the back is pristine.

      1. Photon-looks like you’re blinded by your own light. If you watch a high quality version of the Z film in very slow motion, you can actually see some flesh colored material sliding towards the back of the trunk at Z345. Indeed, at Z236 it almost looks like Jackie’s right hand was trying to catch something in mid-air, she waved at it and missed, and then got up reach back for it. It was NOT trying to escape. Look at her body. She was stretching her arms and torso to reach something. Beginning at Z377, you can see she has reached her maximum stretch and in the next slides begins to pull back her right arm. It would appear she grabbed what she was reaching for. Her legs never left the seat. All this happens before before Hill pushes her back in.

        Also- if you compare Z313 (moment of impact) and then compare later frames Z335 and after, you can see some coating on the trunk that was not obvious at Z312.

      2. Photon, if that is the case where did Jackie get the part of her husband’s brains that she carried in her hands, (was heard by the other occupants of the limousine saying “I’ve got his brains in my hands”) and then gave to a nurse at Parkland?

      3. Photon, if you’re first sentence is correct, then Clint Hill pushes her back INTO the line of fire. Nice of him, since he’s assigned to protect her.

      4. Bob Prudhomme

        From the Warren Commission testimony of Clinton J. Hill, Secret Service:

        “Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe as to President Kennedy’s condition on arrival at the hospital?
        Mr. HILL. The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head.”

        Blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car?

        1. “Rear,” of course, is extremely vague.

          Here is Hill in a 1990s documentary putting the wound “above the ear.”


          You folks need a wound with blown out occipital bone. Just saying “rear” or “occipital-parietal” or “occipital region” doesn’t get it for you.

          BTW, do you think the Zapruder film is faked?

          Do you think the autopsy photos and x-rays are faked?

  23. Actually, if you examine the statements of the 21 law enforcement officers named, only 4 actually said the shots came from the area of the grassy knoll, 5 made vague references to the knoll, 3 didn’t know, and 8 were never asked. One thought shots came from both the GK and the TSBD. What is even more interesting is that 15 said there were definitely only 3 shots with not a single one hearing more than 3. -Source: Stewart Galanor

    1. I see no one has responded to your comment, but after looking up just three of the statements on this list of 21, I came to the same conclusion. The citations don’t at all support the claims that these cops reported shots from the grassy knoll. Often time, the testimony is the opposite what what this page claims. Even more hilariously, if you read their statements, they support the fact that there were only three shots. And Weitzman found a piece of the president’s skull on the road *in front of where the president was shot.* Why isn’t that testimony cited on here? Oh wait, it’s inconvenient for those who are perfidious enough to falsely quote people as having heard grassy knoll shots but who didn’t actually do so or even say so.

  24. 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.

  25. 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.

    1. 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).

  26. 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.

  27. 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?

    1. 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.

      1. The fatal headshot obviously came from the front right side of JFK. I have tried to see him jerk forward as one logically would from a rear shot, but he does not. So, there must have been a second shooter in the vicinity of the grassy knoll. And for many years I fully accepted Oswald as the lone shooter, but the film of JFK’s reaction to the last shot just won’t go away for me.

  28. 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.

  29. 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?


    1. 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):

      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.

      1. 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.

        1. 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.

          1. 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?

          2. 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.

          1. Nell,

            Just a general description was broadcast. Oswald’s name didn’t go out over the police radio before he was arrested. At some point Truly noticed that Oswald was gone and gave Fritz his name and the Paine address Oswald had provided. By the time Fritz got back to the police station and gave orders to look for Oswald in Irving, one of the detectives who’d been at the theater said, “Captain, we will save you a trip….there he sits.”

      2. Hello. There is absolutely no evidence, with any credibility, that a shot was fired from the right front. My point, and thank you for you photo page, is that, given the technology of the day back then, photographs like those taken in Dealey Plaza make it appear so, so, sooooo far away. Yet, in reality, the issue remains: Any human being trying to get Kennedy’s head in a sigh would have been clearly visible in the photos taken from the opposite side. In fact, IF there were to be a shooter trying to sight JFK from behind the Knoll, he/she would have been seen clearly in still photos. It is just that small of an area and I do not agree with others talking about being able to hide. Of course someone ‘could’ hide. But they could not have hid themselves trying to get that shot off. since you were back there…you know that JFK would have been hidden from the ‘shooter’ until his car emerged from behind the stone wall. So, if that is the case he would have been clearly seen in that position in ‘M’s famous photographs.

