How long does it take to alter hundreds of frames of film?

[Bill Chapman]

   And what would be the explanation for Motorcycle Officer Hargis riding closely on the LEFT Rear of the JFK Limo getting hit so hard with blood and brain matter that he thought he had been hit with a bullet?

Good grief

He rode through it

[Royell Storing]

Once again: Hargis said he saw no exit wound in the back of JFK's head. He saw no splash exiting JFK's head in the back. Only the side.

He was right behind JFK: if there was an exit wound caused by a second bullet why didn't he see it? And there is no exit wound seen in the Zapruder film. Or splash from the rear of the head. And there is no exit wound in the head shown in the autopsy x-rays and photos.

You can say that Hargis (somehow) missed it but if you do that then you open yourself up to questioning about what the other eyewitnesses said they saw re a exit wound. We all agree that eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. Unless they're corroborated by other evidence we can't rely on them. In this case Hargis's account is corroborated - for me - by the other physical evidence.

The physical evidence is the problem for those that say there was a exit wound in the back of the head.

            For the record, Officer Hargis was Not, ".....right behind JFK".  Of course, You are avoiding any mention what-so-ever of the location of the JFK Head Wound as documented by numerous Parkland Professionals. 

[John Iacoletti]

Post something worthwhile:   - a rebuttal would have been nice rather than posting for the sake of posting!    Of the 454 posts you have made this year,  How many posts have you offered as solutions?    "Any statement that is intended to not have any feedback, output, or response is known as a rhetorical statement and useless.

Chapman is really adept at cutting and pasting from McAdams, though.

[Bill Chapman]

Chapman is really adept at cutting and pasting from McAdams, though.

Why are you so fearful of C&P

[John Iacoletti]

If the information is factual, who cares what website carries it?

I think you just answered your own question.

[Jack Trojan]

Once again: Hargis said he saw no exit wound in the back of JFK's head. He saw no splash exiting JFK's head in the back. Only the side.

He was right behind JFK: if there was an exit wound caused by a second bullet why didn't he see it? And there is no exit wound seen in the Zapruder film. Or splash from the rear of the head. And there is no exit wound in the head shown in the autopsy x-rays and photos.

You can say that Hargis (somehow) missed it but if you do that then you open yourself up to questioning about what the other eyewitnesses said they saw re a exit wound. We all agree that eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. Unless they're corroborated by other evidence we can't rely on them. In this case Hargis's account is corroborated - for me - by the other physical evidence.

The physical evidence is the problem for those that say there was a exit wound in the back of the head.

The "Turkey Shoot Point" (Z313) was intended to disguise multiple shots if the Mauser didn't score a head shot before then. The umbrella man signaled the shooters, otherwise, simple geometry disproves the head shot came from the TSBD.

Below shows an overhead view of JFK's orientation at Z313 if a shot from behind blew out the right side of his head. According to this view Zapruder could not have filmed JFK's profile at the TSP, when clearly he did. LNers?

[Bill Chapman]

I think you just answered your own question.

That's an answer for Tim.

Again, why do you fear C&P..

[John Iacoletti]

That's an answer for Tim.

Again, why do you fear C&P..

Loaded question.  Why are you incapable of independent thought?