Zapruder film vs doctors

[Florient Roy]

I am new on this forum, and i am not a English speaker. But i will do my best. I didn't read all the post on each subject, but maybe someone can guide me to find an answer to this question: How can we explain that we clearly saw the impact of the bullet on the right side of the head of JFK on the Z. film, and the apparently contradiction with the witnesses of many personnals of the Parkland hospital who talked about a back head wound? Also, the photo of the autopsy didn't show the bruse on the side of the head like the film seems to show. I am probably talk about someting already discusse pr?viously, but maybe someone can tell me where i can find some reliable informations. Thank you.

[Barry Pollard]

Hi,
you clearly see an impact of a bullet on the right side in the Zfilm?  You mean coming from the front?  Are you sure?
Could it be because you see the head go back, you are assuming it came from the front?
Anyway, a front shot and the alledged big wound at the back of head, is that what you mean?  Those two would compliment each other, so I'm not sure if I'm reading you correctly.

You could do a lot worse that read what Pat Speer has to say, on these issues and many others.
http://www.patspeer.com/chapter18b%3Areasontobelieve

[Florient Roy]

Thank you for your answer. I was not clear in my first post. I Don't really care about the origin of the bullet. The point is the emplacement of the wound. The Z film showed a wound on the right side of the scull. The autopsy photo are little different and the doctor of Parklane hospital talked about a rear wound on the scull. It just doesn't seems to match up the film. Single bullet, from rear or front, two shooter or more? I think that the only important question is: Yes or no, the gouvernement was involved. If it is not, then it's just a case of bag guy killed there enemy. I now go to read the link that you gave me.

[Barry Pollard]

Ahh yes I think I did read you correct the first time then ty.
Pat Speer talks more on these issues than anyone else, you should also search David Lifton too.

Do you believe the "back of the head" doctors got it correct? Then that's all that matters.
Or do you consider the possibility that they all made similar mistakes when recollecting what they saw that day?
I made my choice clear with a vote.

[Florient Roy]

There are not many witnesses that no one contest. These doctors and the driver of the ambulance who carried the body of Kennedy where clearly unanimous on the fact the the back of the head was severly injured, bones totally missed. Nobody came to said they are wrong on this issue. Some people think that the Z film was modified by CIA or FBI. It's hard to Believe, but i send you this link. Maybe you have already seen this film. It is interesting theory, like all theories i guess?

[Barry Pollard]

^I watched that just the other week specifically for a reminder of what Dino told Doug.

Anyway, are doctors better than average witnesses?  One assumes they naturally are but I don't think so.
They make mistakes all the time and when it comes to their own memories and recollections? No better, no worse than the rest of us.
The brain works the same, memory collection is not perfect.

In my own theory of how it all went down, I believe they were mistaken.
Life is short, make a choice and live with it.

[Florient Roy]

I just read and look what Pat Speer said about it. I am sure about one  thing, nobody is lying or ?ven being wrong. It?s just that th? film and the photos of the autopsy don?t seemed  to match. This  is m?y only questionning.

[Barry Pollard]

The Zfilm does match the autopsy photos in at least one regard and that's that the Zfilm shows no visible damage to the back of the head and if you believe the Zfilm to be "untouched" then that's pretty major.
The shot through the neck/throat, that also matches JFK's reaction in the film.
Were you thinking of something else, specifically?

Someone has to be lying and/or just plain wrong.