According to all of the convincing evidence I've seen the wound was not to the top of Kennedy's heard.
Look at the Zapruder film. Where does it show the damage? Top-right, above the right ear, consistent with the autopsy photos and the Dealey Plaza witnesses.
Like, of all people, Abraham Zapruder:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLqOGEBcjnI
(1:15 into the video)
Not the back of the head.
Billy Newman puts the damage in the same location, in the temple, in this same day interview broadcast live:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/11/bill-and-gayle-newman.html (he points to the left temple, but clearly he couldn't see that from his location to the right of the Presidential limo). (1:27 into the video)
Not the back of the head.
So there's three possibilities I can think of. Feel free to pick one, or add to this list:
(a) the President's wounds were altered on the ride to Parkland so the physicians could see a back of head wound.
(b) Newman and Zapruder and other Dealey Plaza witnesses were all lying, and the Z-film is forged.
(c) The Parkland witnesses were mistaken and misled by the Trendelenburg position the President was placed in. (see conspiracy theorist Pat Speer's article:
http://www.patspeer.com/reasontobelieve)
It was in the right rear as evidence by all of the 22 Nov testimony. That includes the Dr's at Parkland and Clint Hill, perhaps others, as well.
Not all. One must ignore the earliest witnesses, those on Elm Street who witnessed the assassination as it happened. They put the damage above the right ear. Just like we see in those 'altered' autopsy films, and the 'altered' Zapruder film. How much evidence do you need to believe is altered or forged to believe in a conspiracy?
Almost all of it.
The stuff at the top of his head was done by pathologists at Bethesda during the removal of the brain prior to the autopsy.
Curiously, one can see the top of the had being removed in Dealey Plaza in frame Z313. Was that film altered?
I am no longer interested in participating in this thread.
You came on in a huff, recommended a six-hour video, and left the same way. There's scant evidence you were ever inclined to actually participate here.
There are simply too many here that seem to think they know everything there is to know and who's opinions are more valid than anyone else. That simply results in continued bickering.
Yourself included, right? You posted a video, telling us you found it convincing, but declined to discuss it in whole or part. What about those actions speak of someone whose opinions aren't already formed and appears intent on lecturing to the rest of us?
A good example is someone telling me that Horne was not a Dr., as if I didn't know that already. I never claimed he was and as far as I know, he never claimed that either.
That was me. I pointed it out because you're not citing the doctors; you're citing Doug Horne's interpretations of the doctors testimony and other statements. You are assuming he is giving it to you straight, and not cutting corners to get from A to Z. You have not validated his claims whatsoever. Have you?
He merely spent several years reviewing the available documents, photos, x-rays etc and interviewing hundreds if not thousands of people with first hand knowledge of the events they were questioned about.
He joined the ARRB as a committed conspiracist, it's not surprising he came out the same way and wrote a series of books about his 'findings' (really, just cherry-picking quotes and recollections from 33 years after the fact to fit his hypothesis).
His account and conclusions make more sense to me than anything else I've reviewed over the years. Bye.
What part of being JFK made him immune to a punk with a grudge and a gun?
I asked a few simple questions in my prior post. Here they are again:
Maybe you can answer a simple question Horne won't touch: If JFK's wounds necessitated alterations, why didn't Connally's? And if they did, where and when were his wounds altered?
Putting it another way, why would sane conspirators try to frame a lone-nut shooting only from behind by shooting the victim from multiple locations and then have to jump through hoops to make it look like a lone nut did all the shooting? Why not just shoot the victim only from behind, with one weapon, and frame the lone-nut for owning that weapon?
Alternately, why didn't they simply reveal how Jack, the family man, was actually up to his eyeballs in mistresses? See the Profumo Affair if you're unaware of what the repercussions there can be.
Can you tell me where Doug Horne deals with these issues in that six-hour video? I'd love to see his responses.
Hank
