Was there a gunshot from the grassy knoll?

A lot of people at the scene of the crime thought so. But don’t take my word for it.

In the latest installment of Len Osanic’s “50 Reasons for 50 Years” video series, JFK photo expert Robert Groden compiles photographic imagery from the first few minutes after the assassination of President Kennedy. View the pictures and decide for yourself.

You can find all the “50 Reasons for 50 Years” videos here, and you can subscribe too.

At History Matters, you can view what 216 witnesses to the assassination said about the origins of the gunshots.


114 thoughts on “Was there a gunshot from the grassy knoll?”

  1. James Howells

    You know, I just read a whole lot of discussion and no mention of where all the available evidence leads us at this point. There were several individuals and Corporations,organizations, etc that had solid reasons to want JFK dead. That is the most important part, and how it completely changed the direction and future of the Country and World! Since they pretty much got away with it, all of these intelligence agencies and black projects have flourished and grown in number. I don’t have multiple degrees but I was 9 almost 10 years old when this happened and like many others it completely rocked my world! I am now satisfied that LBJ, J.Edgar Hoover and his all powerful agency, the Dulles brothers and other CIA officials/agents, Secret Service, several Texas oilmen, Clint Murchison,H Howard Hunt among others, the Mob,Ultra wealthy bankers, the FED, Dallas police, conspired to murder and cover up the crime. Comments?

  2. Ramon, I didn’t see your new research papers. I did find your recent conversations with Pat Speer interesting though his last couple of comments are the most intriguing.

    1. Ramon F Herrera


      “Ramon, I didn’t see your new research papers.”


      They are here. I will explain later:


      ps: In my Google drives, always look for a folder called “Documentation”. That’s the good stuff, the definite solution to the murder.

  3. A shot from the grassy knoll is still very plausible and the idea intriguing, isn’t it. Actually any shot fired at Kennedy that day carried with it the intent to kill. Does it really matter who fired it? And does it indicate a big or intricate conspiracy? Why not two disgruntled young men or a very small contained conspiracy. Something easier to believe and handle. Perhaps they were even separate attempts, neither one realizing there was someone else taking a shot at JFK. The assassinations I’ve looked into, like Lincoln for example, had very few people involved. Why would this be so different? Perhaps a few misinterpreted facts, a few bungled facts or even an odd coincidence has caused so much confusion. Or maybe a lot of people just don’t trust their government.

    1. “Perhaps they were even separate attempts, neither one realizing there was someone else taking a shot at JFK.”

      We are attempting to have a serious discussion here.

    2. “The assassinations I’ve looked into, like Lincoln for example, had very few people involved.”~Sammy

      That isn’t entirely true Sammy, there were quite a few people involved in the Lincoln assassination.
      And they were all confederates (small ‘c’).
      Several of the others chickened out at the last moment. Seward and Johnson were targets as well.

  4. Photon asked me for proof of only two shells being found from the 6th floor of the TSBD after the shooting. That proof comes from WC testimony of Lt. Day(Dallas Police). Various WC report exhibits show the story.

    1. Paul, you are correct about the two shells. More exactly, there were two photos (and two corresponding police reports), one showing two shells and one with three shells. What is most interesting is that the two could morph into three when someone apparently decided that the assassin most have made three shots. These are displayed in either “Six Seconds in Dallas” or “Bloody Treason.” Can’t get to my copies right now…very late at night and have to hit the sack.

  5. Was there a shot from the grassy knoll?

    Depends, IMO.

    Parkland and Bethesda docs saw a deficit in the rear of JFK’s skull. See Humes’s ARRB testimony and Ebersole’s HSCA testimony. The photo showing clipped hair and rear intact skull is false, a fabrication.

    Bobby Hargis was splattered so hard he thought he’d been hit. That’s a fact.

    The Harper fragment was identified by a Dallas pathologist as being from the occipital region.

    All of this adds up to a shot that exits JFK’s skull in the rear. Or a frangible bullet that explodes the rear of his skull. Given three-dimensional geometry, it’s hard for me to say a shot came from the grassy knoll. I’ll defer to witnesses who saw a skull impact above and slightly forward of the right ear. That matches with the photo showing the right temporal skull flap.

    If I were a forward shooter that day, I’d want a concealed spot from which to shoot; a clean line of fire; and a clear getaway.

    1. First off,nobody described a “deficit” in the rear of the skull. The anatomic term would be “defect”, which could be anything from an abrasion to an avulsion. But the autopsy report and every forensic pathologist that has examined the photos confirm that all shots that hit JFK came from behind. There is no way around that fact.There is no anatomic evidence whatsoever for any shot from the front.
      There was no bullet hole in the windshield.Why this continues to be posted is beyond me; let’s see a picture of this hole-not the crack that we have all seen.
      Who is the Dallas pathologist that identified the Harper fragment as occipital? How could he make that determination with a fragment taken out of anatomic context? With no knowledge of the nature of JFK’s wound? The simple answer is that he couldn’t. Wouldn’t the pathologists that actually examined the wound or examined photos of the wound be more reliable in establishing the source of the bone fragment? Has any other pathologist stated unconditionally that it was occipital? There is no evidence whatsoever of any occipital wound- no photographic evidence, no radiographic evidence, no plausible eyewitness evidence from Parkland. The only Physician at Parkland who even saw the occipital area was William Midgett, who helped remove JFK from the limo and placed him on the gurney in a supine position, with the head resting on the EOP making visual inspection of the occipital area physically impossible. JFK remained in this position until his body was placed in the casket. Midgett never saw an occipital wound and he was the last M.D. to see that area until the autopsy was started.
      Bobby Hargis has repeatedly stated that he rode “into” the splatter cloud; I have posted 3 quotes from him on this site confirming that.
      Again, if you ignore the autopsy results and the findings of real experts you are ignoring reality. Give us just one piece of forensic evidence, just one piece of firm anatomic evidence that proves a shot from the front hit JFK.

