Six Seconds in Dallas-- Old book, a must read

[Gary Craig]

So maybe they weren't competent enough to accurately locate the skull entry wound through palpation of an unshaven damaged skull. Maybe Humes mistook some unusual bump or fracture edge as the EOP.

Apples and oranges. The "back wound" was the least ambiguous. It was on the body's surface where there is almost no hair and it could be easily measured. Unlike the tracheotomy wound, the back wound was instantly recognizable as a bullet wound. The Clark Panel -- as did Humes et al in the Military Review -- were fully supportive of the back wound location as described in the autopsy report.

Was anybody (for example: Six Seconds in Dallas) prior to 1968/9 claiming the EOP wound didn't work for a LN shooter?

"So maybe they weren't competent enough to accurately locate the skull entry wound through palpation of an unshaven damaged skull. Maybe Humes mistook some unusual bump or fracture edge as the EOP."

According to the specialists who do know they (the autopsy doctors) weren't competent to do a legal medical autopsy.

They did hold JFK's skull in their hands with scalp refracted and the brain removed though.
They examined the outside and inside of skull at  the bullet hole.
Slightly above and slightly to the right of external occipital protuberance (EOP).
They asked that photos be taken for the record.
Dr. Pierre Finck noted in an after action report in 1967 that those photos are no longer in the Archive.

Oddly enough almost immediately after that '67 review of the autopsy materials the Clark Panel said the wound in the back of JFK's head was in the cow lick not the EOP.
Right when the photos showing the location of the wound disappear it's location gets moved.

"Apples and oranges. The "back wound" was the least ambiguous. It was on the body's surface where there is almost no hair and it could be easily measured. Unlike the tracheotomy wound, the back wound was instantly recognizable as a bullet wound. The Clark Panel -- as did Humes et al in the Military Review -- were fully supportive of the back wound location as described in the autopsy report."

Strange thing the back wound. Jerry Ford, despite claiming he never saw the actual autopsy pictures, amended the final draft of the WCR. Changing the description of it's location from JFK's back to the back of his neck. Said it better described it's location. How does that work when you've never seen the wound?

The photo of the inside of JFK's right lung, that could have shown the direction and path of the neck wound, was also found to be missing in the '67 review of the autopsy materials.. Image that!

[Walt Cakebread]

"So maybe they weren't competent enough to accurately locate the skull entry wound through palpation of an unshaven damaged skull. Maybe Humes mistook some unusual bump or fracture edge as the EOP."

According to the specialists who do know they (the autopsy doctors) weren't competent to do a legal medical autopsy.

They did hold JFK's skull in their hands with scalp refracted and the brain removed though.
They examined the outside and inside of skull at  the bullet hole.
Slightly above and slightly to the right of external occipital protuberance (EOP).
They asked that photos be taken for the record.
Dr. Pierre Finck noted in an after action report in 1967 that those photos are no longer in the Archive.

Oddly enough almost immediately after that '67 review of the autopsy materials the Clark Panel said the wound in the back of JFK's head was in the cow lick not the EOP.
Right when the photos showing the location of the wound disappear it's location gets moved.

"Apples and oranges. The "back wound" was the least ambiguous. It was on the body's surface where there is almost no hair and it could be easily measured. Unlike the tracheotomy wound, the back wound was instantly recognizable as a bullet wound. The Clark Panel -- as did Humes et al in the Military Review -- were fully supportive of the back wound location as described in the autopsy report."

Strange thing the back wound. Jerry Ford, despite claiming he never saw the actual autopsy pictures, amended the final draft of the WCR. Changing the description of it's location from JFK's back to the back of his neck. Said it better described it's location. How does that work when you've never seen the wound?

The photo of the inside of JFK's right lung, that could have shown the direction and path of the neck wound, was also found to be missing in the '67 review of the autopsy materials.. Image that!

Here's something that I've never been able to understand.....  At frame 313 of the Z film there is what appears to be an explosion on the side of JFK's head at the right temple, just forward of the ear.   But there was no damage to JFK's head at that location other than a small bullet hole in the hairline that Clint Hill reported seeing, when he climbed aboard the Lincoln.    There are colored photos that show a small red dot right at the spot that Clint Hill said that he saw a bullet hole.

I strongly suspect that the "explosion" on the side of JFK's head at Z 313 was added to the film to cover up that bullet hole. 

