What Happened - Shot 1
I'd say this is the "in a nutshell" version (as opposed to my 10-part documentary), although it's probably not as "nutshell" as many would like. But here is my scenario, with supporting evidence, and as brief as I can make it, without having to watch my documentary series by going to Episodes   :-).
​This page is dedicated to the first shot, which came from the TSBD, Shot 1 in my scenario. The remaining shots will be discussed on separate pages (currently under construction). If you're impatient to learn about the rest of the shots, then go watch my documentary series. :-) .

​So in the words of one of my favorite TV detectives when he sums up the case at the end of the show, "Here's what happened..." 
Sections
​(You click underlined text to jump to that section--I finally figured out how to do "jump-links"! Yay! However, I recommend reading the whole thing, in order. If you need to take a break and come back, or make a quick reference to something you've already read, then the jump-links will come in handy.)
​
​Introduction (Reasons to Consider This Scenario):

Shot One
 
Introduction

Acknowledgements: Those Who Came Before (Donahue and Others)


​The work of ballistics expert Howard Donahue was the inspiration for my own research into the Kennedy assassination. Prior to encountering his work, I had no more knowledge of the assassination than anyone else who occasionally watched a movie or TV documentary about the Kennedy assassination. But when I came across Donahue's fascinating theory of the AR-15 accident, I wanted to know more. I wanted to know if he might have been right. Thus, what started out as a simple questioning of whether Donahue might have been right, became an obsessive quest for truth as I learned more and more facts and details about the assassination, and began the process of sorting facts from opinions, and eventually rearranged the facts to form a picture that--surprisingly--no one else had apparently seen before.

Or, at least, a picture no one else seems to have publicly described before. Sometimes that picture now seems so obvious that I wonder how no one else has smacked their own forehead and exclaimed "Of course!" But oftentimes, people jump to a conclusion, and having jumped to the wrong one, find it difficult if not impossible to find their way back to the right path. Or, upon finding that the assassination was characterized by accidents and mistakes more than malicious plotting to overthrow--a cover-up rather than a coup d'etat--it may be that they lose interest. That the cover-up was "benign" rather than born of malice, however, makes it no less dangerous. The cover-up has contributed to a deep-seated, and well-deserved, mistrust in our institutions. But many people, rather than working to fix the problem, would prefer to either perpetuate the problem, or overthrow the institutions. Both--perpetuation of deceit or overthrow of institutions--are dangerous. The best fix involves acknowledging the wrongful deceit, being transparent about what happened, and resolving to do better moving forward. That has not yet happened.

Howard Donahue was on the right track with his AR-15 accident scenario, but he made some mistakes in his original theory. His mistakes were due not to errors in his thinking, but because:
  • he relied on fraudulent evidence (especially the altered Zapruder Film, purported rather than actual back wound location, and the HSCA “cowlick” entrance), thus his acceptance of the Single Bullet Theory and other erroneous aspects;
  • he constrained himself to 3 total shots; and
  • other evidence (e.g., HSCA and ARRB testimonies) were not yet available to him.
​
I’ve corrected Donahue's mistakes and accounted for other evidence (e.g., evidence of two head shots, one from the front and one from the rear), and put together an evidence-based scenario that accounts for all the "conspiracy" evidence, but without reaching the conclusion of a "Deep State conspiracy to murder" the President. This scenario plausibly explains all the evidence pointing towards a cover-up. Moreover, this scenario aligns with the acoustical evidence, especially if one admits that the HSCA mic placement diagram and other evidence has been deliberately misrepresented. Based on the evidence of alterations to the Zapruder Film and autopsy evidence, it is no great leap to accept that the mic-placement diagram was also deliberately misrepresented--especially since the person who created the diagram (James Barger) was not actually present for the acoustical tests, and the list of "street features" he was given to create the diagram is not available for public review. Some researchers have discounted the acoustical evidence entirely, due especially to the inaudible "hold everything secure" supposed "cross-talk," but as Donald Thomas points out, there are alternative explanations for the utterance (if it in fact exists!), and the "coincidences" of test-shot echo match, "order in the data," and "double-bang" of the last two impulses are just too non-coincidental to ignore. So I don't ignore it. Instead, I consider the the "bike with the mike" probably belonged to motorcycle escort officer Douglas Jackson, who was thought by researchers before me to be the "Knoll Rider" who reportedly tried to drive his motorcycle up the hill in response to the shots. With Jackson as the "Knoll Rider" and as having the "Bike with the Mike," the extraneous sounds on the dicta belt tape (engine noises, etc.) fit, and his motorcade position not only perfectly places him to receive the "acoustic shockwave" reportedly in the audio evidence, but also perfectly positions him to have misperceived the AR-15 shot as having come from the Grassy Knoll. Again, all much too "coincidental" to have been actual "coincidence." So I align my work with the acoustical evidence, even though I don't rely on it exclusively. As far as I know, mine is the only scenario that comes close to successfully making this alignment--with the understanding about the mic placement diagram, of course.

The acoustical alignment also requires an acceptance that the side-to-side leeway that the acoustical experts gave for the echo pattern match between the evidence "impulse" pattern and the test-shot echo patterns also apply to front-back variance. That is, the same slight differences in the timing of the echo patterns between the test-shot and dicta belt patterns could not only apply to allow the actual "Grassy Knoll" shooter position to be within 25 feet of one side to either the left or right of the test-shooter's position for that "95% confidence" that the "Grassy Knoll" shooter existed, but also allow for the position of that actual shooter to be on the road in front of the test shooter's position. 

That actual shooter was, of course, George Hickey, who fired his AR-15 unintentionally, not on-purpose, because the weapon malfunctioned in an unintended slam-fire discharge. That the weapon was prone to slam-fire discharge (due to the interaction between the too-heavy firing pin and too-sensitive ammunition primer) was revealed by Bonar Menninger, who authored the essential account of Howard Donahue's work in his book Mortal Error. Menninger thereby provided one adjustment to Donahue's original work by suggesting that Hickey didn't even have to pull the trigger for the weapon to fire ("What If Hickey Didn't Pull the Trigger"), whereas Donahue had originally believed that Hickey had pulled the trigger reflexively when he fell over. So modification of Donahue's original theory, even by the most staunch of Donahue loyalists, is not unprecedented. 

But despite his mistakes, Donahue's major insight into the AR-15 accident was nothing short of brilliant, and my own work would not have been possible without that original flash of genius. Nor would my work have been possible without the work of others, like Dr. John Costella (who proved the fraudulent nature of various aspects of the Zapruder Film), or Dr. David Mantik (who demonstrated the fraudulent nature of the autopsy images), the courage of first-hand witnesses like Jerrol Custer, James Jenkins, and the Parkland Hospital doctors (who defied the official stories when they spoke their truths), dedicated truth-seekers like Doug Horne (who would not let inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence go unchallenged), and the many researchers whose work pointed me towards evidence and signposts I might otherwise have missed. I owe all of them a debt of gratitude.

Addressing the Critics


​Before I begin, I would like to address 2 groups of critics:
  • The critics who say the “Hickey did it” theory is “obscene.” Neither Donahue nor myself is claiming that there was anything deliberate about Hickey firing the AR-15. To the contrary, we are saying that this was an accident, and fatal gunshot accidents happen ALL THE TIME. There was even another (2007) instance of an accidental SS discharge, involving Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  It is now also known that the AR-15 was prone to slam fire discharges, which increases the likelihood of the AR-15 accidental firing.    
 
  • The critics who believe that “if Do his trajectory wrong, his entire theory falls apart”—or some variation of that statement, believing that if Donahue got any part of his theory wrong, the entire theory falls apart. This is a logical fallacy, the “part-whole” fallacy. Rejecting the entire notion of a Secret Service accident simply because Donahue was mistaken about other aspects is “throwing the baby out with the wash water.” I believe I’ve corrected Donahue’s errors, and I hope those critics will give me the hearing my work deserves.

