Outline of Evidence for the JFK Assassination

My interest in the death of President Kennedy derives from my belief that his presidency and his death were pivotal points in American history.

At the time of his assassination, President Kennedy was in the midst of intense efforts to end the Cold War. Had he lived to run for a second term, it seems likely that the Cold War would have ended some 25 years earlier than it did. Instead, through the time that the Cold War ended in 1991 we were ruled by a series of U.S. presidents who (with the exception of Jimmy Carter) sought to expand the Cold War, and along with it the imperial presidency and the scope and size of the Military Industrial Complex.

I believe that the question of how President Kennedy was killed and who killed him is still of great importance to our nation today. If as I and many others believe, powerful interests were behind his assassination, that has grave implications for where we stand as a nation – then and now. If they could get away with it then, they could probably do so again. A 2003 Gallup poll on the subject shows that the American people, by an 75% to 19% margin, believe that people other than Lee Harvey Oswald were involved in a conspiracy to assassinate the president. If that belief is accurate and if our elected representatives hold a similar belief, that could have major implications for the way that our government operates today. Certainly it has major implications over how much control our president and other elected representatives have over the operations of our government. More specifically, perhaps it could help explain why our government is so far to the right of the American people today.

My objective in this post and three (or more) that will follow, is to describe what I see as the important evidence on the subject of whether or not a conspiracy was involved in the JFK assassination. Since the official government position on the subject, as reported by the Warren Commission Report, holds that Lee Harvey Oswald acted as the lone assassin, and that he shot the president from the Texas School Book Depository, which was facing the back of the president’s head when he was shot, the question boils down largely to whether the bullets came from behind the president or in front of him or both. If they came only from behind, that is consistent with the official story. If any of them came from in front of the president, then that flatly contradicts the official story and is clearly indicative of a conspiracy.

The most important evidence in this case is therefore the medical evidence, which comes in two parts: 1) from the doctors who saw and treated the president’s wounds at Parkland Hospital prior to his death; and 2) from the autopsy. The doctors at Parkland Hospital are on record as saying that both the fatal bullet to the head and the one that caused the throat wound came from the front. The autopsy report, on the other hand, indicates that those bullets came from the back.

With that in mind, here is an outline of how I intend to approach this subject over four or more posts:


Outline of presentation of evidence

Ancillary evidence
In this post I do not intend to cover what I consider to be the most important issues – the evidence from the doctors who treated the president at Parkland Hospital, and the autopsy. Rather, in this post I will talk about what I consider to be ancillary evidence, which I do not claim to be definitive, though I do believe that it is highly suggestive of a conspiracy. Since I am less familiar with (and less interested in) this ancillary evidence than I am with what I consider to be the more definitive evidence, I will cover it in less detail.

The medical evidence from Parkland Hospital
In my second post I’ll discuss the evidence from the medical professionals, including nine doctors and a nurse, who saw and treated President Kennedy at Parkland Hospital prior to his death. In David Lifton’s book, “Best Evidence”, those medical professionals are quoted (four in Warren Commission testimony, three in their official medical reports, one in a contemporary newspaper account, and Lifton doesn’t provide the source for the other two) as saying that the fatal wound produced a large hole (5-7 centimeters by one account) in the back right side of the head. The skull at the back of the head was noted to have “exploded outwards”. The physicians characterized this wound as an exit wound. Lifton also deals with the wound at the front of the throat, which the physicians characterize as being an entrance wound.

The autopsy
Clearly, the autopsy report contradicts the doctors who saw the president at Parkland hospital. So they cannot both be right. In my third post I’ll discuss what I consider to be abundant evidence that the reason for this contradiction is that the president’s body was altered prior to the autopsy, to make it look as if the bullets that caused both the head and throat wound came from the back rather than from the front.

