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

[Matt Grantham]

Frangible bullet Or I assume there is some resistance from the skull which could send some material backwards from the direction of the shot. Also if Greer was breaking material would move forward relative to the position of the car

  I assume the important thing from Hargis from your perspective is that he did not see an exit wound in the back of the head

[Royell Storing]

Back that chuckwagon up, Tex.
Are you expecting a tsunami of bloody gore?

      Just tell the forum Where at Any Point on the Bronson Film you are seeing, "Matter that was blown forward and Upward", or withdraw that claim.

[Royell Storing]

Hargis said he "rode" "run through" the material as it came down.

Hargis:  "We were moving at the time, and when he got hit all that stuff went like this, and of course I run through it."

He also said this: "If he'd [JFK] got hit in the rear, I'd of been able to see it. All I saw was just a splash come out on the other side. "

He saw no exit hole in the back of the head; all he saw was a "splash" coming out of the other, i.e., right side.

The Connallys said they were hit by blood and brain; Kellerman said he was hit; Greer said he was hit. Blood and brain matter were found all on the interior of the limo, all in FRONT of where JFK was.

Question: If the exit was in the back of the head how did this material/matter land in front of where JFK was?

Hargis source: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hargis.htm

            The link you provided referenced Tink Thompson and his "Six Seconds in Dallas" book. The theory proffered in that book was that the JFK kill shot = 2 bullets, fired from 2 different locations, striking the head of JFK at almost the same time. This would explain the multiple directions that material/matter was expelled + the head explosion. 

[Matt Grantham]

            The link you provided referenced Tink Thompson and his "Six Seconds in Dallas" book. The theory proffered in that book was that the JFK kill shot = 2 bullets, fired from 2 different locations, striking the head of JFK at almost the same time. This would explain the multiple directions that material/matter was expelled + the head explosion.

I thought later Thompsomn backed away from this theory when he looked at David Wimps information in the early 2000's

[Royell Storing]

I thought later Thompsomn backed away from this theory when he looked at David Wimps information in the early 2000's

          Thompson may have changed his mind at some future point in time, but the Link you provided was Tied to his "Six Seconds In Dallas" book. Many of the points/conclusions made within the Link were based on information supplied by Thompson in his book. Personally, I like the interviews he did for his book. The Complete interview with Sitzman reveals information that to this day has Not been researched.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

            The link you provided referenced Tink Thompson and his "Six Seconds in Dallas" book. The theory proffered in that book was that the JFK kill shot = 2 bullets, fired from 2 different locations, striking the head of JFK at almost the same time. This would explain the multiple directions that material/matter was expelled + the head explosion.

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.

[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.