Critics who reject any theory involving Hickey should consider the following: 
  • Why did the SS take the AR-15 out of service immediately after the assassination and refuse to adopt assault style weapons in their arsenal until relatively recently? (Although they did still have Thompson submachine guns, which would potentially “spray” bullets with less discrimination than an AR-15.) It makes no sense that the SS would remove the most powerful weapon in their arsenal, which was particularly suited for eliminating a threat without harming others nearby—unless such an accident occurred. 
  • Moreover, the Shanklin memo (uncovered by John Hunt) puts “the gun” that fired the bullet “that apparently killed the President” in the hands of the SS on the same day as the assassination. (The TSBD Mannlicher-Carcanno Oswald weapon was never in the possession of the SS, having been transferred directly from the DPD to the FBI). 
  • Then there are all those nose witnesses, who smelled gun smoke at street level—which would have been impossible to have originated from the TSBD, but makes absolute sense if the AR-15 had been accidentally fired.


Gun Smoke Nose Witnesses


​Below is a nose witness diagram from Murder from Within, showing approximate witness locations and also showing wind direction. To this collection of witnesses, I will add Sen. Ralph Yarborough, riding in the car behind Hickey’s, who smelled gun smoke all the way to the hospital, and Parkland triage nurse Bertha Lozano, who smelled the smoke INSIDE the hospital when the entourage arrived. My documentary (episode 3) includes specific witness accounts of the gun smoke odor, including under-oath witness testimony and contemporaneous newspaper accounts.
The Chicago Tribune had a reporter, Robert Young, who was embedded in the Dallas motorcade. Young probably either exited his vehicle in Dealey Plaza, or returned to Dealey Plaza after the motorcade arrived at Parkland, to interview witnesses, and is probably the source for the Chicago Tribune's important contemporaneous reporting. This page, from 11/23/63, contains some important information, including a description that the area "reeked with the smell of gunpowder":

Secret Service Agents Firing "Submachine Guns"


​This Chicago Tribune account also describes Secret Service agents ("Treasury agents in the secret service bodyguard" interrupted by the picture of Tippit and its caption) as having "fired submachine guns" towards the building:
There were no "submachine guns." There was, however, an AR-15--which was such a brand new weapon that civilians frequently described it as a "submachine gun."

Dave Powers, Kenneth O'Donnell, and the Kennedy Family (a Reason to Dissemble)


As for Kennedy aide Dave Powers (who was in the Secret Service follow-up car) “not” hearing the AR-15 shot (which some critics contend was the case, based on reported remarks by Powers in an interview, not sworn testimony)—I believe he did hear it. Someone on another site pointed out that his statement that if Hickey had shot the President “I would have heard it” is not a statement that he did NOT hear it, and may well have been dissemblance. Would Powers have lied in order to protect the Kennedy family from embarrassment? I think it likely, especially since Kennedy’s maternal grandmother was Mary Augusta Hickey. I believe that George Hickey was a relative of Kennedy’s, a second or third cousin, perhaps, especially given that Kennedy “cleared the way” for Hickey (who was 40 years old at the time, and just past the age when one could join the SS, even with a military record) to join the SS. Hickey’s friend Sam Kinney said Hickey was the person who gave Kennedy the PT-109 coconut as an inauguration gift, and said that Hickey “loved Kennedy too well.” If Hickey was indeed a family member, and with Powers being a close friend of the family, it would explain why Powers and the family would have kept quiet. ​

Jackie Kennedy and the Manchester Tapes


​Jackie was described as telling William Manchester that “what was so horrible was the thought that it was an accident, a freak…” I suspect further details of what Jackie knew are why the audio tapes of his interviews with her are still being blocked from public view in the Archives. (And—spoiler alert—Hickey’s accidental slam-fire shot came after Kennedy had already been struck in the head by the TSBD shooter [Oswald?]). Hickey was described as being one of the only two SS agents who did NOT “just (sit) there with their thumbs up their butts while the President was gunned down in front of them” (the other responding agent being Clint Hill). The AR-15 slam fire shooting was absolutely not Hickey’s fault. Moreover, Kennedy was already severely neurologically damaged by the first TSBD/Oswald shot (as evidenced by the decorticate posture ‘chest grab” position and his slump/lean/fall towards Jackie. The hands at the top of his chest was not Kennedy “trying to cough up a bullet” but was evidence of brain damage. See the “Lazarus Sign” video (which I show in my documentary) about a young “ brain dead” patient going into that same “chest grab” position after being shot in the head, on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nty6bICZlyA . With JFK, his head was not being manipulated by doctors, but he was confined in the limousine, and as he lost consciousness and “slumped” (as witnesses described him as doing). Nor was he lying on a table. JFK was seated in the confines of the limousine when he was shot. It was gravity and the loss of consciousness that caused his head to drop and triggered the same reflex as seen in the "Lazarus Sign" video.

Acoustical Matches


My scenario not only matches the witness accounts that I provide, it also matches the acoustical evidence. During the events in Dallas, a motorcycle officer's microphone was stuck in the "on" position and recorded sounds matching the muzzle blast+echo pattern of test shots fired from the TSBD window and the "Grassy Knoll" test shot location. The HSCA acoustical experts found 5 "suspect impulses" in the Dallas Police Department's evidence recording (utilizing a dicta belt) whose patterns closely matched those of the test shots. 

I contend that the acoustical evidence is valid, name the motorcade officer who had the "bike with the mike" (not H.B. McLain, as the HSCA claimed), and explain how each shot in my scenario matches the acoustical evidence.

The chart below summarizes the acoustical evidence presented by the HSCA acoustical experts:
As the summary chart above shows, there were five total "suspect impulses" found in the dicta belt tape. There was also an impulse before, and an impulse after these five, which the acoustical experts rejected as "false positives" due to a mis-match in both echo pattern and amplitude (volume) to test shots fired from the TSBD 6th floor window and the Grassy Knoll. This rejection was premature, in my view. However, I don't believe these were assassination shots. The initial rejected shot may have been a warning fired by one of Johnson's protective agents who, being farther back, had a better view of the shooter's window (see Warren Taylor's door opening in the Marie Muchmore film). The last rejected impulse may have been for a shot fired by an overzealous DPD officer or Secret Service agent who rushed up the Knoll after the last assassination shot, and may account for the "pool of blood" reported at the top of the stairs. But those two rejected impulses will not be addressed in this section.

Givens (Addressed Elsewhere on This Website)


My scenario depends upon a number of givens that many will find difficult to accept. It is not my intention to discuss all these here, as I spend much time elsewhere on my site discussing them. However, they bear mentioning, as they are critical aspects to my scenario. The arguments for these "givens" are provided in the links to other articles on this website:

  • The extant Zapruder Film, as we know it, is an extensively altered product. More and more researchers are coming to understand this. It cannot be relied upon as authentic evidence of anything, especially regarding the exact sequence of events. The work of optics expert Dr. John Costella and ARRB analyst Doug Horne contribute greatly to the body of knowledge of Z-film alteration, and I recommend studying their work as a starting place for those who still think the film is "authentic." I even have a few observations of my own to add. See "Zapruder Film Alteration."
  • The autopsy X-rays and photographs, as we know them, are altered products. Again, more and more researchers are coming to understand this, as well. The work of radiologist and physicist Dr. David Mantik, supported by the work of neurologist Dr. Michael Chesser, should be studied by those who think these images are "authentic." We also have statements by White House photographers Robert Knudsen (as reported by Knudsen's family) and Joe O'Donnell regarding alterations to the autopsy photographs, as well as under-oath ARRB testimony by navy corpsman Saundra Kay Spencer, who processed the original autopsy images in 1963, about there being "no correspondence" between the images she saw then, and the extant images she was shown during her ARRB deposition. I have some observations of my own to add as to how the "computer-assisted" lateral X-ray (more readily found online than the "un-enhanced" HSCA-published X-ray) was created with the help of the "living" right lateral X-ray. See "What the Doctors Saw--Evidence of Image Alteration" and "HSCA Published X-rays."
  • There was a back of the head blow-out, but not a "front" of the head blow-out. The vast majority of witnesses at Parkland and the Bethesda autopsy described a blow-out hole at the back of the President's head, not the front. The sworn testimony of the Parkland doctors described the hole as "occipital" (back of the head) or sometimes "occipital-parietal" (back and side of the head). In fact, nurse Audrey Bell had to ask where Kennedy was wounded as he lay face up on the stretcher, and the head was lifted so she could see the hole at the back. The recently released documentary "What the Doctors Saw" is just one of many sources that describes this back of the head blow-out, wherein the doctors describe their puzzlement over the extant autopsy images. 
Picture
Image from "JFK: What the Doctors Saw," showing a scalp laceration on the side of the head, and a hole at the back of the head, taken from https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/tv-movie-news/jfk-assassination-parkland-hospital-doctors-entrance-wound-two-gunmen-1234876218/

​All this is not to say that that the Z-film and autopsy images have no value whatsoever. For one thing, the evidence of alteration shows the extent to which certain individuals were willing to go along with the cover-up. For another thing, even the altered extant X-rays show evidence of two head shots (one from the front, one from the rear), with the too-high bullet particle trail (too-high to match either the autopsy EOP entry or the Clark Panel/HSCA "cowlick" entry points--but just the right height for the forehead entry, given my own observations).

​It is not my intent to re-debate the authenticity of the Zapruder Film or autopsy images in this article. I do that elsewhere on this website. Researchers on the Education Forum "JFK Assassination Debate" threads have argued their perspectives endlessly. I personally have found that those who argue that the Zapruder Film and autopsy images are "authentic" refuse to budge from their dug-in positions supporting authenticity despite whatever evidence to the contrary is presented. Moreover, the "alterationists," who accept that the Z-film and autopsy images have been altered, generally have their own pet theories of the assassination, often involving shooters positioned at the Dal-Tex building, the Triple Underpass area, the Grassy Knoll, etc. This latter group often cites evidence of CIA involvement in evidence alteration and the extremely interesting Oswald/CIA connections as "evidence" of a "Deep State Conspiracy to Murder the President." The dug-in nature of these positions is why I doubt my solution will ever receive the wide-spread acceptance I feel it deserves. Nevertheless, I am convinced that this solution is correct.


Cover-Up vs. Conspiracy to Murder


While I accept that there was a Deep State Conspiracy to cover-up​ an embarrassing Secret Service accident, and while I do not pretend to address the motives of the TSBD shooter (probably Oswald), I am not at this point convinced that there were U.S. government motives behind the TSBD shooter. I do give a good explanation for the cover-up other than a Deep State plan to murder the President. What I do, specifically, is give an accounting for the shots fired in Dealey Plaza that day. My accounting aligns with the acoustical evidence--especially if one accepts that there was a certain amount of cover-up involved in the presentation of the acoustical evidence, such as running the the Automatic Gain Control or AGC (evidence of the recording having been processed through AGC), and the "mic placement diagram"--which was created by someone (James Barger) who was not actually present for the acoustical testing, and who drew up the diagram based on a description of "street features" that is not available for public perusal or verification. (Barger doesn't know where that description might be found.) I contend that the "bike with the mic" belonged to motorcade escort officer Douglas Jackson, whose actions (as the purported "knoll rider") would have matched the non-gunshot impulse sounds (such as the engine noises) recorded onto the dicta belt. I address the acoustics more specifically in Part 9 of my documentary series.

For the moment, I just want to be clear that I do not address the motives of the TSBD shooter, or even whether it was Oswald. Others contend that the shooter was someone other than Oswald. It is not my intention to argue the identity of the TSBD shooter, so if I say "Oswald," it is for convenience sake as he was commonly supposed to be the TSBD shooter. I leave it to others to prove or disprove his identity. However, I do contend that there was only one intended assassin, in the TSBD sixth floor window. What I do is give an accounting of the shots that matches with the evidence, including the acoustical evidence, the "3" reportedly fired from the TSBD window (plus others fired from within the motorcade), the evidence reported by Dr. David Mantik and others of two head shots (one fired from the front, one from the rear), and other "conspiracy" evidence--but without reaching the conclusion of a Deep State conspiracy to murder the President. 

Basically, I explain why a cover-up was desired. There was an embarrassing sequence of events, especially involving an accidental slam-fire discharge of the AR-15 weapon being handled by a four-months new Secret Service agent. This unintended shot accidentally struck Kennedy in the head for the second time, after he had already been struck in the head by the assassin's bullet.

Different from Donahue's Original Theory


​If you are familiar with Donahue's original theory, you already know that he posited only one head shot (the accidental AR-15 head shot), accepted the Clark Panel/HSCA revised "cowlick" entry to the head (much above the original "EOP" back of the head entry), and accepted the Single Bullet Theory (SBT) as true. However, I contend that there were two head shots (one from Oswald, one from the AR-15). I also accept the autopsy doctor's "EOP" entry location (supported by Dr. Mantik's analysis of the Harper Fragment), and consider the SBT to be B.S. So there are three obvious differences right there. 

Specifically, my scenario differs from Donahue's original AR-15 scenario, the (altered) Zapruder Film, and the scenarios posited by most other researchers in the following ways:
  • an accounting of shots that closely matches the five "suspect impulses" found in the acoustical evidence. Even though my sources for all the shots does not exactly match the acoustical "attribution" matches, I give plausible explanations for the "muzzle withdrawn" TSBD acoustical match and the "Grassy Knoll" acoustical match (explaining why the echo patterns in the evidence tape matched those of the test shots). The "double-bang" of the last two suspect impulses matches the "double-bang" of witness accounts. (There was also an impulse before and an impulse after the "assassination" sequence in the evidence tape, which were rejected as not having sufficient volume or the echo pattern of either of the two test-shot locations. This rejection was, in my view, premature. I think that the first pre-assassination impulse was likely a warning shot fired by one of Johnson's Secret Service agents on Houston Street, and the last post-assassination impulse might have been a shot fired by an over-zealous Secret Service agent or DPD officer firing at a civilian bystander at the top of the stairs, thus accounting for the reported pool of blood at the top of the stairs. I feel that these two impulses were rejected prematurely. However, neither one of these acoustical non-match shots struck anyone in the limousine, and were outside of the "assassination" sequence.)
  • Two head shots, from opposite directions. (Donahue only posited one.) I contend that the first of the two head shots occurred far sooner than most other researchers posit, about 2.5 seconds before the Altgens 6 photo was taken, when the limousine was just at the end of the turn onto Elm Street. This first head shot came from the TSBD shooter (Oswald?), striking Kennedy in the forehead above the right eye. The second head shot occurred not when the limousine was in the Z313 position (that is a fake head shot), but when the limousine was somewhat farther down Elm Street (matching the FBI model location and witness accounts like that of Mary Moorman).
  • Separate shots striking Kennedy and Connally--i.e., no "Single Bullet Theory."
  • More than 3 total shots fired (although only 3 were fired by the assassin in the TSBD window), aligning with the original 5 "suspect impulses" in the acoustical evidence. In addition to the TSBD shooter (Oswald?) there were at least two Secret Service shooters. The unintended consequences of their shots (minor for one, major for the other) contributed to the desire for the cover-up.