Vincent Bugliosi’s book
My fourth post will be a critique of Vincent Bugliosi’s book, “Reclaiming History – The Assassination of John F. Kennedy”, which I have not yet read. It has been suggested (or demanded) by some who have vehemently disagreed with my expressed opinions on this subject that I read that book. I was reluctant to do that because of its length and because my opinion from what I know about it is that it does not contain information that I will find enlightening. However, I’ve decided that if I’m able to share my opinion of the book with a wide audience on DU, that will make it worth my while to read it.

Some will undoubtedly say that my above statement indicates that I intend to read and critique the book with a closed and biased mind. All I can say to that is that I will attempt to keep my mind open. I can’t deny that I believe it highly unlikely that the book will change my mind to a considerable degree, just as I believe it even more unlikely that my opinion of the age of the earth would be changed if I read a book claiming that the earth was four thousand years old. Obviously, I already have strong opinions on this subject. But that doesn’t mean that I can’t keep my mind open.


SOME ANCILLARY EVIDENCE

Eye-witnesses at the scene

David Lifton notes in his book, “Best Evidence”, that 64 of 90 eye-witnesses whose accounts appeared either in the published records of the Warren Commission or in contemporaneous news accounts indicated that shots originated from the grassy knoll area, in front of and to the right of the president’s motorcade.

Three witnesses, including two motorcycle cops, actually noted brain or skull material flying backwards from JFK’s head. Here is Lifton’s description of these eye-witness accounts:



Motives

I’ve talked about motives in previous posts, so I won’t go into them in great detail here. In one post I discuss JFK’s conflicts with his CIA, which led him to fire three of its most prominent members, including CIA Director Allen Dulles, who was quoted as saying shortly before his death, “That little Kennedy… he thought he was a god”.

In another post I discuss how Kennedy resisted four times over two years the strenuous efforts of his CIA and military to draw him into an invasion of Cuba. Instead of letting them draw him into a situation that could very well have led to a nuclear war, Kennedy sought an accommodation with Castro’s Cuba in the last months of his life.

In this post I discuss how Kennedy further confronted the Military Industrial Complex by refusing to go to war in Laos, thwarting their plans for control over the Congo, making plans for withdrawal from Vietnam, and pressuring the steel industry to reverse their price hikes.

Obviously, no evidence of motives could prove who assassinated JFK. But when combined with everything else, it paints a chilling picture in my opinion.

A statement that Robert Kennedy made to Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin in the course of their back channel negotiations during the Cuban Missile Crisis provides additional evidence that JFK treaded on dangerous grounds when he defied his military or CIA. According to Nikita Khrushchev, Bobby told Dobrynin (p 618) that his brother:


Nikita Khrushchev’s son Sergei fills in additional details of the RFK-Dobrynin conversations. According to Sergei Khrushchev, Bobby told Dobrynin (p 498):



The head motion

Frames 312 to 323 of the Zapruder film demonstrate the motion of Kennedy’s head after being struck by one of the bullets, which initially made contact with Kennedy’s head between frames 312 and 313. In frame 312 Kennedy is leaning slightly forward with his head tilted slightly down. Between frames 312 and 313 his head moves down and about two inches forward*, so that his chin is resting against his chest. Then, between frames 313 and 323 the motion is reversed as the head is thrown back against the back seat of the car. This all takes place over a little more than half a second.

What explains the double motion? David Lifton discussed the sequence with Dr. James Riddle, a physicist on the UCLA faculty, whose opinion was that the initial slight forward motion resulted from a downward rotation of the head, which was hit by a bullet coming from the front and slightly above the head. Following that short and quick rotational movement, the forward momentum of the bullet carried the head backwards. Riddle concluded:


Other possibilities are that the double motion is explained by two separate bullets or that the initial down and forward movement was a ducking motion in response to the sound of rifle fire.

The Warren Commission Report did not discuss this issue.

* Warren Commission Hearings, Volume 7, page 560


Acoustical evidence

Many years after the assassination, acoustical science progressed to the point where many believed it could be used to help determine how many bullets were fired at Kennedy on October 22, 1963, and which direction they came from. I don’t understand this science, so I can only report what some others have said.

