JFK Was Shot From The Front

[Anthony Frank]

There's no need to misinterpret Clint's words, here the man himself explaining exactly what he saw.

So, several decades after the assassination, even after an aging Hill finally goes along with the “official” version that says a bullet entered the back of the head, he still says that the bullet “exploded out the UPPER RIGHT REAR QUADRANT.”

There's no need to misinterpret Clint's words. He wrote the same thing in his Secret Service report, stating, “As I lay over the top of the back seat, I noticed a portion of the President’s head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lying in the seat.”

And he told the Warren Commission the same thing, “The second noise that I heard had removed a portion of the President’s head,” and he reiterated what was in his report, “The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car.”

Hill told the Warren Commission that the only wound he could see was “the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head.”

Parkland Hospital doctors and nurses saw the same thing (see my first post for their hospital reports and testimony). And people at the autopsy saw it (again, see my first post).

It’s all in my book. Click the link.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07V9JT65Y

[John Iacoletti]

Oh really? Just a small part of my work which was selected from hours of uploaded videos is below and just in the first few minutes of this video, I have edited together images with way over 10 layers including a number of elements independently moving in what would have been called a travelling matte

That's a lot of effort for a shameless propaganda piece.

[Anthony Frank]

GUNN: Did you see any wounds on the back of his head?
REED: No.
............
GUNN: Did you see any wounds at all on his head?
REED: Yes, I did.
GUNN: Could you describe where those wounds were?
REED: It was in the temporal parietal region, right side. I could - It was large enough that I could probably put four fingers into it.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=794#relPageId=7

So, more than nineteen years after telling the House Select Committee on Assassinations that President Kennedy’s head wound was “very large and located in the right hemisphere in the occipital region,” Reed changed his story to go along with the official version.

Relocating the head wound was not the only thing that Reed changed.

Reed also told the ARRB that he did not see any wounds on JFK other than the throat wound and the now-relocated head wound. Reed told the HSCA that “the third wound was situated in the back.”

Reed changed his story nineteen years after acknowledging that President Kennedy’s head wound was “very large and located in the right hemisphere in the occipital region.” Reed was just one of a multitude of witnesses who saw the gaping wound at the back of President Kennedy's head on November 22, 1963.

And I am not surprised that Reed changed his story in 1997. When he acknowledged back in 1978 that the head wound was “very large and located in the right hemisphere in the occipital region,” Reed also “mentioned that he basically believed the Warren Commission adequately covered the area.”

So, in 1997, Reed says, “Yeah, sure. A wound in the temporal parietal region, right side, and a throat wound. There were no other wounds that I saw. The Warren Commission was right. Now leave me alone.”

Anyone who wants the well-documented facts on who killed President Kennedy and why needs to read my book.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07V9JT65Y

[Jerry Organ]

... snip ...

Anyone who wants the well-documented facts on who killed President Kennedy and why needs to read my book.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07V9JT65Y

[John Mytton]

That's a lot of effort....

Thanks, yeah it was a fun project and shows beyond all doubt that I know what I'm talking about and while editing together my videos I have the luxury of working a clean digital world, but the sort of alterations that David Healey and his comrades have suggested like cutting out and enlarging the limousine is totally laughable and the single frame of Healey's presentation where he presents a photoshopped version is embarrassing and he should be ashamed of himself.

Healey here has presented a Zapruder frame where he has used photoshop to cut-out the foreground elements and slightly enlarged them but in doing so he highlights just how impossible this sort of image manipulation really is and in the Zapruder film we are not talking about 1 image but 500 consecutive images which when run together make a coherent whole, so basically if modern computer image tools can't even produce a single photo realistic frame then how the heck, pre computers, did they do alter a blurry handheld film? Btw that's a rhetorical question because there was no way!



JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Thanks, yeah it was a fun project and shows beyond all doubt that I know what I'm talking about and while editing together my videos I have the luxury of working a clean digital world, but the sort of alterations that David Healey and his comrades have suggested like cutting out and enlarging the limousine is totally laughable and the single frame of Healey's presentation where he presents a photoshopped version is embarrassing and he should be ashamed of himself.

Healey here has presented a Zapruder frame where he has used photoshop to cut-out the foreground elements and slightly enlarged them but in doing so he highlights just how impossible this sort of image manipulation really is and in the Zapruder film we are not talking about 1 image but 500 consecutive images which when run together make a coherent whole, so basically if modern computer image tools can't even produce a single photo realistic frame then how the heck, pre computers, did they do alter a blurry handheld film? Btw that's a rhetorical question because there was no way!

JohnM

Thanks, yeah it was a fun project and shows beyond all doubt that I know what I'm talking about

LOL....

But credit where credit is due. You are amazing in misrepresenting what was really said.   

[John Mytton]

But credit where credit is due. You are amazing...

 

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

JohnM

Thanks for proving my point.

Kinda sad though that you need this kind of childish BS to bolster your self-esteem. You must be very insecure. It's so sad.