​These contentions are not made out of whole cloth. My scenario is evidence-based. Until there is a public admission of what happened, some will argue that my solution is "theory" rather than "fact." However, my solution fits all the evidence that runs counter to the official scenario (officially, only three shots fired, all from Oswald, all from behind), and is, I believe, the correct solution. My solution explains all the evidence of cover-up and the reason behind the cover-up, but without making the leap into a belief of a Deep State Conspiracy to "murder" the President--but only a conspiracy to cover-up embarrassing events.

So, matching the five "suspect impulses" in the acoustical evidence, and without delving much into the impulse before the five (which I believe to have been a warning shot) or the impulse after the five (which I believe to have been a shot fired by an overzealous DPD officer or Secret Service agent), here is my five-shot scenario (which match the "suspect impulses" in the acoustical evidence):
Shot One

Summary


​There is evidence that the TSBD shooter's first shot was a head shot, and that it occurred as the first​ shot in the assassination sequence (137.7 seconds into the stuck mic sequence of the acoustical evidence). The Zapruder Film does not show this shot, but then again, the Zapruder Film is an altered product. My scenario places this head shot immediately after the limousine's turn onto Elm Street. And there are witnesses who place a shot as occurring at this point.

Early Head Shot


​Returning to the Chicago Tribune article posted above, we get these excerpts, which indicate that Kennedy was shot in the head with the first​ shot, when the limousine was "75 yards" (actually, I think it was less than half of that, 92 feet or just under 31 yards--you'll see where I get this distance in a moment--but a lot of people have trouble estimating distance, so witness recollections of distance measurements should be taken with a grain of salt) away from the window and "moving at a stroller's pace," making this "an easy shot." The President's "hair flew up," indicating that this was a head shot, and the President took on an odd expression that witnesses characterized as "an awful look" or "awful" and "stunned" expression, or (per Bill Newman in his WFAA interview) showing "fear." But note how the "hair lift ' is associated with the first shot, not the third:

Alan Smith

​
​On a different page of the ​Chicago Tribune newspaper, we get an account as to exactly where on Kennedy's head this bullet struck--"in his forehead"--and exactly where the limousine was  at the time of this shot--when the limousine was almost directly underneath the assassin's window and the assassin still had a frontal shot.
I'd like to point out that even though Alan Smith was reported as saying that he was standing "on Main Street" (rather than Elm Street) he may actually have been misquoted and originally said that he was standing "on the main street" in front of the building, as opposed to the access road that ran between the  TSBD and Elm Street. Or he may have gotten the name of the street wrong. But most importantly, he said that "the bullets came from a window right over (his) head." And critically, being possibly the closest witness to Kennedy at the time of the shot, only 10 feet away, he saw it strike the President "in his forehead."

I believe Alan Smith to have been one of these two boys seen on the far right edge of the Altgens 6 photograph. (The boy in the darker sweater can be seen running after the limousine in the Couch film.)
Picture
I believe Alan Smith to have been one of these two boys visible in the Altgens 6 photograph.

Mrs. Charles Hester


​Recently, Denis Morissette, a researcher on the Education Forum, posted a topic in the "JFK Assassination Debate" thread (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30389-dallas-times-herald-editor’s-notes/) with a link to the Dallas Times Herald​ assassination archives ("Morgue"). One of the editor's notes, #449, contained very interesting information related to Mrs. Charles Hester, a payroll clerk in Zapruder's company Jennifer's Juniors, who described the first shot as "like a firecracker exploded in the car..whn Firstone (sic.​) hit him...like firecracker exploding in his head, exploded blood.."
Picture
Editors note #447 from the Dallas Times Herald archives, known as the "Morgue," from https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1M579IE0NLpX3Ry-PxP03r6GNGZp9HoRz
Mrs. Hester's description of the first shot as "like a firecracker exploded in the car...like (a) firecracker exploding in his head, exploded blood," was echoed without specifically mentioning the word "head" or "blood" but in connection with the "first" shot, by bystanders Ruby Henderson and Jack Franzen, who saw stuff flying around inside the car, even if they didn't recognize that the stuff they saw came from the President's head. However, the thought that it was a "firecracker" was a common thread, as was the mention of stuff flying around inside the car.

Ruby Henderson

​
​Ruby Henderson was standing at the corner of Houston and Elm in front of the Dal-Tex building, which would place her immediately behind the limousine just after the turn onto Elm. She said that "at the time the motorcade passed where she was standing," she saw “paper” flying out of the car and later realized it was “flesh.” Moreover, in order to see the paper/flesh fly out of the President's car, there would have to be no other cars (like the Secret Service follow-up car) blocking her view. (See the bottom of the first page and top of the second page of her FBI report.)
Picture
Ruby Henderson's FBI report. She saw "paper" or "flesh" fly out of the car "at the time the motorcade passed where she was standing." She was located at the corner of Houston and Elm, in front of the Dal-Tex building. (See the bottom of the first page, top of the second.)

Jack Franzen


​The Franzen family was seen in the extant Zapruder Film as the last bystanders before the limousine went under the Triple Underpass. Jack Franzen also believed he saw pieces of a “firecracker” flying around inside the car with the first shot.
Picture
Jack Franzen's FBI report describing the first shot as "an explosion which appeared to him to come from the President's car and noticed small fragments flying inside the car and immediately assumed some had tossed a firecracker inside the automobile."
(Also of interest in Franzen's account is the description of Secret Service Agents unloading from their car and rushing up the hill, which the Newman family also described in one of their interviews. Officially, of course, this never happened. But I believe that the pool of blood described as being seen at the top of the stairs is related.)

Pierce Allman

​
Another critical first-shot witness is Pierce Allman, who placed the limousine just at the end of the turn for the first shot. According to Allman, "They turned the corner, right here, and ​Boom!"
Picture
Pierce Allman, who was standing next to the corner of Houston and Elm at the time of the shooting, describes the limousine as "turning the corner" in the top image, and "right here, and BOOM!" in the bottom image.
In this interview, Allman described "three evenly spaced shots" that came from the TSBD window. In a same-day radio interview (audio presented in my documentary), he was asked if he saw police or Secret Service returning fire. His response was "This is possible." The "return-fire" idea is something I will return to in upcoming "What Happened" articles. 
This is a truncated version of the interview from which I got the images above. It also contains his radio interview:

Governor Connally


Governor Connally gave a press conference from his hospital bed a few days after the assassination. In that press conference, he said, "And then, we had just turned a corner. I heard a shot..."
​

Karen Westbrook


There was also the early Chicago Tribune account (shown above) by Karen Westbrook, who saw Kennedy’s “hair fly up” at a point where she could still see Kennedy's "awful, stunned expression." In order for her to see that expression, the limousine would have to have been approaching her position, as it was just after it turned the corner, not past her, as it was by the time the Altgens 6 photo was taken.
​

Charles Brehm


Charles Brehm described in his Mark Lane interview a “hair lift” at a point when he could see Kennedy’s expression—i.e., as the limousine was approaching him—and described a “skull fragment” or “whatever it was” landing on the street near his feet. (I believe Brehm mistakenly attributed the “hair lift” to the “second” shot when it actually occurred with the “first” TSBD shot, whereas the skull fragment likely did land near his feet with the second shot, after momentarily sticking to Bobby Hargis’ cheek, where it can be seen in the Altgens 6 photo).
​

Hank Farmer


More recently, (thanks to the work of Pat Speer) I can add Hank Farmer (identified by Speer as the Black man wearing a black apron on the other far of Elm Street in the Zapruder film), who described Kennedy as being shot “in the face”.
​

Dan Rather's Same-Day Reporting


​While narrating an aftermath film for the CBS evening news, Dan Rather twice showed the area of Elm Street just after the turn while narrating that "this is practically the spot where the President was shot" and "right there is where the President was shot." The videos are presented in episode 7 of my documentary series, but here are stills from the two times he locates the President as being shot just after the turn:
Picture
Dan rather narrates an aftermath film in the CBS Evening News of 11/22/63. As a cop walks towards the steps leading to the main TSBD entrance, Rather says "Right there, is where the President was shot." The video is in Part 7 of my documentary series.
Picture
Later in the film narration, Rather says, "This is practically the spot on the street where the President was shot." The Dal-Tex building can be seen on the left.
Rather is showing the end of the turn onto Elm Street as "the spot where the President was shot." This does not match any official location for a shot, but it does give the TSBD shooter an opportunity for a frontal shot.