Most striking are the findings of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), which was established in 1976 to reinvestigate the JFK assassination (among other things), and released its final report in 1979. Based on then newly available acoustical evidence that indicated the existence of a fourth shot which probably came from the front, the report contradicted the Warren Commission findings by concluding that the assassination was “probably a conspiracy”.

I find it very telling how little play this finding received in our national news media. In fact, I’ll bet that not 1% of the U.S. population even knows about this. Given the great pressure on the HSCA not to come to a conclusion of this nature, the fact that they did come to that conclusion takes on all the more significance in my opinion.

I was informed by an angry fellow DUer that the HSCA’s acoustical evidence was later discredited. I asked him for a reference, and he told me to read Bugliosi’s book. Nor could I find any discussion on the Internet to the effect that the HSCA’s acoustical evidence was discredited, though I did see the phrase “discredited acoustical” evidence used in respect to the HSCA report.

Anyhow, this is a messy subject, but I thought it would be worth mentioning since it is an instance where a governmental body contradicted the Warren Commission Report. Whether or not the acoustical evidence that the HSCA relied on, in part, to contradict the Warren Commission, was itself discredited, I cannot determine. Maybe Bugliosi’s book will shed some light on that.


The single (magic) bullet theory

What has become known as the “single (magic) bullet theory” is that a single bullet hit Kennedy in the back, exited the front of his neck, and then continued on to hit Governor John Connally (sitting in the front seat, in front of Kennedy) in the back, wrist and leg. That bullet was later allegedly found on Connally’s stretcher at Parkland Hospital.

I won’t get into the physics of how a bullet could have made such a journey, which has been argued back and forth by both sides. Aside from the fact that the doctors at Parkland said that the wound at the front of the neck was an entrance wound, there are other problems as well with the single bullet theory.

First, FBI ballistics expert Robert Frazier testified that bullet 399 was “clean”. The bullet weighed 158.6 grains, which Frazier determined to be underweight by 3 grains, an amount which he said could have been accounted for by normal variations in the manufacturing process, and therefore “There did not necessarily have to be any weight loss”*.

Commander James Humes, the chief autopsy pathologist, testified in response to Arlen Specters question, “Could that missile have made the wound on Governor Connally’s right wrist?”


Colonel Fink, another of the autopsy doctors, responded to the same question from Specter, “No, for the reason that there are too many fragments described in that wrist.” And Dr. Shaw, one of the Parkland doctors, responded:


Yet, despite all this, the Warren Report concluded:


* Warren Commission Hearings, Volume 20, page 174
** Warren Commission Hearings, Volume 7, page 510


Lee Harvey Oswald’s CIA connection

If Lee Harvey Oswald was found to be connected with the CIA, that would of course cast quite a cloud over the theory that he acted as the lone gunman in the JFK assassination. Many researchers have discussed apparent connections between Oswald and the CIA. James Douglass, in his book “JFK and the Unspeakable”, discusses quite a bit of evidence tying Oswald to the CIA. I’ll discuss just one of those here: Oswald’s association with George de Mohrenschildt:


Douglass then discusses de Mohrenschildt’s last day:



CONCLUDING REMARKS

Unfortunately, my discussions on the JFK assassination have sparked quite a bit of hostility, insults, and contempt among a minority of DUers. I would be happy to respond to any disagreements to what I’ve said here, as long as we can carry on a civil conversation about it. But I will not feel in the least bit obligated to respond to anyone who posts insulting remarks, regardless of whether or not the insults are accompanied by intelligent argument. I have no respect for such behavior, it irritates the hell out of me, once it starts I find it nearly impossible to carry on a productive or civil discussion, and I have much better things to do with my time.

What I’ve posted here today is just a very small sample of arguments against the official story of a lone gunman. I’ve been in book stores where there were entire sections devoted to this topic, with dozens, or maybe over a hundred books. Even so, in the absence of any other evidence I would consider the sum total of what I’ve discussed in this post alone to be reason enough to be highly suspicious of the Warren Report’s conclusions. And as I said above, I haven’t yet gotten into what I consider to be the most important evidence, which is the medical evidence and the evidence that the president’s body was altered prior to the autopsy.