      1. Photon, forget for a moment the rear defect issue, it may not be necessary to justify a frontal shot. I would be interested in your opinion of Fiester’s blood spatter analysis from the Z film, or if you have already given it, where it might be found.

        1. That is one of the first things I thought of after reading Photon’s comment. That blood spatter came out of the back of JFK’s head. Couldn’t have come from a shot from the TSBD.

          1. Except it didn’t come out of the back of JFK’s head. The Zapruder film clearly shows ejecta traveling anterior and superior-entirely consistent with an exit wound exactly where the Zapruder film, the autopsy photos and the autopsy x-rays prove it to be.
            Sherry Fiester doesn’t know what she is talking about-even Cyril Wecht doesn’t buy her claims.
            Sherry Fiester claims to be an expert. a “Certified Senior Crime Scene Investigator”. well, certified by whom. Google the term “Certified Crime Scene Investigator”. Guess what-THERE AREN’T ANY ENTRIES. There is no such certification. The closest is the IAI Crime Scene analyst, Go to their website- nobody named Fiester or Gutierrez is listed as having been certified as a Senior Crime Scene Analyst. Nor is anybody with those names certified at the basic Crime Scene Analyst level.
            So what gives? Is this a re-run of the Primeau diploma mill certification without even that level of documentation?
            if she is such an expert, lets see some proof.

          2. Photon,

            You’re at it again. Let’s have your educational background. I posted mine in response to our simple request. And how about your real name as well.

            You insist on credentials for everyone else.

            It would be one thing if, as you say, you study of the JFK were just a hobby, just a diversion from the life and death issues you deal with daily. But you claim special knowledge and connections.

            You claim medical knowledge. You claim to know FBI and CIA agents. You claim, to work for a corporation that provides services to the U.S. government.

            C’mon, Photon. Tell all here who you are and about your special knowledge so that all here may have the opportunity to assess your competency to make comments the comments you do on the JFK case.

          3. Photon,

            No you haven’t. You haven’t told those here your name, your educational background, your areas of expertise and training, whether you are male or female.

            All anyone here knows about you for sure if that in the JFK case you abhor facts that conflict with your pre-conceived ideas and will do anything to try to diminish or obscure such facts. That trait is sterling for one involved in covert activities, where lies are routine. That trait does not serve anyone well on this site.

          4. Paul…You are positively correct. The Z-film APPEARS to show spatter from the right-front, but we have known for about twenty years now that the Zapruder film (most all surviving film footage and still film exhibits, in fact) has been significantly altered. There was a large hole in the right-rear of JFK’s head (as testified to by all of the Parkland Hosp. medical personnel. Some of their testimony changed a bit, due to pressure upon them to conform to the official narrative, but the record shows that this, indeed, was the major (exit) wound in the President’s skull. And, yes, there is no way this wound, nor could have been caused from a shot from the TSBD. No way the throat wound could have come from there either. Yes, throat wound, not “rear neck wound,” of which there was none.

          5. “Sherry Fiester doesn’t know what she is talking about-even Cyril Wecht doesn’t buy her claims.” ~Photon

            Cyril Wecht endorsed Fiester’s book. Because he “doesn’t buy her claims”?

            You provide a link to where Wecht provides his disagreements with Fiester.

          6. That blood spatter came out of the back of JFK’s head. Couldn’t have come from a shot from the TSBD.

            No, just look at the Z-film. The main axis of the splatter was upward and forward.

            Same in Nix and Muchmore.

            And all those films are consistent with the autopsy photos and x-rays.

          7. @ John McAdams,

            Nope. That’s blow back or back splatter.

            Jackie Kennedy hopped on the trunk to pick up a piece of the President’s head (as later confirmed by Clint Hill in an anniversary documentary), consistent with a shot coming from the front.

      2. JOHN EBERSOLE, MD Testifying to the HSCA:

        “Upon removing the body from the coffin, the anterior aspect, the only things noticeable were…and a neatly sutured transverse surgical wound across the low neck.”

        “The back of the head was missing….”

        “…about 12:30(a.m.) a large fragment of the occipital bone was received from Dallas and at Dr. Finck’s request I X-rayed [it]….”

        JAMES HUMES, MD Testifying to the ARRB:

        ” When they got finished embalming, we had to put–we didn’t have to, but we helped them put the scalp back together and the skull. And the defect that remained in the skull–I can’t now measure it specifically–was three or four or five centimeters, something like that. And we used a rubber dam to cover that part of the skull defect.”


        1) Note Ebersole’s testimony about a neatly sutured transverse surgical wound in the low neck. THAT’S NOT A GASH.

        2) Ebersole: Back of head missing.