Other Accounts of the Forehead Wound


​We also have a number of other accounts of a forehead wound, from Assistant Press Secretary Malcolm Kilduff (who announced Kennedy's death at the Parkland Hospital Press Conference, apparently describing what Dr. Burkley had told him about "a bullet right in the head"), White House photographer Joe O'Donnell (describing autopsy images he had seen), Dr. Charles Crenshaw (one of the Parkland doctors who treated Kennedy, describing a wound he saw in person), Navy Corpsman Dennis David (who saw purported autopsy images taken by William Pitzer), and Quentin Schwinn (a graduating photography student purportedly shown an autopsy photograph as part of a CIA recruitment pitch):
Picture
Top-left: Assistant Press Secretary Malcolm Kilduff points to his forehead at the Press Conference announcing Kennedy's death, saying, "Dr. Burkley tells me...it was a simple matter of a bullet right in the head." Bottom-Left, Parkland physician who participated in Kennedy's emergency care told 20/20 viewers, "(the bullet entered) from here, through." Top-center: White House photographer Joe O'Donnell described seeing autopsy photos not in the extant collection showing a bullet wound in the forehead. Bottom-center: Navy Corpsman Dennis David recounts having seen an autopsy phone that showed a bullet wound in the forehead. Bottom-right: Graduating photography student Quentin Schwinn reported seeing an autopsy photo that looked like this drawing he commissioned, showing an apparent bullet wound in Kennedy's forehead.

Bobby Hargis's Cheek (and the Back of the Head Exit)


​A close look at motorcycle officer Bobby Harris's right cheek (on the left as you view the image) shows an anomaly that I contend is a fragment of Kennedy's skull, ejected from the back of the head with the first shot, and creating the start of the back of the head blow-out that the AR-15 accidental shot enlarged seconds later. Harris didn't seem to know he had been struck by anything at the time, as he says in an interview that he didn't seem to know anything was there until after the assassination, when a fellow officer, Buddy Brewer, indicated to him that he had some tissue on his lip. In the interview (this clip of which is in my documentary), Harris touches his left cheek. However, as the Aligns 6 image shows, it actually struck his right cheek. Harris was struck with brain and bone matter from the first ​shot, not the last, as many researchers have assumed.

The FBI "Visual Aid" Model


​​The limousine position for this first (early) TSBD shot aligns with an FBI “visual aid” model picture provided to the WC showing a string line running from the TSBD window to Kennedy’s throat, with distance ("92 feet") and angle ("45 degree angle") noted. Although there was no FBI admission that this was a “shot” trajectory, it matches Pierce Allman's first shot position, Ruby Henderson's description, and so on.
PictureFrom "Commission Document 298, FBI Letter from Director of 20 Jan 1964 with Visual Aides Brochure" with my annotated red line leading to the model's forehead rather than throat, immediately above the FBI model's string line leading to the throat. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10699#relPageId=26



The string line for this odd "not a shot" location in the FBI model runs to the JFK doll's throat, and while I believe the throat wound occurred at about the same time, I contend that the string should have run to the doll's forehead, as my red annotation above shows.

While I believe that the throat wound (where the string line runs) appeared at the same time as the forehead wound (via an “internal ricochet” of a bullet fragment off the back of Kennedy’s skull, as evidenced by Thomas Robinson’s being “adamant” that the throat wound was probed from the back of the skull, as well as Jerrol Custer’s description of metallic fragments being present in the C3/C4 region of the neck in a now-missing neck X-ray), the string line should actually run to the Kennedy doll’s forehead, per my red line annotation above, rather than to the throat.

Secret Service Re-Enactment Image


​The limousine position at the time of a critical shot closely aligns with one in the CE 875 album of photographs from the Secret Service reenactment, with the cross-hairs centered on the JFK stand-in's forehead, although in my scenario, Kennedy would be looking more to his right, and perhaps even upwards, to place the blow-out in the area where witnesses put it, (but above the Harper Fragment, which ejected later, as will be discussed shortly). The important take-away from this image is that Oswald still had a frontal shot opportunity immediately after the limousine turned the corner:
Picture
From https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pdf/WH17_CE_875.pdf
During the assassination, however, Kennedy would have been looking to his right, more towards the camera's point-of-view, for the forehead entry and to exit at the back of the head.

Not in the Zapruder Film


Remember my "given" that the extant Zapruder Film is an altered product? For those who say that the Zapruder Film does not show this early first shot, my response is that the Z-film was extensively altered, first to remove the turn onto Elm Street (where this shot occurred). Second, to hide this shot because of the large Secret Service inaction. An affidavit by Senator Ralph Yarborough, who rode in the same car as Lyndon Johnson, immediately behind the Secret Service follow-up car behind the President's limousine, states, "After the shooting, one of the secret service men sitting down in the car in front of us pulled out an automatic rifle or weapon and looked backward. However, all of the secret service men seemed to me to respond very slowly, with no more than a puzzled look. In fact, until the automatic weapon was uncovered, I had been lulled into a sense of false hope for the President’s safety, by the lack of motion, excitement, or apparent visible knowledge by the secret service men, that anything so dreadful was happening." (see https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/pdf/WH7_Yarborough_aff.pdf

Most of the agents were hungover after staying out into the early morning hours on the day of the assassination--a scandal that was reported by Washington syndicated columnist Drew Pierson and apparently downplayed by the Warren Commission. Hickey was not among the agents who were drinking, as he was in Dallas and the incident occurred in Fort Worth. He can be still be seen looking down and to his left in the early Elm Street frames of the extant Zapruder Film. (Malcolm Summers, the "falling man" in the Zapruder Film, described multiple Secret Service agents as looking in that direction, in his Sixth Floor Museum "Living History" interview.")  I contend that Hickey was looking at a skull fragment that ejected with this early shot, and that he then reached down to pick up the AR-15. 

Finally, the Zapruder was altered to hide the limousine's stop and the follow-up car's sudden stop (described by Greg Burnham in his description of the “other” Zapruder Film as having “stopped on a dime”), which caused Hickey to fall over and the AR-15 to discharge in a slam fire. (I'll discuss the AR-15 head shot in a later section.)

Entrance and Exit Wounds


I contend that this shot had a single entrance (the forehead, as described by young Alan Smith and others above (mistakenly called "temple" by a number of other people), and that the bullet fragmented upon impact. The fragments then proceeded to exit at various points. Most of these fragments exited the back of the skull, and then proceeded to ricochet off the limousine seat back. The largest of these fragments, from the center of the bullet, returned to Kennedy to create the back wound, which was shallow in nature, and this "king-size" fragment fell out of the back wound during the autopsy, as described by Jerrol Custer in his ARRB testimony. The nose and tail portions of the bullet ricocheted off the limousine seat back and angled towards the front of the car (one of them bouncing off the chrome strip before angling towards the seat or floor), where they were later recovered.  At least one small fragment made an "internal ricochet" at the back of the skull and angled downwards inside the President's body towards the throat, leaving behind the metallic particles at the C3/C4 region of the neck (as described by Jerrol Custer in his ARRB testimony) and creating the throat wound. The shored (constrained by shirt collar and tie) nature of the throat wound and its being caused by a small fragment (rather than an intact missile) fooled the Parkland doctors into believing that the throat was an "entrance," when it was in fact an exit.

