(PART 78)




>>> "David, do you not find it significant that doctor after doctor at Parkland Hospital saw one-third of the back of [JFK's] head blown off, while both the WC and HSCA concluded there was a small 1-centimeter wound? One doctor may have been mistaken, but there is testimony after testimony and medical report after medical report by the Parkland doctors." <<<


The likely explanation is that the Parkland doctors were fooled by the
pooling of blood and gore, which was all (naturally) pooling at the
BACK of Kennedy's head as he was lying flat on his back in the
Emergency Room.*

* = Although that explanation, which author Vince Bugliosi also
endorses as the most likely answer for this discrepancy, still doesn't
explain why virtually no Parkland people saw the obvious gaping hole
which was in the RIGHT-FRONT portion of JFK's head.

But, IMO, it's quite possible that Jackie Kennedy's actions in the
limousine resulted in the Parkland witnesses not seeing the hole in
the right-front of the head.

We know Jackie was physically handling her husband's head prior to
reaching the hospital. And we also know that she testified that she
was literally [quoting Jacqueline Kennedy verbatim:] "trying to hold
his hair on and his skull on"
[end quote].

It's quite possible, therefore, that Jackie had placed the "hinged"
flap of scalp (visible in the autopsy photos) back in its proper place
on JFK's head before the car arrived at Parkland's emergency entrance,
which is a possible explanation for why nobody at the hospital saw the
ACTUAL exit wound in Kennedy's head.

In any event, no matter how you want to evaluate the witnesses, there
is absolutely no question at all as to how many times the President
was shot in the head (once, from behind)....and via the BEST EVIDENCE
(the autopsy doctors, the autopsy report, and the autopsy photographs
and X-rays), there is also no question at all as to where on John
Kennedy's head the entry and and exit wounds were located (small entry
wound in the back of the head; large exit wound above the right ear).

No matter how many witnesses say otherwise, the above paragraph is the
OFFICIAL TRUTH of the matter concerning President Kennedy's fatal head

>>> "You discount Max Holland's 'Frame 133' theory, but it seems just as plausible as the 160 claim." <<<

Not when we look at Governor Connally in the Zapruder Film and when we
also take into account Mr. Connally's WC and HSCA testimony. His
"first-shot right turn" at about Z164 nicely fits with a Z160 shot.

And Rosemary Willis' actions--and later words--are valuable too.

"I stopped when I heard the shot." -- Rosemary Willis

>>> "Oswald, the greatest marksman in history, is so stupid as to fire into a blooming tree where he has no view and strikes a bystander on the other side of Dealey Plaza not even in his line of fire." <<<

"The greatest marksman in history" is quite an overstatement, of
course. (You were just trying to be humorous there, I'm sure. Right?) ;)

And James Tague was almost certainly wounded by a bullet that was
deflected after hitting something else in the immediate area of the
shooting (probably the oak tree). Because I kinda doubt that Oswald's
real target on November 22nd was car salesman James T. Tague. ;)

Also (with respect to Oswald's supposedly "great" shooting feat in
Dealey Plaza):

Lee Oswald only hit his target (which was undoubtedly JFK's head, and
not the President's upper back or his neck or any other portion of his
body) one out of three times from short range (well under 100 yards
for all three shots). Hardly the amazing Wyatt Earp-type feat that
conspiracy theorists like to claim it was.

As to why LHO elected to fire as early as approximately Z-Frame #160,
nobody can know for sure. But there's one thing we pretty much know
for certain -- he DID fire one shot before JFK's car had driven past
that oak tree.

Why did Oswald fire at that time, even though he should have realized
that the car would be clearing the tree in just a few more seconds?
Beats me. Maybe we should dig Lee Harvey up and ask him.

(Got a shovel?)

David Von Pein
December 2007