        3) Humes: Defect in skull EVEN AFTER RECONSTRUCTION with fragments from Dallas. Only possible conclusion from Humes’s overall testimony regarding photographs, size and location of the large skull defect (before reconstruction): the defect remaining after reconstruction was in the back of the head.

        4) No doubt based on Ebersole and Humes (Boswell too) that prior to reconstruction there was no back to JFK’s head.

        1. Funny how you avoid mentioning that Ebersole also thought that JFK had been shot with buckshot.
          Or that at the time he was practicing therapeutic, not diagnostic radiology.
          Nor do you mention that nobody else saw a sutured neck wound, nor an occipital fragment.
          It is obvious during the interview that Dr. Ebersole’s credentials were an issue with the interviewing pathologists. He was not board certified at the time.

          1. Not a surprising reply, Photon.

            But you confuse cause with effect. Ebersole observed there was no back to the head. Doesn’t matter what his opinion might have been on what caused it.

            Who cares what his practice was? Who cares that he wasn’t board certified? He saw no back to the head. That doesn’t take any special expertise. You make things up, Photon. Ebersole saw no back to the head.

          2. who cares that he thought that JFK had been shot with buckshot? Who cares that he saw a sutured neck wound when nobody else did? Who cares that the HSCA panal questioned his qualifications?
            Perhaps because they demonstrate that he was WRONG.

        2. JAMES HUMES, MD Testifying to the ARRB:

          ” When they got finished embalming, we had to put–we didn’t have to, but we helped them put the scalp back together and the skull. And the defect that remained in the skull–I can’t now measure it specifically–was three or four or five centimeters, something like that. And we used a rubber dam to cover that part of the skull defect.”

          What a coincidence! The enbalmer, Thomas Robinson, reported that a piece of rubber was used to close up a large hole in the back of JFK’s head.

      3. Photon, let’s try that again without the argumentum ad hominen; forget for a moment the rear defect issue, it may not be necessary to justify a frontal shot. I would be interested in your opinion of Fiester’s blood spatter analysis from the Z film, or if you have already given it, where it might be found.

        1. It is incorrect.And I do not recognize her as an expert in the matter-at least not until we see evidence that she is.

          1. Photon,

            So the following are your credentials as you have previously posted:

            “I am an Officer in a professional corporation in Northern Virginia that contracts for services with the Federal government. By law the nature of those services must remain confidential.
            Due to the nature of prior Federal service I have professional contacts with members of several Federal agencies and give expert consultation in several fields , including national security.
            As you are aware I was an Officer in the Armed Forces; I come from a long line of Officers who have served this country.”

            Am I to assume that you are as qualified to say Fiester’s analysis is incorrect, as she is to make an analysis, based on your credentials? Honestly, I’m not looking for a fight, I thought you might have something interesting to contribute. Isn’t that why we’re here?

          2. I am not making a comment based on my credentials. It is a comment based on her credentials-as posted on her website and other places.
            She stated that she was a “Certified Senior Crime Scene Investigator”. But nowhere does it mention what entity certified her. The IAI does certify a “Senior Crime Scene Analyst” but her name is not listed on the roster of individuals with that certification.
            I don’y claim to be an expert on blood spatter patterns-frankly after the PBS program on “The Real CSI” I have my doubts about the validity of the concept.
            But Ms. Fiester does claim to be an expert and is repeatedly referred to as one on this site. Where is the proof that she is?

          3. “But Ms. Fiester does claim to be an expert and is repeatedly referred to as one on this site. Where is the proof that she is?”~Photon

            The proof is in her expertise. Her obvious grasp of the science, her sources cited, etc…

            Whereas you yourself have an admitted agenda to disparage any who do show such obvious expertise, and cannot counter such expert knowledge, and so “attack the messenger”. A too common scurrilous technique of false argumentation.

          4. The fact is Willy that my comments from last May have yet to be addressed. I have repeated them on other topics on this site.
            No real expert in forensic pathology or ballistics buys into her nonsense-but those who have little knowledge of either of those subjects can. There is a reason why the certification questions have never been answered.

      4. you’re wrong about the word “deficit.” Mantik uses it in describing JFK’s skull in “Murder in Dealey Plaza”.

        I suspect the reason you’re touchy about the word “deficit” is that is connotes an “absence” or “something missing.” As in part of the skull.

        1. As in a fist, grapefruit or soft ball sized “deficit”, hole, or missing portion of the skull/brain described that way by by people who saw it?

          1. This very large (exit) wound was in the right-rear part of the President’s skull. One could call it a defect (not deficit), but a wound of this magnitude is rarely referred to as a defect. There was a fair degree of uniformity in the description by the Parkland medical personnel. The official narrative is a fairy-tale. And, as far as the silly SBT is concerned, even Cmdr. Humes, when asked, admitted that it was “extremely unlikely.”

        2. When using the term “defcit” in a medical sense, it actually pertains more to a lack of a substance (ie. potassium) or an impairment of a function, such as a limb.

          I would describe a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK’s head as a defect, not a deficit.

      5. Photon

        Are you a believer in the old Nazi adage, “A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth”?

        This is from the Summary to Appendix VIII of the Warren Commission Report, containing the medical reports written by many of the Parkland physicians regarding JFK.

        This summary was written by Dr. Kemp Clark, Director of Neurological Surgery at Parkland Memorial Hospital.