​As evidence for this scenario, there is the F8 "mystery" autopsy photograph, which Dr. David Mantik's reconstruction places at the back of the head. Neurologist Dr. Michael Chesser concurs, adding that the outline (at the bottom) of the hole is "highly suggestive of the Harper Fragment." The pathologists at Methodist Hospital, where Billy Harper had taken the fragment, described the skull fragment as "occipital," meaning that it came from the back of the head. "Occipital" (or "occipital-parietal") is where the Parkland doctors' under-oath testimony to the Warren Commission placed the blow-out hole in the President's head--a point they reiterated in the documentary JFK: What the Doctors Saw​. 
The F8 "Mystery" autopsy photograph has been called a "mystery" because of the lack of landmarks to orient exactly where on the skull this hole is located. However, Mantik maintains that the original version in the Archives, which he personally saw, is not as cropped, and shows aspects of the body (eyelashes, nipple) that help orient the hole to the back of the head. There may be a slight amount of wiggle-room in Mantik's orientation (Dr. Chesser places the midline slightly differently), but the overwhelming testimonial evidence indicates that this hole is indeed at the back of the head, and not at the front-side of the head, as has been presented.
Picture
The F8 "Mystery" autopsy photograph, with my annotations. The arrows show what appear to be exit points with external beveling. The circled annotation will be discussed in connection with the AR-15 shot.
Picture
The Harper Fragment was photographed by the Methodist doctors before being turned over to federal authorities. The image on the left shows the external aspect (with the lower-left tail matching the outline of the hole in the F8 autopsy photograph). The image on the right shows the internal aspect. The Methodist doctors described the skull bone fragment as "occipital"--meaning, from the back of the head.
Picture
A HSCA diagram showing how beveling occurs.

​I do not believe that the Harper Fragment itself ejected with this first shot, but remained attached to the skull. The area of the hole above​ the Harper fragment certainly did eject with the first shot, but the Harper Fragment itself ejected later, with the AR-15 shot, as I will explain in my discussion of that shot.

External and Internal Ricochets


​When a projectile like a bullet or bullet fragment hits a hard surface, like bone, it can not only fragment, but also the bullet or fragments can ricochet off that hard surface to change their trajectory or angle of travel. Most people are familiar with the concept of "ricochet," but are less familiar with secondary wounds caused by ricochets, or with a concept specific to bullet wounds in the skull called "internal ricochets." 

​I contend that an external ricochet of one especially large fragment off the limousine seat back caused the shallow back wound that puzzled the autopsy doctors, and that an internal ricochet of a smaller fragment caused the equally puzzling throat wound, that (due especially to its shored nature--meaning, the skin was restricted by the shirt collar and tie) that fooled the Parkland doctors into believing it was an entrance wound, when it really was the exit for a small fragment.

The Shallow (Ricochet) Back Wound


Kennedy's back wound was shallow in nature. It could not be probed beyond the first joint of the autopsy doctor's little finger. Autopsy assistant Navy Corpsman James Jenkins said that the missile causing the back wound, which he saw probed, did not penetrate the pleural lining. Any hypothetical tracks between the back wound and the throat were "presumed," based on the bogus "Single Bullet Theory," not observed. Moreover, the wound was too low in the back for the Single Bullet Theory to work, Clint Hill, who viewed the body in the morgue so that he could report to the family on the wounds, testified to the Warren Commission that the back wound was "about six inches below the neck line to the right of the spinal column." In Dr. Humes' Warren Commission testimony, it was established as "approximately 6 inches below the top of the collar, and 2 inches to the right of the middle seam of the coat." Contrary to the statement that the holes in the clothing "conform quite well" to CE 385, CE 385 places the back wound at the bottom of the neck, not 6 inches below the neck line!
Picture
Image from https://www.maryferrell.org/photos.html?set=NARA-JFKCLOTHES with my arrow added to show the hole in the clothing.
Autopsy participant James Jenkins described the wound as shallow, asserts that it was probed, and said that the direction of the wound track was NOT towards the throat, as his illustration shows (with the caveat that he was trying to describe a 3D wound on a 2D image). The black dot represents the approximate entrance location. The red dot shows the approximate termination of the wound, which he saw probed to (but not penetrating) the pleural lining around the lung.
Picture
James Jenkins' representation of the back wound, from his book At the Cold Shoulder of History.
Of course, in the Warren Commission's report, this back wound was moved upwards, to the bottom of the neck, in order to make the bogus "Single Bullet Theory" work:
Picture
CE 385, as published in the Warren Commission documents. The location of the back wound has been moved up to the base of the neck, and the "blow-out" has been moved from the back of the head to the upper right side of the head in this drawing.
Gerald Ford, then a Congressman and later President of the U.S. after Nixon's resignation, eventually admitted to being the one who moved the description of the wound to the "neck." But in the same breath, Ford insisted there was no conspiracy. (There was​ a conspiracy, but mostly to cover-up, not to murder, and Ford himself was a part of it!)
Autopsy X-ray technician Jerrol Custer testified to the ARRB that a "king-size" fragment had fallen out of the back when the body was lifted for X-rays.
Picture
From autopsy X-ray technician Jerrol Custer's ARRB testimony.
Some accounts of a leaked FBI report on the autopsy, this fragment was morphed into a whole "bullet" that was "recovered." Perhaps it was a whole "bullet" because the nose and tail fragments were recovered from the limousine when Dr. Humes sent two Navy corpsman to search the car. (Those corpsmen also brought back an intact spent slug--the Dr. Young/Captain Osborne bullet--to be discussed in connection with the second shot. This intact slug further confused matters, contributing to the report of a whole "bullet" being recovered from the body.) Interestingly, the report describes this "bullet" as having possibly "ricocheted off the limousine" before striking Kennedy in the back. In fact, this fragment DID ricochet off the seat back to hit him in the back...after it had passed through his head, contributing to part of the back of the head blow-out.
Picture
from the January 4, 1964 issue of JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association)

The Throat Wound as an Internal Ricochet Exit


​Autopsy X-ray technician Jerrol Custer testified to the ARRB that he saw metallic fragments in the C3/C4 region of an X-ray (that had by the time of his testimony missing from the extant collection of autopsy images). Bullet fragments in this area would indicate either an upward trajectory from the throat wound towards the back of the head (a speculation some of the Parkland doctors entertained of a bullet hitting the spinal column and deflecting upwards), or a downward trajectory from the back of the head towards the throat wound, which makes better sense, given the C3/C4 location of Custer's metallic fragments. Mortician Thomas Robinson, who was present during the autopsy, testified that he was "adamant" he had seen the throat wound successfully probed from the back of the head--not from the base of the neck (which was not the actual location of the back wound, in any case).
Picture
An approximate trajectory from the back of the head through the C3/C4 region, to the throat wound area

​So how could a fragment from a shot entering from JFK's forehead above his right eye angle forwards and downward towards the throat? The answer is, via a ricochet off the inside of the back of the skull, what's called in forensic terms, an "internal ricochet." Dr. Vincent J.M. DiMaio wrote the definitive book on gunshot wound pathology, called Gunshot Wounds. DiMaio gives this illustration of internal ricochets to show how bullets can bounce or otherwise ricochet around the inside of the skull:
Picture
A diagram of 2 different types of internal ricochets inside the skull, from Gunshot Wounds, by Vincent J.M. Di Maio (2nd Edition). In this case, the ricochet would be vertical rather than the depicted horizontal illustration, entering above the right eye, hitting the back of the skull, and then angling downwards towards the throat.

​In the JFK case, the internal ricochet was vertical rather than horizontal, but bullets changing course inside the body after striking bone is a well-known phenomenon--more so now than in 1963.