        Conjecture isn’t getting it done is what I am saying. I still laugh at the nonsense about Gordon Arnold and his crazy story. The way this nitwit talks about it he must have had a discussion and written an essay within seconds of the shot. Down on ground, covering up, roll of film exposed, sniper with gun. LOL…all while the 3 men on the stairs visible in film and photos run up TOWARD this nonsensical encounter???/


        Anyway….the best photo is the one I mentioned in “Four Days In November”. Clearly shows the entire knoll at the moment of impact.

    1. 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.

  30. 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.

    1. 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.

      1. 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.

  31. 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).

    1. 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”.

      1. 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.

        1. 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.

  32. Arnaldo M. Fernandez

    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.

  33. 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).

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

      1. 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.

    2. 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?

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

  34. Facts and only verifiable facts count.

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

    A bullet ploughed through his head.

  35. 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!

  36. “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:”

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

  37. 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.

    1. 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?

      1. 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.

        1. 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.

          1. 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.

          2. 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.

          3. 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

      1. 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.

        1. 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.

          1. 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.

      2. Arnaldo M. Fernandez

        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.

        1. 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?

          1. Photon,

            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. . . . “

    4. 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.

  38. 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.

    1. 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.

      1. 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.

        1. I can understand why cops who thought shots came from the grassy knoll raced up there, but why would private citizens do so, too? Had I been there and thought shots were fired from a particular direction, I’d have run in the opposite direction.

      2. 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.

      3. McAdams,

        What does “line of sight” have to do with earwitnesses?

        If I am in my kitchen pouring a cup of coffee and hear a knock on my front door, am I liable to go to my back door because ican see it as it is nearer the kitchen?\\][//

  39. Arnaldo M Fernandez

    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.

    1. 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.

    2. 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.

  40. 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.

    1. Weatherford was standing in front of the Sheriff’s office. That was on Main Street, within sight of Dealey Plaza, but with no line of sight to either the Grassy Knoll or the Depository.

      1. Weatherford was standing about 30 feet east of the corner of Houston and Main.

        I have marked that location on the following picture of Dealey Plaza. For reference, the width of Houston street is 60 feet. The red dot is the location of Weatherford and other officers. It is about 30 feet east of the corner of Houston and Main.


        Allan Sweatt statement

          1. No.

            This aerial view shows exactly what I wanted to show, the wide open space between the Knoll and the intersection of Main and Houston Street.


            However, I will also use your view to show Weaterford’s location and the direct path from the Knoll.

            Here is the Cutler map view you provided. I have marked the same path on this view as I did on the aerial view.

            The red dot shows the approximate location of Weatherford. The arrow shows the line of sight path for a shot from the Knoll.


          2. But your new map still shows him with no direct line of sight to the HSCA “acoustic” position on the Knoll.

            And even further from the “Badgeman” line of sight.

        1. It shows that he would hear a direct arrival from a shot from the Knoll.

          The issue here is that you arbitrarily excluded him from the statistics. You pre-determined that he could not have correctly identified the correct location of a shot. That is not correct. And you did the same for several others.

          1. Mike I can tell you having been in Dealey plaza and spending a significant amount of time there’ any description using the Term Accoustics would be utterly ridiculous!
            My point is there are no acoustics in Dealey in fact the shooting area is so small it’s hard to imagine anyone could have mistaken a shot from the knoll for a shot from the TSBD. The only shot that might not have been heard very well would have been the ones from the depository any shots from the knoll or overpass would have been so close that it would’ve been impossible not to identify….

  41. 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.


  43. 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!

  44. 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)?

  45. 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.

    1. 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).

      1. 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.

        1. 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.

        2. 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.

  46. 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.

    1. 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.

    2. 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.

      1. 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.

  47. 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.

    1. 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]

        1. It’s sad,few years before,James Files interview televising through Japan-major-tv,in golden time…So many Japanese believed his “confession”.

    2. 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.

      1. 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?

        1. 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.

          1. 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.

          2. 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).

        2. 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.


          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.

          1. 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.

          2. “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.

  48. 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.

  49. 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.

    1. 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.

  50. 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?

  51. 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.

    1. Lawrence Schnapf

      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.

    2. “…not so Matt. It’s all there, right in plain sight, hiding…all we have to do, is look closer! We can all start, by “looking between the sprocket holes,” the only reason to enlarge the background of the z film. Just look…..you’ll see..”-DM

  52. 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 ??

  53. Pingback: JFKfacts » Ex-flame says Jack Ruby ‘had no choice’ but to kill Oswald

  54. Richie (from Sunny South of France)

    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 …..

    1. 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.

      1. 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.

      2. 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.

      3. Bowers was cut off during his WC testimony. Was the WC afraid Bowers was onto something-that being the two guys he saw were shooting at JFK?