        “There was a large wound in the right occipito-parietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring.”

        Any wound involving the occipital region is in the back of the head, and would have been quite obvious in the autopsy photos which, of course, it was not.

        How do you think Dr. Clark arrived at the conclusion there was a large wound in the rear of JFK’s head?

        1. Any wound involving the occipital region is in the back of the head, and would have been quite obvious in the autopsy photos which, of course, it was not.

          But “occipital region” need not mean literally in occipital bone.


          “Rear” is even less precise. It could be anything posterior.

          Want to claim fakery of the autopsy photos and x-rays?

          1. “Want to claim fakery of the autopsy photos and x-rays?”~John McAdams

            You have already forgotten ‘professor’;

            It has already been established by Dr. McClelland that there are photo’s and X-rays in the National Archives that reveal the gaping wound in the occipital-parietal when the flaps are pulled back.

            We went through this not more than a month ago.

          2. It has already been established by Dr. McClelland that there are photo’s and X-rays in the National Archives that reveal the gaping wound in the occipital-parietal when the flaps are pulled back.

            The photos he has seen are the ones that everybody else has seen, including the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, the Rockefeller Panel, and the Ramsey Clark Panel.

            When you buffs look at his verbal statements, you interpret them to mean occipital bone blown out.

            But McClelland apparently does not interpret the wound that way. He interprets it to be what the extant photos show.



          3. Bob Prudhomme


            How many times must we embarrass you by revealing your complete lack of anatomical knowledge?

            The occipital region of the head is universally accepted as that region of the head overlying the occipital bone. The occipital bone occupies the rear or posterior of the skull.




          4. How many times must we embarrass you by revealing your complete lack of anatomical knowledge?

            How many time must you be embarrassed by ignoring what I post.

            You really should have read my link. Here is stuff you ignored:


            The HSCA referred to the “occipital defect” in the back of Kennedy’s skull, and they were explicitly referring to the entry wound in the cowlick area.

            Then were was the Ramsay Clark panel, which said:

            The foregoing observations indicate that the decedent’s head was struck from behind a single projectile. It entered the occipital region 25 mm to the right of the midline and 100 mm. above the external occipital protuberance.

            But that location is in parietal bone.

            Then there is this:

            But speaking to the occipital question, Grossman [one of the Parkland doctors and] a neurosurgeon, suggested that part of the confusion surrounding the location of the head wound could be the result of the imprecision with which the term “occipital” is used. While the occiput refers specifically to a bone in the lower back section of the head, Grossman said many doctors loosely use the term to refer to “the back fifth of the head . . . there is this ambiguity about what constitutes the occipital and parietal area . . . It’s all very imprecise.” (Boston Sunday Globe, June 21, 1981.)

            But tell us: do you believe the autopsy photos and x-rays are faked?

            Go ahead. Drink the Kool-Aid.

          5. Bob Prudhomme


            Despite your angry outbursts, ad hominem attacks, plethoric outpourings and numerous attempts to confuse this issue, there is no escaping the fact that several Parkland doctors described, in their first day medical reports and Warren Commission testimony, a LARGE wound in the rear of JFK’s head that 1) could not be confused with a small entry wound in the cowlick area and 2) would have been very obvious in the “Back of Head” autopsy photograph, unless a deliberate attempt was made to conceal this large wound while the BoH photo was taken.

            Koolaid, John? I’ll take a pound of whatever it is you’ve been smoking. Must be good stuff.

          6. Bob Prudhomme

            Rear, posterior, occipital; it makes little difference how it is described. A large gaping wound in any of these described locations of JFK’s head would have been revealed in the Back of Head autopsy photo unless, as I stated, a deliberate attempt was made to conceal it while the photo was being taken.

          7. Bob Prudhomme

            “But speaking to the occipital question, Grossman [one of the Parkland doctors and] a neurosurgeon, suggested that part of the confusion surrounding the location of the head wound could be the result of the imprecision with which the term “occipital” is used. While the occiput refers specifically to a bone in the lower back section of the head, Grossman said many doctors loosely use the term to refer to “the back fifth of the head . . . there is this ambiguity about what constitutes the occipital and parietal area . . . It’s all very imprecise.” (Boston Sunday Globe, June 21, 1981.)”

            Grossman is only telling part of the story here. While the occipital bone is primarily in the lower back section of the head, the top margin of the occipital bone, where it meets the parietal bone, is not a horizontal line across the skull, Rather, as the diagram below clearly shows, the upper margin of the occipital bone is comprised of two ascending angles that meet high up in the cowlick area, giving the upper margin of the occipital bone the appearance of an arrowhead pointing toward the top of the skull. THIS is where the confusion has arisen from.


        2. Ramon F Herrera

          Bob: See old post of mine:




          The problem of not the lack of consensus, the problem is that we have too many.

          There are actually two “consensuses”. Or, to be precise, make that two and a half.

          (a) Every single person who witnessed the injury and did not work for the military, or whose job was not at risk saw:

          A large, gaping wound in the lower back of the head, toward the right.

          That comprises an unanimity at Parkland of about 40 people. SS agent Clint Hill is included as well. Interestingly, the WC neglected to ask Mrs. Jacqueline.