A Case of Mistaken Identity: The Shored Nature of the Throat Wound


​The Parkland doctors initially believed that the throat wound had been caused by the entrance of an (intact) bullet that hit the spine and deflected (internal ricochet) upward to exit at the back of the head, as their Warren Commission testimonies described their initial speculations. An entrance wound will often have an "abrasion ring." In his Warren Commission testimony, Dr. Malcolm Perry, who performed the tracheostomy, makes no mention of any "abrasion ring" in his Warren Commission testimony, and said only that "blood obscured the edges of the wound." However, some researchers in the JFK Assassination Debate section of the Education Forum contend that Dr. Perry told researcher Harold Weisberg that he saw an "abrasion ring" around the throat wound, and that he insisted to various people that it "looked like" an entrance, and that he had been "pressured" into changing his public description of the wound as an entrance, to say instead that it could have been an exit.

I have no doubt that Perry said these things, or that he was pressured, or that the throat wound appeared to be an entrance with an abrasion collar. Nevertheless, I contend that the throat wound was an exit--but for a small fragment, not an intact bullet. Recalling Perry's sworn testimony that the throat wound could have been an exit, many researchers believe that he caved to the pressure. But just because Perry was pressured to say it was an exit doesn't mean that it wasn't an exit. There is evidence that it was an exit. And there is reason why this exit would have looked to Perry and the other Parkland doctors like an entrance, even though it was an exit: the wound was "shored" by Kennedy's shirt collar and tie, thus making it more likely for this exit to have the abrasion collar usually characteristic of an entrance. 

A "shored gunshot wound of exit is produced when the outstretched skin is impaled, sandwiched, and crushed between the outgoing bullet and the unyielding object over the exit site, thus leaving an abrasion collar on the wound margin." (See "Shored gunshot wound of exit. A phenomenon with identity crisis." See  pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6637946/#:~:text=Shored%20gunshot%20wound%20of%20exit%20is%20produced%20when%20the%20outstretched,collar%20on%20the%20wound%20margin . The "identity crisis" is confusion over entrance vs. exit, since the abrasion collar is usually more characteristic of an entrance, but the shored nature of some exit wounds can also create an abrasion collar. In this case, it was the buttoned shirt collar and tie that created the "unyielding object over the exit site.

​Pictures of Kennedy on the same day but before the shooting demonstrate how the shirt collar and tie provided the shoring for the wound:
​

And the "Stare of Death" autopsy picture places the throat wound at the lower-most area of his throat, which from the above image we can see was exactly where the shirt collar was buttoned around his neck, and the tie added further constraint:
Picture


Some researchers insist that Dr. Perry said there was an "abrasion ring" surrounding the throat wound (which his Warren Commission testimony never mentions, and indeed seems to contradict). Abrasion rings are a common characteristic of entrance wounds. However, such an "abrasion ring" is not necessarily conclusive that the throat wound was an "entrance." Shored EXIT wounds can also create abrasion rings, giving them the appearance of entrances. In this case, we know that Kennedy was wearing a shirt and tie when he was shot. The shirt and tie created a "shore" against his throat, especially in the area where the throat wound occurred. The confinement, or "shoring," allowed for the exit abrasion collar to occur. 

And even though the wound was "small" and "round," and even though exit wounds are generally larger than entrance wounds, and certainly larger in diameter than the missiles that create them, in this case the missile was a bullet fragment, rather than an intact bullet, and the exit location was shored, which creates different wound characteristics than a typical bullet exit wound would have.
There were also holes in Kennedy's shirt collar and tie. Many researchers believe that these were made by a nurse as she removed the clothes from Kennedy at Parkland. However, in order for a nurse to have made these holes, she would have had to poke through the fabric with the point of her scissors, not slice the fabric from the edge, which would be the normal way to cut the clothes off:
Picture
These are the best close-up images of the holes in the shirt I have found online. From https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kennedy-bloody-shirt/

The Parkland doctors made an under-oath testimony that the anterior neck (throat) wound might have been an exit wound. Given the C3/C4 metallic fragments (in the now-missing X-ray that was mentioned in under-oath testimony), the under-oath testimony that the throat wound had been probed from the back of the head, and the fact that shored exit wounds can often have the appearance​ of entrance wounds, it seems fairly obvious to me that the throat wound was the exit for a fragment rather than an entrance for an intact bullet--as many researchers have heretofore believed. 

There were three small bullet fragments (CE 840) found on the rug in the rear seat area of the limousine. This could have been one fragment that broke into smaller fragments upon hitting the floor, or one of them could have caused the throat wound:
Picture
CE 840, the three small bullet fragments that FBI expert Robert Frasier testified to the Warren Commission that he had found "lying on the rug in the rear seat area."

Different Parts of the Same Bullet (and the Chrome Strip Dent)

Click to set custom HTML
The "king-size fragment" that fell out of Kennedy's back during the autopsy ended up penetrating the President after exiting the skull because it had ricocheted off the limousine seat-back. It must have come from the center portion of the bullet. I say that not because this fragment is in evidence anywhere (it isn't--it was quietly "disappeared") but because the nose and tail fragments that were found at the front of the limousine together do not equal even half the weight of an average Carcanno bullet, leaving unaccounted for in the official evidence the majority of the bullet that must have come from the middle. And just as the "king-size fragment" had ricocheted off the seat back before returning to Kennedy to penetrate his back (albeit shallowly, since it lost much of its momentum when it first struck bone, traversed brain matter, and struck bone again prior to the ricochet), likewise the nose and tail fragments from this same bullet ricocheted off the seat back and ultimately ended up at the front of the limousine. 

That these bullet fragments had lost much of their initial muzzle-blast velocity is not to say that that they had lost all of their velocity. On the contrary, one of these bullet pieces still had enough force to put a dent in the chrome strip that was at the top of the windshield:
Picture
The damage to the chrome strip (small pencil annotation in the original source image, my annotation in red).
There is a report by Secret Service agent Charles Taylor saying that chrome strip dent was caused by a bullet fragment found embedded in the front cushion of the car, as an FBI agent told him. (There are other interesting aspects of this report, especially the mention of the "hole" in the windshield in the same paragraph on the third page of the report. I'll return to the windshield hole shortly, but this front-to-back hole was not created with this first shot, fired from the TSBD window, and is related to a completely separate shot. It's also important to note that multiple searches of the limousine were made, yielding different pieces of evidence, not all of which are in the pubic record. Like the "king-size" bullet fragment that fell out of Kennedy's back, this evidence has been quietly "disappeared." I'll explain more in my discussion of the next shot.)
Picture
The first and third pages of Secret Service Agent Charles Taylor's report on the limousine. The first page contains the identifying information. The third page contains the interesting information about the "hole" in the limousine windshield (to be discussed in connection with the next shot, Shot 2), as well as FBI agents telling him that the bullet fragment found in the seat cushion had first struck the chrome strip at the top of the windshield.
So these are all parts of the same bullet, which I contend fractured upon impact when it struck Kennedy's forehead and left the apparent bullet fragment trail as seen on the skull X-rays in its wake. And there is evidence to support that assertion.

The Lateral X-Ray Image


As asserted in my "Givens" at the top of this article, I contend (along with many other researcher) that the visual record (Zapruder film, autopsy photographs, autopsy X-Rays) were deliberately altered to support the official claim that all the shots came from Oswald, and all from behind. Even though this frontal shot came from the TSBD shooter, the frontal nature of this shot was kept hidden because of the embarrassingly slow response by Kennedy's Secret Service protective agents (most of whom, aside from Hickey, didn't really react until the next shot, because they were hung over). Moreover, the cover-up colluders were faced with the subtraction problem of trying to turn five shots (two of which didn't strike any limousine occupants) into three. They were also faced with problems like the Dallas doctors' case of "mistaken identity," especially after they publicly described the shored throat exit wound as an "entrance," and trying to understand or explain the notion of "internal ricochets" of bullets, which was probably much lesser known in 1963 than it is now. (For example, the first edition of Vincent DiMaio's "definitive book" Gunshot Wounds​ wasn't published until 1985.) Not to mention deliberate misrepresentations of evidence (like the two brain exams that ARRB analyst Doug Horne revealed, the fraudulent one being attended by the only forensic pathologist familiar with gunshot wound experience, Dr. Finck). 