It's nice for you that you are so interested in this, but I would expect that most others are not so don't expect too much from this OP. But then since I am usually wrong about these things this will probably be a gangbuster of a thread.

...it's how he learned stuff from other people.

And it's why Time for Change's posts are so important.

They are full of solid information and analysis we are not likely to find anywhere else.

For example, piggybacking on TfC's post is information we probably aren't going to find on the tee vee:



Gaeton Fonzi investigated the anti-Castro Cuban community's involvement in the assassination of President Kennedy for the House Select Committee on Assassinations in the late 1970s. Fonzi found that President Kennedy's clothes show evidence for multiple shooters -- conspiracy. The bullet hole in his jacket is between the shoulder blades, not the neck, as the single-bullet theory requires to be remotely plausible. The hole in the JFK's tie is small, as would be made by a bullet entering directly through it from the front. The HSCA also found additional evidence for conspiracy and recommended that the Justice Department continue the investigation. Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush took office in 1981 and the recommendation, like Justice, died.

I will stand with you on this issue.

You are the greatest!
goclark

Professionals make it difficult to trace an operation back to themselves -- plausible deniability. Sometimes, those interested in justice must look at the big picture and work down from there to see who has benefitted from an act of treason. In this essay on the media environment 34 years on (46 now), we can see how the nation's major news media work to smear JFK's accomplishments and memory in order to continue accumulating power for their rightwing masters.



Thanks for the kind words, my Friend. I think you -- as well as all who give a damn -- are the greatest, goclark.

"But there is another more insidious strain of the rightwing in America. These are the conservatives who sometimes disguise themselves as Democrats, as liberals, as “internationalists.”


BTW - can you explain why True Believers rely on the corporate media whenever they succumb to the pressure of demands to

answer a question or substantiate a point? It's always either the government or corporate media.

Please prove your rather silly assertion that all of our sources are either ''the government or corporate media'', especially after the source for Kalun's ''5 dancing Israelis'' and ''Israeli art students'' claims turns out to be none other than Fox News. Isn't that rather hypocritical? In fact, I'd love for you to point even one single time I cited Fox as a source.

It really isn't even necessary, because most of the time it's pretty obvious they aren't from extreme left-wing media outlets.

As usual, dude...you totally miss the point...you accuse us debunkers of solely using ''RW corporate media or government sources'' then wave off Kalun's use of Fox. Utter hypocrites.

You can count that day won whenever FAUX News reports something without slanting it way way way to the extreme right.

Can you let me know when the rules change again. Actually, that doesn't really matter since I have never cited them as a source for anything. Interesting to see how you will, then rationalize it, when it suits your purposes. Hypocrite.

it means a stopped clock is right more often than you are.

You mean that anybody who gives a different opinion or a holds JFK as less than perfect are in a right wing conspiracy? So, the Kennedy conspiracy has become multi-generational now.

JFK was not going to walk on water had he lived. The guy ordered a coup of Diem in Vietnam. He was not an enemy of the CIA. His rash action of blockading Cuba, which by international law was an act of war, just about got us all roasted. The missiles in Cuba were fully armed as it turns out.

Reading these posts, I don't believe how ass-backward and inside out the Kennedy assassination theories have become. This is beyond stupid and paranoid. This is mentally damaging.

Here's a fact curiously missing from American history books and almost any public mention of the Warren Commission:

Two of its members were directly responsible for the rise of post-war fascism. Allen Dulles, as a top official of the OSS and CIA, incorporated NAZI war criminals into the CIA from its founding. John McCloy, as High Commissioner for Germany, allowed Klaus Barbie and who-knows-who-else to escape justice. Of course, both men were also barons of Wall Street and Beltway Insiders. We all can see what that means today.