          According to a theory posited by Dr. Gerald Posner, when people are trying to save the life of a president, they become so agitated (regardless of decades treating those very kinds of injuries in trigger-happy Texas) that they see visions and injuries are ghostly rotated to the back of the head. Not sure of the journal name and whether his study was peer-reviewed. That rather unusual theory fails to explain the funerary personnel:

          “You could feel the sharp edges of the bone at the edge of the hole in the back of the head”.


          (b) Every single person who was under military authority saw the injury rotated, not by a little, but by about 180 degrees, in Bethesda.

          (c) The 3rd. consensus is held by one individual: Dr. Pierre Finck (from the Army and therefore not under Bethesda authority) the only real pathologist who reticently assisted and later chose to escape to Switzerland, in order to avoid pesky reporters and book authors.

          We can safely conclude that the good doctor voted with his feet.

          ps: https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/one-reason-why-the-warren-commissions-medical-evidence-was-unconvincing/#comment-617400

          1. And yet for all of your claims about how accurate the Parkland doctors wiewpoints were several walked their comments back after becoming aware of the autopsy results-obviously because despite the claims few of them actually looked at the head wound in more than a cursory manner and that view was of a wound obscured by matted hair and dried coagulated blood.
            Bill Midgett didn’t see a huge hole in the back of JFK’s head and he was the last MD before the Bethesda doctors to actually SEE the back of JFK’s head. The only doc at Parkland who claimed to have even moved JFK’s head was Grossman-and how involved was he actually?
            Robert McClelland didn’t see a huge hole in the back of JFK’s head. He probably didn’t even exam the head much, despite the claims that came years later. He only stated on Nov. 22 what another doctor told him-that JFK had a head wound on the LEFT. He committed that impression to a legal written document within minutes of the assassination.That document impeaches everything else he has claimed about the head wound.
            Did Dr. Carrico say that JFK had a huge wound in the back of the head in his YouTube interview?
            Again, a CTer who refuses to tell the rest of the story-and makes up elements that he does tell.

          2. 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.”

            Tell me, Photon, if JFK was not lying on his back on his ride to Parkland, do you think Clint Hill would have been able to see the back of JFK’s head, considering that Hill spent the majority of that ride directly above JFK?

  6. There’s a bullet hole on the left side of the windshield in the Algens 6 photo. It is significantly larger than the widely circulated crack in the limo windshield photo. From Kennedy’s throat wound through the hole line up directly with the South Knoll Overpass area.That in itself proves someone was firing from the left side of the car.

  7. If you really want to see where the shots were thought to come from look at the first Altgens photo.It is a real-time picture taken just after the second shot.

  8. Virtually all conspiracists envision the fatal head shot as coming from in front of the President. I agree, the shot did come from the front, but front is not the Grassy Knoll. Prior research indicates Kennedy’s head is turned approximately 26 degrees beyond profile to Zapruder in frame 312. That computation places the Grassy Knoll to the side, not the front of the President. As a result, conventional trajectory reconstruction techniques indicate the fatal headshot originated from a location other than the Grassy Knoll. A straight-line trajectory for the fatal headshot is not possible due to lack of evidence; however, a trajectory cone, which would encompass all possible trajectories, can be computed. Extending the trajectory cone against the line of fire, forward of the President, and into the Plaza identifies all possible shooter locations. That trajectory cone encompasses the south end of the triple overpass and a portion of the adjacent parking lot. However, it does not include the Grassy Knoll. I agree a shot was fired from the Grassy Knoll, but not the fata thel head shot. Contemporary forensic disciplines offer new insights into the assassination. By approaching the assassination as an unsolved major crime, information meeting the standard of evidence required to support a criminal conviction can be determined. Historical researchers concerned with the Kennedy assassination need to avail themselves of the latest forensic offerings to bring reliability to their conclusions.

    1. Dr. Fiester,

      Your book, “Enemy of the Truth,” is one of the few masterpieces in the canon. Wonderful to see you here.


      1. Thank you for the kind words. I am a retired Certified Senior Crime Scene Investigator and Police instructor with over 30 years of experience and a court certified expert in crime scene investigation, crime scene reconstruction, and bloodstain pattern analysis in Louisiana Federal Court and over 30 judicial districts in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Florida. However, I do not hold a doctorate. I appreciate your comments and hope Enemy of the Truth was instrumental in your developing a better understanding of the assassination.

    2. “I agree a shot was fired from the Grassy Knoll, but not the fatal head shot.”

      Maybe the shot from the Grassy Knoll (behind the fence) was the shot that hit Kennedy’s throat?

      1. Nope, JSA, the throat shot was much earlier and seems to have originated from atop the south underpass. The trajectory angle to the “knoll” would have been wrong. Incidentally, a key component of WR apologists and legitimate research attempted debunkers is to insist that the throat shot was from the rear, which is pure lunacy and propaganda. Then, they will yell, “Oh, OK, then where did the bullet go?” We have evidence that the hilum of the right lung was damaged, which seems to have been a result of that shot..so we DO happen to “know where it went,” though this is much less important than strong Parkland Hospital testimony to the nature of the front neck (throat) wound. And, incidentally, the nuts will also insist that the back wound was located at the rear neck, when it was definitely lower, around the level of T-3.

      2. the fatal head shot appeared to be coming from the side. To me, that would be from the grassy knoll, or from that storm drain that some conspiratorial theorists have discussed. I simply don’t see how it would come from the Texas School Book Depository.