      4. “…Mr. McAdams, Lee Bowers said what he was “told to'” and so would you, for fear of his life.( Listen to his brothers testimony)
        Tell you what”if you’re so damned certain that it wasn’t a conspiracy, get me all the photos/mugshots of all the patrolman and part time patrolmen from Sept thru feb ’63 on the DPD and if the shooter behind the stockade fence was an active PD, i’ll tell you who he is/was? Deal?”-DM

  55. 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.

  56. 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.

    1. 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.

      1. 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?

        1. 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.

        2. 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.

          1. 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.

          2. 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.

          3. 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.


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

          4. 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?

          5. 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.

        3. “…Mr. McAdams: were the “yellow markings” located on the south curb of Elm St. used by multiple operators from different directions, used to “time their shots,” then regardless of direction or locations, the shots would “appear’ as echos; paticularly if sound suppressors were used by those in question.”-DM

      2. Lawrence Schnapf

        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.

    2. 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.

      1. 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.

        1. “…Gerry, if one were to use a semi jacketed 30 cal round at only 3-400ft, odds are the persons head would “vaporize’. to use a round such as a hollow point filled with mercury fulminate, or a cartridge with 3gns of black powder ans a percussion cap in the nose, or…heck, any of the above would vaporize the entire head, from the neck up! We cannot even be sure that those xrays even belonged to the president! Show me some films were his teeth are also visible to verify the id, we’ll talk!”-DM

  57. 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?

    1. “…not that it really matters; but James Tague was probably hit by a ricochet that struck the center grass area @ z420, directly between the grass and the dirt/tarmac, or a bullet strike/miss that stuck the dirt/curb located @ z429. Both shots would be consistent to a low trajectory from either the second, or third floors of the Dal-Tex building, or perhaps the portion of the bullet jacket that struck the chrome between the limo visors, provided it was not intact-which i believe (via a conversation between Hoover and Johnson) it was found too be intact in the limo. Note: please listen to the conversation between hoover and Johnson as i believe hoover made a Freudian slip when he said that one of the shots would’ve killed the President if ‘The Gov. hadn’t been in the way…”).”-DM

  58. 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.

  59. S.R. "Dusty" Rohde

    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.

  60. 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.)

  61. S.R. "Dusty" Rohde

    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”.

    1. 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.

      1. 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………..

      2. 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.

      3. 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.

    2. 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.

    3. Joanie Marshall

      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.

    4. 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.

  62. 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

    1. 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.

      1. 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?

        1. 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.

          1. 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.

          2. Lawrence Schnapf

            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?

      2. 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?


          1. 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.

          2. 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.

          3. 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?”

          4. 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.”

          5. why would Smith say that he was Secret Service? Be reasonable, please.

            Smith, like a lot of other people in Dealey Plaza, assumed that anybody with official credentials (or who merely looked official) was Secret Service.

            Look at what Sitzman told Tink Thompson:

            Sitzman: Uh huh. And I got off the concrete slab we were standing on, and I ran down the hill, and I met some men from across the street, and I took it for granted that they were Secret Service or CIA or something like that; and they asked me what happened, and I said, “they killed him.”


            People assumed stuff.

      3. “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.

        1. 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.

      4. John McAdams,

        “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.”~Posner

        These guys are all faster than Olympic sprinters???

        The people confronted by card holding “Secret Service” were there in some 30 seconds at most.

        I have read Posner’s book and the whole thing is preposterous.

        Note: I know this is a very old thread, and won’t expect replies, but I think it is important to point out how ludicrous Posner and McAdams’ propositions are.

    2. 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!

    3. It takes fifteen seconds for the woman to find Smith, five to seven seconds later he is on his way to the RRY whilst pulling his revolver as we see in Couch.
      This is the window then, thirty to sixty seconds after the shooting Smith is hunting a suspected shooter/killer and at this stage no one else has taken the slightest interest in the knoll, Haygood is still struggling with his bike and he ran to the OP.
      So there ain’t no possible way that any official from the motorcade took an interest in the knoll before Smith was steered that way.

      Who he met was there during the assassination, most likely behind the fence or Pergola.
      No one beat Smith to the knoll.
      No one ran to the knoll because of the sound of the shots.
      There is no evidence that the cop in the Bond image above ran toward the knoll or even that he crossed Elm itself.

      This idea that the majority of witnesses could point to the exact area where shots came from and get it correct does not stand up.
      That is, the photographic record says most were clueless that a shooting had even taken place.

      There ain’t no reason to believe who Smith found wasn’t exactly who he said he was.
      Not one reason.
      Unless of course you believe every word the USSS said.

        1. John, that isn’t a “factoid”. That was reported by an overhead newsman covering the motorcade. I’d say he had a pretty good view of what was going on.

    1. 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.

        1. 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.

        2. 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.

          1. 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.

          2. 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.

          3. @ 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)?

          4. @ 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).