Nonetheless, and despite the altering of the autopsy evidence, I direct our attention to the HSCA--published lateral X-ray image seldom looked at by researchers. Most researchers look only at the commonly found "computer-enhanced" lateral X-ray image, which (being a composite utilizing the "living" right lateral X-ray image of an X-ray taken of Kennedy when he was alive and the HSCA published X-ray image never identified as "right" or "left" [it's the left] is even more altered than the one we are about to examine, as I discuss here). 

So since the "un-enhanced" lateral image is less altered, let's take a look at it. Set aside pre-conceived notions of what you think the image shows, and look at it from a different perspective--including the information given in its original caption.

What cannot be argued (although one might debate the level of authenticity) is that this HSCA-published image actually shows a bunch of tiny radio-opaque (presumably metallic) fragments, a large dark area on the right side of the skull, and an extraordinarily white area on the left side of the skull. This image also shows more at the bottom than the "computer-enhanced" image, which crops off the information contained at the bottom of this image. Also impossible to argue is that the caption for this image describes it as showing "the occipital defect"--presumably the dark "hole" area on the right side of the skull. The "occipital" region of the skull is at the back of the head, which would put the back of the head on the right. Again, set aside what you think you know about the image, and look at what it actually shows.

Also look at what this image does not show. What it does not show is any facial features, by which we can identify whether the face would be to the right side or left side of the image. Neurologist Dr. Michael Chesser stated his belief that the facial features were "darkened" (in the "computer-enhanced" image. Dr. David Mantik has stated that the "White Patch" was created in order to hide occipital defect on the left side of the image. Even X-ray technician Jerrol Custer himself has oriented the face as being on the right and the occiput on the left. They orient the face on the right and the occiput on the left because of the features in the more commonly referenced computer-enhanced image that were taken from the living X-ray, in which the face was clearly on the right. The most notable of these features is the sella turcica, the sickle-shaped feature visible in the "living" X-ray and the "computer-enhanced" X-ray (if you overlay "living" and "computer-enhanced" X-rays, the sella turcica features match exactly!). But these features are not visible in the "original" or "un-enhanced" versions--despite being clearly visible in the so-called "enhanced" image!

The Chesser/Mantik/Custer mistakes are also helped along by the absence of the. features at the bottom of original un-enhanced image, which were cropped out of the "computer-enhanced" image. These important features, had these notables seen and paid attention to them, would have undoubtedly given the game away, because in the un-cropped version, what was thought to be "facial features" are actually the spinal column and mastoid processes. If  Kennedy's face were on the right, the blow-out hole would have to be on the lower part of his face, with a completely missing lower jaw.

And no witnesses reported any such blow-out of JFK's lower face and jaw!

So setting aside your previous preconceptions about what the X-ray shows, and looking at it with fresh eyes, I think you would agree with my interpretation of the "un-enhanced" left lateral autopsy X-ray (my annotations in red):

Here is the HSCA-published "un-enhanced" lateral autopsy skull X-ray, with my added annotations in red. Note how the original caption describes it as showing the "occipital defect"--which is medical-speak for "hole at the back of the head."
As I discuss in my documentary, this bullet, which fractured on impact, creating at least three large pieces, plus a bunch of smaller pieces. The large pieces exited the back of the head and ricocheted off the seat back. The nose and tail portions became the nose and tail fragments recovered from the front of the limousine (one of them creating the dent in the chrome trim, as evidenced by the memo by Secret Service Agent Charles Taylor), with the "king size" middle section becoming Jerrol Custer's "king size" fragment that fell out of Kennedy's back during the autopsy, per his ARRB testimony. One or more of the smaller pieces made an "internal ricochet" off the back of the skull and angled downward, towards the throat wound.

In his ARRB testimony, Jerrol Custer not only described the "king-size" fragment falling out of Kennedy's back during the autopsy, he also described a neck X-ray that he had taken, by that time missing from the collection of autopsy X-rays he was shown, that had originally shown metallic fragments in the C3/C4 region of the neck. I believe these fragments were indicative of an "internal ricochet" of a fragment or fragments that bounced off the inside of the back of the skull, and then traveled downwards towards the neck wound location. Mortician Thomas Robinson was "adamant" that he had seen the neck wound probed from the back of the head. This "internal ricochet" is what caused the throat wound to appear at roughly the same time as the forehead wound, leading to the somewhat erroneous FBI Visual Aid string trajectory leading to the throat rather than to the forehead.

The Decorticate Posture "Chest-Grab"


​This first shot, fired from the TSBD window and entering Kennedy's forehead, caused Kennedy to go into the iconic "chest grab" position. He wasn't attempting to "cough up a bullet," as some researchers have suggested. He was going into a neuromuscular reflex called "decorticate posture," which is indicative of severe neurological trauma. This reflex doesn't happen immediately concurrent with the trauma, but can be somewhat delayed. It can be triggered by head movement, for example, well after the initial trauma. Witnesses reported Kennedy as "slumping" or "looking down" after the first shot--gravity taking control after the President lost consciousness. That head drop is what triggered the decorticate posture position after the initial bullet trauma to the brain.

There is a YouTube video of a young "brain dead" patient who had suffered a gunshot wound to the head. The doctors were able to trigger the same sort of "chest grab" position by manipulating the young man's head. It was a "Lazarus sign" that gave the appearance that the young man was still alive, when he was essentially already brain dead:
 
Picture
Doctors demonstrate the decorticate posture "Lazarus Sign" by manipulating the head of a young essentially brain-dead victim of a gunshot wound to the head. From the video "Brain Death.- Lazarus sign - Rare exuberant spinal reflex exclusively elicited per head flexion" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nty6bICZlyA This Decorticate posture is indicative of severe neurological trauma.
Decorticate posture is not necessarily an instantaneous response to the head trauma (gun shot), but can be triggered later, as by the head manipulation in the video image shown above. In the case of the Kennedy assassination, it wasn't doctors manipulating Kennedy's head to cause him to go into this position. Nor was Kennedy lying down on a hospital bed. However, there was the loss of conscious control over his body, which caused Kennedy to "slump," as witnesses described him as doing. It was the "slump" and the dropping of his head that acted like the doctor's manipulation of the brain dead patient's head above, and caused Kennedy to go into that slightly delayed decorticate posture "chest grab." Kennedy's movement into this position may have fooled bystanders into thinking he was "waving" to them. It was a "Lazarus sign," as the title of the YouTube video gives. A "Lazarus sign" is a movement indicative of life, even though the mover is essentially deceased. 

Whether Kennedy would have survived this initial shot remains an open question, but his ability to function undoubtedly would have been reduced. The later AR-15 shot, however, ensured that survivability was not going to happen.

That this "chest grab" action, accompanied by a leftward fall towards his wife, occurred more or less immediately after the next shot was merely a coincidence. But that coincidence convinced many witnesses that Kennedy was first shot farther down Elm Street than he actually was. 

But again, that was just a coincidence. The next shot didn't actually hit anyone. Or at least, not any person. The only victim was a car.

And this shot was fired by a Secret Service agent. It was meant as a warning, to alert the slow, hungover agents in another car that the attack was taking place.
Coming Soon...Shot Two
Proudly powered by Weebly