      1. Paul, I don’t believe there is a forensically based answer to that question. However, witnesses’ statements and acoustical evidence do indicate what may be interpreted as a shot from that area. Some have suggested it may have been a firecracker, and some suggest it was a diversionary tactic, regardless of the source.

    3. The crime scene photographs are quite clear that the President was struck by TWO separate shots to the head. One can see that when the Moorman photo is compared to frame 337 of the zapruder film.

      The Moorman photo was taken at about Zapruder frame 315. It shows the back of the head profile of the President is normal.

      Moorman photo showing back of head profile.

      However Zapruder frame 337 shows a severly deformed back of head profile.


      By comparing the two photographs it is clear the President was struck by two bullets at two different times.

      The question is when did the second bullet strike the President in head?

      Once again, I believe the crime scene photographs tell us when that occurred. The second bullet struck the President at Zapruder frame 318.


        1. Hi Mike. I’ve brought this enhanced frame to the attention of this site before, but I like your larger format version.

          It clearly shows an avulsion to the back of the head which is indicative of a shot from the front (to cause a BOH blow out).

          Thank you.

      1. Mike, and as Robert Harris says in his research, Oswald might have fired the first(head shot)or the second, but not both.

    4. A most compelling argument for a shot from the front. Yours is the first, IMHO, to offer an explanation that appears to make scientific sense of frames 312/313 of the Z film and what we see there. I have puzzled over this since I bought my first fuzzy 8mm bootleg Z film from PJ back in the mid-70s. Reading over some comments, sadly, I am not sure all have a full understanding and grasp the import of your argument.

  9. ^ Okay. That didn’t work as well as I’d hoped.

    Lemme try this: I’m very hopeful that some among those of us who reject the mythology imposed by our government’s official telling of President Kennedy’s assassination will be open to reassessing what we think we know if given reason to do so.

    Contemporary forensic sciences have produced revelations in the emerging applications of new methods and new technologies employed in modern crime scene reconstruction and analysis.

    Until recently I have chosen to keep many of the forensic aspects of the case at arms length. I agree with earlier statements to the effect that when experts disagree, we are disadvantaged in terms of lacking essential training and education to know whom to support. Some of it may ultimately rely upon intuition or instinct.

    What I have recently come to consider is my own slow realization that many of the most current advancements in forensic research represent new facts which may seem counter-intuitive to those who have no training in the related fields of newly emerging technologies and disciplines. I see all of the various stages of our 50 year journey from Dallas to the present as necessary steps in the long slow story of our originally blind struggle to move from darkness to light. I bear no resentment or animosity towards those pioneers who simply did the best they could, based upon what was available at the time, to accurately assess and interpret “their” facts. No one can blame the researchers and critics of the past who genuinely sought to understand questions which truly could not, at the time, have been answered.

    We’re a long way from there now, and we are still moving forward. Research developments in the mechanics of head wound ballistics, utilization of unbelievably high-speed photography, radial and concentric fracture sequencing studies of human skulls, symmetrical and asymmetrical beveling in relation to projectile directionality, related subjects of distinguishing back spatter from forward spatter and, perhaps most extraordinary of all, the news that current forensic research indicates the forward movement of President Kennedy’s head (at Z-frame 313) followed by violent rearward movement is consistent with a single gunshot to the head from the front. Studies conducted by Karger (2008), Radford (2009), and Coupland (2011) prove initial transfer of energy causes the target to swell or move minutely into the force and against the line of fire.

    I once tried, I mean, I really tried to discuss some of this with a particularly stubborn person whose opinions of his own outdated, misinformed opinions rendered his cup to be too full to accommodate any new anything. He had everything he needed and was content to sit back and bask in the secure warmth that his certainty afforded him.

    I suspect that Progress is a train that does not wait for everybody, especially old fatheads, to climb on board before moving inexorably from the station.

    The book is Enemy of the Truth: Myths, Forensics, and the Kennedy Assassination by Sherry P. Fiester. Worthy of our attention and gratitude.

    1. The physics here: When the bullet strikes the head, Newton’s Third Law requires the head, for a fraction of time, to exert the same force against the bullet as the bullet exerts against the head.

      After that fraction of time, the bullet has passed into the soft interior of the skull. The head at that moment has momentum in opposite directions: From the initial strike, it has a momentum in the direction of the entering bullet. From the travel of the bullet within the skull, it has momentum in the direction and speed of the bullet.

      Momenta add along a time dimension.

      So, the head is struck; at that moment it does not move; in the next fraction of time it is propelled by momentum slightly in the direction of the entering bullet; and then it follows the path of the bullet.

      Credentials: B.S. in Electrical Engineering.

      1. @Jonathan march 21 “The physics here…” That is a surprising interpretation and since I do not have a diploma I am now looking it up in an old schoolbook.
        Over there I see that when one body exerts a force on a second body the second body exerts an equal and opposite force on the first. Right? And evidently if you jump up and down many times you will not move the earth and also if you shoot a very powerful rifle then it kicks like a mule.
        But you don’t seem to be saying anything of the sort and a body that moves in the direction opposite to the applied force does not seem to me to be Newtonian at all and besides that I noticed that Lifton also made a fuss about your version and he put his temper tantrum about it somewhere in his famous Kennedy book and he has a diploma from somewhere too.