  63. 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.

    1. 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.

  64. 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.

    1. 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.

      1. 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.

        1. 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”

    2. S.R. "Dusty" Rohde

      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.

    3. 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.

  65. 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.

    1. S.R. "Dusty" Rohde

      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.

    2. 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)?

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

      1. 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…..

    1. 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.

      1. 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.

    2. 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.

  66. 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.

    1. S.R. "Dusty" Rohde

      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.


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

      1. S.R. "Dusty" Rohde

        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.

      2. S.R. "Dusty" Rohde

        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.

        1. 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.

        1. It’s one of most dirty cover-up by reserchers side.
          In offcial theory,Oswald shot from TSBD 6th.
          If so,his muzzle of a rifle downward.
          Of course,nitrates pull down gravity,then he not spraying nitrates.
          Basically,the paraffin test was unreliable.
          If this test reliable or not,after the JFK shot,Oswald not spraying nitrates.
          But all (not a almost) resercher didn’t explain
          this common sense.
          Why U.S citizen didn’t protest against assassination resercher’s side cover-up?
          For me(I’m Japanese),this is a big mystery than the JFK assassination.

          Mark Lane is conspiracy-maker,but partly he is honest about this matter.
          “The Paraffin,or dermal nitrate,test cannot establish Oswald’s innocence,of course,but that burden is not usually on the defendant in an American court”(Rush to judgment,first ver,p150).

          But one year after the this book publication,
          Sylvia Meagher misused this matter,she explained
          “paraffin test is unreliable” as “Oswald’s paraffin test is unreliable”(“Accessories after the fact”,P171)

  67. 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.

    1. 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.

      1. 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.

      2. 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.

  68. 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.

    1. 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.

      1. 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.

        1. 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.


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

          1. George Simmons

            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.

          2. 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.

          3. Lawrence Schnapf

            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.

          4. “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.

          5. Mr. McAdams, i have visited your site often in my research of the JFK assassination as i like to look at all views on the matter,and try and be objective. Setting aside all of the different theories,i want to ask: Why do you believe so strongly in,and support the Warren Commission Report about what happened? Have you ever been skeptical of or questioned any of their methods? I can’t find anything that shows that to be the case, so maybe you could clarify. Thank you in advance for your reply

          6. Given the very troubling testimony of Smith… You would think this agent, an important witness, would have been identified, spoken to and have had Smith’s supposed mistake clarified. Who is this mistery agent and why has he not come forward to help back the Warren Commission.

          7. This is for the likes of John McAdams, David Von Pein and Gerald Posner.

            The following facts are not opinions, are backed by actual evidence, and not hearsay. All witnesses who claimed the shots came from the concrete structure on the knoll (“the pergola”), and claimed Secret Service imposters had been there, were not mistaken.

            Two men did shoot JFK from inside the pergola, did put their weapons in a trunk, and did impersonate SS agents. Both men were Cuban, and one in fact dark.

            Those men were caught in the Darnell & Nix films, and Moorman photo. And through the use of digital imaging & forensic software, I was able to re-produce an advanced quality of digital enhancement of the subjects Herminio looks through his scope.

        2. Didn’t eyewitness Jean Hill say pretty much the same thing–that an “agent” showed his so-called credentials to her? Also, didn’t Dallas patrolman Bobby Hargis leave the motorcade and run up the grassy incline with his service revolver drawn?

      2. Joanie Marshall

        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.

        1. 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.

        2. Forget the word conspiracy. I like the word Truth. When i read that the JFK documents were sealed until 2039, long before i found this website, I realized that i may never know the Truth in my lifetime. Thank God for this website. We would never ever be talking about the JFK assassination, after all these years if Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin.

        3. James Howells

          Thank you, Joanie! It is pretty obvious what happened and why it happened! It was a strong message to any President in the future that might try and cross these “Powerful” people! I read somewhere that every incoming President is shown a film of the assassination from a different view than the Zapgruder film, just so they know who IS Really running the show!

          1. Willy, it’s the Zapruder film without the g.
            James has a point about a message from the powerful people (CFR).

          2. What did President Eisenhower say about the growing threat of “the military complex” prior to leaving office? I think Ike’s words have proven to be prophetic.

    2. 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.

      1. 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.

      2. 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

      3. 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

          1. 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).

    3. 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.

    4. I told my kids to stay in front of our house and play in the cul de sac, and NOT to go down to the end of the block and play with some other kids unless their Mom or myself was with them. I went in the backyard, and in a few minutes, I hear them laughing and playing all the way down the street, where I told them not to go.

      I immediately went to the front yard, but there they were, playing in front of our house. Their voices had echoed and caused me to think they were somewhere they were not.

Leave a Comment

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top