Don't bury your head in the sand, caseymoz. Follow the links and learn something that's seldom reported and rarely covered in history classes. When it comes to matters of state, it's better to know than not know. Don't you think?

He wasn't a good person in any way, but he wasn't a Nazi either, he fought against them. He was very anti-communist, meaning that on the Warren Commission, he would for any links the assassination might have had with the Soviet Union, so, John Birchers and other such right wingers couldn't say the Warren Commission covered up the communist plot. He was not there to suppress information.

Nazi War criminals: in the early CIA, nobody knew how to spy, and they needed people who could show them; not to mention people who could move around and recruit spies behind the Iron Curtain. The CIA was scared to death of Stalin, for good reasons, and they had almost no information on the Soviet Union. In that climate of fear, deals weren't cut with Nazis because somebody was a Nazi. If you're talking about Reinhard Gehlen's group, the Anwehr, Hitler's military intelligence service. He had a good sales pitch about his spy network in the East. At least they aimed their efforts directly toward the Soviet Block-- then.

On John McCloy's crimes: Klaus Barbie is always going to be a stain on the US reputation, but again, they felt that they needed the spy network he controlled. McCloy was not a Nazi or a Fascist, either. He just needed the information Barbie could give him.

Let me give you a comparison: Prescott Bush was worse than both these guys, because he was a Fascist.

I do not think the CIA went off track until later.

I especially think it important for young children to help them find their own voices,
to help them understand many issues they will not learn about in our schools.
And, it is essential for both young and old to recognize the value of non-fiction.

Needless to say in the case of the assassination of JFK -- which must really be understood
as a coup on our "people's" government, it has been dedicated researchers/investigators
who immediately showed the farce of the official story line. The right-wing propaganda
played on -- and assassinations continued with more denials.

Fonzi found that President Kennedy's clothes show evidence for multiple shooters -- conspiracy. The bullet hole in his jacket is between the shoulder blades, not the neck, as the single-bullet theory requires to be remotely plausible. The hole in the JFK's tie is small, as would be made by a bullet entering directly through it from the front.

We also have the McDuff film pointing to the location of the head wound in temple area.
The back wound was more correctly in the area of JFK's right shoulder blade and was made
at a 45 DEGREE DOWNWARD ANGLE -- it had NO OUTLET as confirmed at autopsy.
The neck wound was also confirmed as a wound of entry by doctors at Parkland Hospital
and the NECK WOUND ALSO HAD NO OUTLET.

Needless to say, there is no such thing as a perfect crime. That's why the coverup is so
intense. It has taken heavy right-wing propaganda to keep this information from the public.

Thanks to all those who have worked to bring the truth to us thru books!

The written word is how we keep ideas from disappearing.



It gets better. This is a must-read for those interested in our nation's present circumstances.

defendandprotect, I am so proud to be your DU Friend.

I don't believe you've seen what is shown on film as clearly a shot from the rear and turning it the direct opposite, saying that that there were multiple shooters (making a magic shooters rather than a magic bullet). This has literally become ass-backward. There are pictures available of the autopsy. You're censoring the simple straightforward answer in the favor of "finding the truth." The problem is, the truth was very simple, but the lies that have grown from this are actually useful in terrorizing. I mean, any secret agency can now intimidate elected officials with their own false version of how they shot Kennedy. It is making the government look more dangerous than it is.

Such an avulsion (skull bones were pushed outwards, forming a cone) could only have resulted from a bullet which entered from the front of his head. Take a look at Z frame 317.

It's a big orange blob to me. We're not looking at high definition here.

Kinda shoots that goofy claim all to hell, no?

JFK's head, if that's what you're claiming.

The entrance wound is located in the right temple area. Entrance wounds are small as I'm sure you would know. If the bullet would have entered from the back of his skull the exit wound have profoundly disfigured his face.

n/t

Frontal entry, exit in the back.

the ''front entry wound'', you fold. I don't expect a different outcome this time, dude.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE5FIzf6T4A

There's another photo with a clearer view of the entrance hole in JFK's forehead. It's exactly where everyone said it is. Beginning
with the President's Press Secretary, Malcolm Kilduff, who can be seen in video footage of the press conference where he gave the
official announcement of the President's death. He uses his right hand to point to where the entry hole is located.