        Peter Martyn
        Bus Driver

        1. ERRATA@Peter Martyn ERROR March 30 : “…a body that moves in the direction opposite to the applied force…”
          CORRECTION: …A body that accelerates in the direction opposite to the applied force…etc. I suppose that my March 30 error is an example of overdoing it when you translate Newtonian things into parochial languages.

    2. I concure with Alan Dale on the issue of the head shot to JFK; a single shot from a sniper at the the south-west end of Dealey Plaza.

      There was likely a diversionary shot from the Grassy Knoll as well, but that shot didn’t hit anyone.

      The throat shot was likely from the same sniper that shot the bullet that hit Kennedy in the head. Both shots coming from directly in front of JFK.
      Trajectory of Front Shots in Dealey Plaza 11/22/1963 — See:

  10. I think it should be obvious that Kennedy was shot from both the back and the front, as there was a bullet down into his back, shot from behind. Also the shot that hit Governor Connelly was I think coming from behind the car. Finally, from the back you have the missed shot that hit the curb where Mr. Tague was hit by a chip of concrete in the cheek. But JFK was hit twice (at least) in the front: in the throat, then into his right temple, the shot that killed him. Those shots I believe came from the front, shot from behind the wooden fence. There’s just no way all of the shots could have come from the front. The shots from behind could have come from a number of places, not just from the TSB. I’ve heard good argument that the Daltex building was a source of some of the shots from behind, in addition to the TSB.

    Forgive my ignorance of the details here, but could someone post a good source which tries to comprehensively show where each shot probably originated from, in sequential order? That would go a long way to clear some of the confusion people might have. Maybe Jim Marrs did do this?

    Even if there were echoes in that small arena of Dealey Plaza, there were so many people who saw the smoke around the fence, including motorcade participants Kenny O’Donnell and Dave Powers. I think it’s telling that so many people rushed up to that area. My only question would have been: weren’t any of them afraid that they might have been shot by rushing up so fast? I know I would have had some doubts if I were there about running immediately up to where I thought someone had been shooting. I would have worried about getting shot by a fleeing assassin.

    1. Eric Hollingsworth

      If you do a web search on “david lifton three assassins” you’ll find some links to an analysis, published in “Ramparts” magazine, of where the shots might have originated.

      If you search for “don roberdeau dealy plaza map” you’ll find an excellent temporal and spatial analysis of the assassination.

      It’s been many years since I read Marrs, but I seem to recall that when I cross-checked his diagrams with other sources there were some discrepancies.

    2. JSA, search in YouTube for lblevins channel. he has a number of video presentations on the attack and presents visual analysis of what he thinks happened. In a nutshell, he believes JFK was sandwiched in between the two pergolas while being shot at from the upper floors of the Dal-Tex building from behind. He does not believe the SS guards shot behind or in front of JFK did any shooting (although some do.
      In addition, there are several visuals researchers that have posted enhancements & enlargements of the Nix film that indicate gunfire from the pergola shelter behind Zapruder & Sitzman.
      For those who believe the storm drains were the source of some of the shots there are also several videos posted on that subject too.
      You’ll notice in all the film re-enactments that have been done since 1964 the guards & their car are missing from the TSBD’s alleged sniper’s line of sight films & photos, making it impossible for the public to see if any or all the shots to JFK were blocked by his rear guards tailgating him during the actual attack. Even Oliver Stone left this crucial sniper’s line of sight to target view with the guards & their car accurately represented out of his JFK movie.
      Each time this is done a distortion of histor4y occurs. The guards & their follow-up car tailgating the JFK parade car were there and part of the history that occurred 22 Nov 1963.
      Check it out, you’ll find lots of food for thought in the video presentations.

      1. Mitchem22: Read this if you haven’t already:

        FBI substituted magic bullet 399 for the pointed-nosed bullet that was actually found at Parkland. Except as an indictment of FBI’s single-minded crusade to blame Oswald, ignore it as evidence. And Kennedy had an entry wound in his throat . . . unless one believes that expert trauma room professionals were grossly incompetent. The 313 shot was not fired from the TSBD. It was a frangible bullet unlike those allegedly fired by Oswald. The bullet entered the front right of JFK’s head and blew out a large hole in the rear of the president’s head. See photo F8. Speer’s thesis isn’t remotely convincing.

      2. Speer’s shot sequence is awful. “Shot #3. Approximate firing time: Zapruder frame 310-311.

        Hit Kennedy near the temple at frame 313. Bullet fragmented. One piece of its core seems to have continued on to chip the concrete near Tague around 319.”

        James Tague, alive today, would just laugh if you told him that. He says he heard an early “firecracker” shot, an early miss on JFK. He then says he was next almost hit by a separate shot.

        Almost nobody I know in JFK research believes JFK was shot from behind in the temple … and then with a fragment almost hitting Tague as far away from JFK as he was (50 yard? I have not measured it.)

        Tague was almost hit by a full bullet that chipped the curb in front of him, sending up concrete spray hard enough to wound his cheek.

        I vote for JFK’s head kill shot to have come from the Grassy Knoll… and not the south knoll either. Robert Groden certainly thinks so.

        1. You’re wrong, Robert. Tague was not dismissive of my theory. As I recall he felt fairly sure the shot impacting near him was the second shot heard by others. That’s what I believe. When one studies the witness statements it becomes clear the second shot was the head shot.