[Royell Storing]

Here's something that I've never been able to understand.....  At frame 313 of the Z film there is what appears to be an explosion on the side of JFK's head at the right temple, just forward of the ear.   But there was no damage to JFK's head at that location other than a small bullet hole in the hairline that Clint Hill reported seeing, when he climbed aboard the Lincoln.    There are colored photos that show a small red dot right at the spot that Clint Hill said that he saw a bullet hole.

I strongly suspect that the "explosion" on the side of JFK's head at Z 313 was added to the film to cover up that bullet hole.

      NPIC Image Expert Dino Brugioni examined the Zapruder Film on 11/23/63. He said the film he examined that night was Not the same Zapruder film we have today. Brugioni Specifically referenced there being a difference in the Explosion of JFK's head he Examined on 11/23/63 and the Explosion depicted on the Current Zapruder Film.

[Walt Cakebread]

      NPIC Image Expert Dino Brugioni examined the Zapruder Film on 11/23/63. He said the film he examined that night was Not the same Zapruder film we have today. Brugioni Specifically referenced there being a difference in the Explosion of JFK's head he Examined on 11/23/63 and the Explosion depicted on the Current Zapruder Film.

Royell, That "explosion" on the side of JFK's head is fake!     Hoover knew immediately that the bullet hole on the side of JFK's head would be an instant give away that the shot had came from behind the picket fence, so they altered the film .....   

[Royell Storing]

Royell, That "explosion" on the side of JFK's head is fake!     Hoover knew immediately that the bullet hole on the side of JFK's head would be an instant give away that the shot had came from behind the picket fence, so they altered the film .....

     Image Expert Brugioni supports your Theory. Also, NONE of the Parkland Hospital Professionals that examined/treated JFK less than 30 minutes after the shooting EVER reported seeing that Large Hole/Flap in the right temple area. Parkland Dr's reported that external cardiac massage was applied to JFK and that blood/matter were falling out of the back of his head as each chest massage/compression was applied. Likewise, if there had been a Massive Wound/Hole in the (R) Temple Region, there also would have been blood/matter oozing out of that wound with each compression of the chest during external cardiac massage.

[Walt Cakebread]

     Image Expert Brugioni supports your Theory. Also, NONE of the Parkland Hospital Professionals that examined/treated JFK less than 30 minutes after the shooting EVER reported seeing that Large Hole/Flap in the right temple area. Parkland Dr's reported that external cardiac massage was applied to JFK and that blood/matter were falling out of the back of his head as each chest massage/compression was applied. Likewise, if there had been a Massive Wound/Hole in the (R) Temple Region, there also would have been blood/matter oozing out of that wound with each compression of the chest during external cardiac massage.

I'm not sure but I believe that the "explosion" on JFK's right temple would be seen in frames 314 and 315 ( 3/18 of a second )   I don't recall anybody ever making an issue out of the "explosion".   I guess most folks just assumed that it was an actual explosion of JFK's head and it was too gruesome to discuss.

[Royell Storing]

I'm not sure but I believe that the "explosion" on JFK's right temple would be seen in frames 314 and 315 ( 3/18 of a second )   I don't recall anybody ever making an issue out of the "explosion".   I guess most folks just assumed that it was an actual explosion of JFK's head and it was too gruesome to discuss.

     Brugioni DID make an Issue out of the Explosion. This is the same CIA Image Expert that was called in to Examine Top Secret aerial photos of Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis. He ain't no ham-n-egger. 

[Gary Craig]

Here's something that I've never been able to understand.....  At frame 313 of the Z film there is what appears to be an explosion on the side of JFK's head at the right temple, just forward of the ear.   But there was no damage to JFK's head at that location other than a small bullet hole in the hairline that Clint Hill reported seeing, when he climbed aboard the Lincoln.    There are colored photos that show a small red dot right at the spot that Clint Hill said that he saw a bullet hole.

I strongly suspect that the "explosion" on the side of JFK's head at Z 313 was added to the film to cover up that bullet hole.

I don't think the Z-film was altered other than possibly removing frames.

I think what happened at Z-313 is hard to understand because of all the misinformation from the autopsy and the WC.

If we knew where the shots were coming from and when I suspect Z_313 would make a lot more sense than it does.
IMO