The Gawler Funeral Home embalmer who prepared the President's body for the funeral also wrote in his notes that he observed a small
hole in the right forehead, above the right eye.

Keep in mind that there were many other autopsy photos that have never been released to the public, and some of the ones that
were released were most likely altered (sounds like those 9/11 videos with cartoon planes inserted into them, doesn't it). A simple example is that NO back of the head wounds can be seen in any of the autopsy
photos that have been released, yet ALL of the medical personnel, plus Mrs. Kennedy's personal bodyguard, Clint Hill, and two
FBI agents, are all on record as having observed a huge gaping hole that had been blown out in the back of JFK's head.

In the Z film, you can see the avulsion caused whenever the bullet exited from the back of his head.

NONE of this is persuasive to True Believers. At least they'll say it isn't persuasive. Once you get past the insults, denials, evasions, demands for proof that the government won't release, cites from partisan "researchers", "the dog ate my proof" excuses,
"goofy claims, silly claims", and whatever else is in the playbook that I failed to mention.

However, anyone who knows the medical evidence, knows the truth. JFK was shot in the forehead and killed as the result of a
conspiracy by unknown persons. Oswald, like OBLadin, was merely a Patsy. Like Osama, Oswald also had CIA connections. Oswald
was also an FBI informant who reported to FBI Special Agent James Hosty.

There's plenty more, but don't expect to learn anything helpful about the case from a True Believer. Why? Beats me. Just can't
imagine why. There's probably a good explanation and I'm sure we'll get it as soon as one of 'em sees this post. Get Ready!

About Kilduff. Okay, you're in shock. A beloved leader had just been killed and you don't know from adam if it's a prelude to the Soviets launching their missiles. You see the body of the leader. He has a terrible wound in one side of the head. How close do you look? Maybe what he saw was clotted blood, and he didn't look any closer. I mean why would you look closer when you're looking at gross scrambled brains? And pointing to where the "entrance hole" was says noting about the size of the actual wound or where it came out. Maybe he considers the entrance and exit holes as the same?

Now, you're a funeral director, and you find what you think is a small hole in the skull on the opposite side. If it were a rifle bullet, again, his whole head would be gone. If you don't believe that, at the very least, his forehead wouldn't appear intact even from this angle. Also, the skull-bones could crack and buckle in various places. That could form a hole. Not only that, see the first paragraph. People in deep, collective grief and shock make mistakes.

If he had been hit cleanly on the opposite side of the head at the range a rifle was fired, there wouldn't be an exit wound, his head would be missing. You don't have a small entrance wound and a large exit wound when a rifle shot hits the skull cleanly at short range. If he was winged higher in the head and the bullet went through diagonally, the whole top of his skull would be exposed.

Also, does it occur to you that when people say, he was wounded "in the back of the head" that picture could be exactly what they describe? There's too much play in those words. Does back of the head mean behind the ears? Behind the forehead? Plus, their influence by where they thought the shot came from. None of them say if the entrance and exit holes are the same ones.

Looking at the picture? That doesn't look like an exit hole. It looks like he was winged by a rifle or magnum shot. Which is exactly what is supported by the Zapruder film. People at the scene acted like he was shot from the back.

BTW, the reason why those autopsy pictures weren't released is probably that they were forged. Don't think professional conspiracy theorists, borderline personality disorders, or schizo-paranoids aren't above doing that.

to indicate that JFK was shot in the head. Nice try. Watch the video closely next time. If JFK was "shot in the forehead", why didn't the bullet strike something behind him?

I also notice that you don't, as usual, provide any evidence of your goofy claim at all.

Consistent with the medical evidence.

Simple question, dude. Why can't you produce a photo of JFK with an entrance wound in his forehead? Do you expect us believe no one took a picture of it? I'm willing to bet it's because it doesn't fucking exist, dude.

which you have probably also seen.