        2. James Tague, who has since passed away, believes there were 2 head shots that sounded like 1 because they were the ones that were 1.5 seconds apart. One hit JFK in the back of the head, the other in the right side-this being the fatal shot. Thus, I join you, Robert Morrow, in thinking he was killed by a shooter from the grassy knoll. Tague’s “LBJ And The Kennedy Killing”is a great read, by the way.

    3. JSA, I, too, am convinced at least one shot came from the Dal-Tex Bldg. I think it was either the shot that hit JFK in the back, or the one that hit him in the back of the head, right before the one from the front that killed him.

    4. JSA, you mention Powers and O’Donnell. They later told Tip O’Neill that they did indeed see the smoke by the fence, but they ended up reluctantly going with the dumb Warren Commission argument of “it couldn’t have happened that way”. I guess it wouldn’t have made much difference, but it’s a shame they decided to go against what they saw with their own eyes.

      1. How can this be when all bullet fragments and the one intact bullet recovered from the Connally stretcher matched Oswald’s rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons on the planet. We do not have any bullets / fragments in existence today that were associated with the assassination of President Kennedy that do not match the Mannlicher-Carcano purchased, handled, owned, and fired by Lee Harvey Oswald. Unless the people you have shooting from other locations all missed everything which makes them all very poor expert marksmen.

        1. D. E. Mitchell

          “…wow, you really are a “Bummer!” Here is a guy, LHO, who denies killing anyone, buying the murder weapon in his own name, etc and so on, yada yada! That’s almost as lame as denying a bank robbery you’re accused of, but using your own car for the getaway! Smart! Tell me,”did Oswald come across to you as being…that dumb?”-DM

      2. This is correct, Paul. They DID admit this to Tip O’Neill, which was certainly a revelation. ; )

        Massive pressure was applied to shape the testimony to conformance with the “official narrative” of the “lone, crazed gunman.”

    5. D. E. Mitchell

      “…perhaps, Americans had “more guts” back then than they do now. They certainly had much more “respect,” both for one another, as well as themselves. no doubt, Americans had more respect for their “Government,” not to mention, “civil responsibility” back then than they do today. That is evident in voter turn out at the polls every four years.
      As for “guts”…Americans today, may, or may not have as much, “intestinal fortitude” today as they did back in the early 1960’s…time and action will prove if that is true or false. but one thing is for sure: “now” is the time for “ALL” Americans to “stand up” and “be heard” by all the “cranksters” running for office now…to “let them know” just how they really feel, and “what they expect” from their “new & aspiring” politicians “what Americans want”…and hold nothing back. “Nothing!”-DM

  11. I have reviewed the film and calculate it took about 15 – 20 seconds before people reacted to the shots and ran to the Grassy Knoll. I have looked for anyone walking away from the area when everyone else is running to knoll.

    Look at the lady and policman on Bell film at the 59 second mark. Why is a policeman walking away when everyone else is running to the Grassy Knoll

    1. The fact the “policeman” is walking is by itself disturbing. Being in uniform would normally require a certain responsiveness in this type of event. Walking away from gunfire indicates he was reasonably sure there would be no more. How did he know? If this were 2013 we could enhance his facial image and possibly his badge. I’d call him ‘a person of interest’

    1. The Warren Commission lawyers kept telling witnesses words to the effect “You must be mistaken, it couldn’t have happened that way”. This is one of the details of that tragic day that angers me the most, because the witnesses were there, whereas no one on the Warren Commisson was.

  12. Warren critics need to re-think the language they use to describe 12/22/63 events. “Grassy knoll” is too easily pooh-poohed as conspiracy bunk. To say “witnesses raced up an incline toward a picket fence from which many said a shot or shots were fired” is harder to dismiss.

    1. The term “grassy knoll” was used on air by Walter Cronkite on CBS-TV within 30 minutes of the shooting to describe where suspicious activity was reported. Cronkite was reading from a wire service report that used the term “grassy knoll”, UPI I believe. The term has been turned into one of derision, but it originates with Walter Cronkite and UPI in the immediate reporting after the assassination.

      1. The grassy Knoll whoever termed that phrase is irrelevant. The relevancy is people rushing to the grassy knoll. People do not run to a place for no reason and the people laying on the ground in front of the knoll felt they were being shot at from behind. Those are facts the other facts are JFK wrote an had a law pass that was to end the Federal reserve system. Executive order 1110 was passed that was going to be the beginning to the end of the federal reserve system. Fact two JFK severed relationships with Cuba. When that took place the MAFIA lost millions of dollars. Those two facts were the ultimate reasons for JFK,s assassination. Also note when Jack Ruby was interviewed he had told the press Oswald did not even fire a shot. The Grassy knoll and other evidence is simply enough for the wealth to assassinate JFK. Little history note Napoleon along with Adolf Hitler both attempted to fight the controlling wealth of the world if those two men failed who was JFK to attempt to fight the worlds controlling wealth. Well quite obviously JFK was a nobody.

        1. Ruby could have been absolutely right about Oswald not firing a shot. The irony is that JD Tippitt may have been the one assigned to kill Oswald, for the same reason Ruby killed him(Oswald) two days later.

        2. The message sent by issuing $$$ from the treasury is important. It alerted wall street and the accompanying bankers to the need for action.

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