Here's some interesting information that you apparently, in all of you extensive reading, somehow missed or have since forgotten:

Some of the Dallas doctors described an entry wound in the LEFT temple. Researchers have long suspected that those doctors, in the rush and stress of the moment, simply confused their left with Kennedy's left, and that what they were really describing was an entry wound in the RIGHT temple.

Tom Robinson, the mortician who reassembled the President's skull after the autopsy, has stated that he saw a small hole in one of the temples, and that he believes it was in the right temple.

Patrolman Hurchel Jacks saw Kennedy's body in the limousine at Parkland Hospital before the body was taken inside. In a formal report, he said, "it appeared that the bullet had struck him above the right ear or near the temple."

During a news conference at Parkland Hospital, White House press secretary Malcolm Kilduff was asked to describe where the bullet entered, he replied,

Dr. Burkley told me it is a simple matter . . . of a bullet right through the head. . . . It is my understanding that it entered in the temple, the right temple.

In a picture that has long been famous among researchers, Kilduff is seen to illustrate his answer by pointing to his own right temple. Veteran reporter Seth Kantor attended this press conference, and in his notes he wrote that the bullet had "entered right temple." At 1:47, CST, about fifteen minutes after Kilduff's press conference, UPI transmitted the following bulletin:

President Kennedy was shot in the right temple. "It was a simple matter of a bullet right through the head," said Dr. George Burkley, White House Medical Officer.

Minutes later, NBC anchorman Chet Huntley repeated this statement on national television. Press sources quoted an unidentified bystander outside Parkland Hospital as saying, "I could see a hole in the President's left temple and his head and hair were bathed in blood." This was very probably the same small temple-entry hole that was described by some of the Parkland doctors and that was filled with wax by Tom Robinson.

The SEATTLE POST INTELLIGENCER matter-of-factly reported that "President Kennedy was shot in the right temple." The WASHINGTON POST said the President "was shot at 12:30 CST . . . by an assassin, who sent a rifle bullet crashing into his right temple."

When interviewed on ABC's "20/20," Dr. Charles Crenshaw, one of the Parkland doctors who treated the President, stated that the bullet entered in the area of the right temple and exited the right rear part of the head.

JFK with an entrance wound or not? You can cite all the conflicting witnesses you want but the only way to resolve those conflicts is recomciliation with the physical evidence. Do you have a photo of this ''front entrance wound'' or not? If you don't, then you have no real way to prove your point versus the MOUNTAIN of video, photographic and x-ray evidence that proves a rear entrance wound.

This is why few people here take you seriously, dude.

As I said, the evidence is just overwhelming. On another thread, I'll give you a chance to prove how much you don't know

about David Lifton's work.


You aren't doing very well, dude yourself. Time to call for some help. Why have they all abandoned you? Is it because

they know a losing cause when they see one?

''front entrance wound''? You can lay this whole issue to rest with this picture you claim to have but can't seem to produce. I'm done, dude.

I don't see a hole. I think this just about settles it. If not, I know how to find others.

It doesn't show any evidence of damage on the other side of the skull:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Your attempts to personalize the dispute are distracting, but not that distracting.

he's announcing that JFK died of a gunshot wound to his brain. That's why he pointed to his head. Why you think he should have pointed to the back of his head rather than just his head to indicate the brain is beyond me. He wasn't asked where the "entrance wound" was, dude. More typical conflation from the "truth movement/JFK assassination buffs".

In fact, if what you claim is true, why didn't Kilduff raise a huge fuss about it? Hint: Because you are misrepresenting what he is saying, dude.

I do not believe that you will even attempt to refute 99% of it. It's too voluminous and persuasive. Call in your fellow

True Believers. They aren't being exactly supportive of your efforts/whatever it is, are they?

In fact, the more I think about it, the more likely that is. Here's a link to shows you why a whole rifle bullet could not have crossed his skull:

http://dsc.discovery.com/video/player.html?bclid=191543...

Pay close attention to the first and third videos in the series (no, I'm sorry, there's no way to fast forward or skip the commercials). First one will show you what Oswald's head shot would have looked like and the third shows you explicitly what sort of entrance and exit hole you get when a rifle bullet at short range crosses through the skull.

His brother rang him up shortly before he died and asked him whether he was in Dallas 11/22/63. David Atlee Phillips answered, 'Yes'. His brother hung up on him and never spoke to him again.

From Oswald's "midnight press conference."



Lookit the fellah behind the man in glasses, holding out the microphone.



The eyebrow's a give-away.

Details: http://milfuegos.blogspot.com/2009/05/cia-veteran-agent...

Are you honestly arguing that if Kennedy were alive today, he'd be a JFK conspiracy theorist?


Wow, just wow.

No need to put words in my mouth. I wrote Kennedy loved to read.

"Readers are Leaders," it's been said.

That's why I also wrote Time for change is worth reading.

Here's something else worth reading and knowing:



You should read more, too, Bolo boffin. You just might learn something.

How else do you think I managed to avoid being caught intellectually in the tarpits of JFK and 9/11 conspiracy thinking? I'm happy to help point the way out, but no one can afford the political cynicism you and others shovel around here constantly.

The boulevard is not that bad, Octafish. There's real work that needs doing.

Personally, my favorite line is, "Jesus freaks, out in the streets, handing tickets out for God".

"How else do you think I managed to avoid being caught intellectually in the tarpits of JFK and 9/11 conspiracy thinking?"

than simply assume MB knows what one is. Besides, he must be awfully busy looking for the evidence that "Bugliosi admitted he used ghostwriters" to write "Reclaiming History". Of course, I already googled it and, guess what? All I can find is guys like David Lifton and other JFK assassination CT isiots claiming Bugliosi must've used one.

If you don't know history your condemned to repeat it. The government of the US was removed by a coup d'etat - it should be common knowledge, taught in schools and reinforced by media reporting - but it's not. And the reason for this is that the forces that took control that day are still in control.

Just a word about the evidence. It's overwhelming. If you do your own research you'll find out that this statement is correct.

One example: A number of the major figures actually involved in the planning and shooting confessed their roles before their death. Marcello, Traficante and Giancana all confirmed it was a hit and described how it was done.

So we’re left with two possibilities: (1) either what they said is true. Or (2) for some reason 3 of the most powerful Mafia bosses in the country decided to claim responsibility for the assassination of the President. I go with #1.

How silly can you get?

Hits are their stock in trade. Its the greatest hit of all time. Kennedy double crossed Giancana and kidnapped Marcello.

These guys are dumb but they are smart enough to know that the gov't only wanted to make Oswald the patsy for President Johnson's benefit.

If you want a ring side look at the mob, read my book on Amazon, Just Cause Just Facts.

It keeps their rank in file in their ranks and files and frightens challengers and even government agents. So, now the Mafia did it. Down below, a thread says James Files did it shooting from the front. There are many competing "theories" that are totally different from each other. And self-apparent evidence is being ignored-- like saying he was shot from the front and not the back. The story is now literally ass-backward. What all this really says is, the "evidence" doesn't really point anywhere in particular, because evidence is being manufactured, just like the Mafiosos did. other people have done it, witnesses have come forward who really weren't witnesses at all. Authors made things up from whole cloth, because they could profit, they were paranoid schizophrenics, or borderline personality disorders. In searching for "the truth" the truth is being buried.

This illustrates that the lies about the assassination can be worse the truth, because it can now be used against elected officials to terrorize them. Now, even if it is simply that Oswald was a single gunman who acted alone, the CIA could hint that they did it and scare President. Any fringe, military-related part of the government can do that. As you could see, it can also be used to terrorize the population, who are afraid of the government.

So, pursuing this more and more and ignoring most direct answers is harmful. It does exactly what a real conspiracy would have done.