As the presidential limousine appeared from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign, it was apparent JFK had been shot. Despite decades of research into the events of that day, very little has been done to investigate that shot. I can find little serious research into something which one would imagine would be of paramount importance. Of course, finding an explanation for the “throat shot” will not solve the mystery of the assassination – the who and the why. But surely the most basic principle of crime detection is to obtain a complete picture of the crime itself – the where and the how.
The clue to the origin of the throat shot is hidden in plain sight in one of the most famous photographs taken during the assassination. It was taken by photographer James William “Ike” Altgens and is known as “Altgens 6”. ( More accurately, it is Warren Commission Exhibit – WCE – 203). The photograph was taken a little over a second after the first shot struck the president. Altgens was the Associated Press (AP) Dallas Bureau photographer and his assignment that day was to capture a panorama of the city with the presidential motorcade prominent. He chose the railroad bridge as a vantage point, but was moved on by the two uniformed officers (stationed there), who informed him it was railroad property and only railroad workers were permitted to view from there. Whilst strictly true, this was lax policing as railroad workers or not, persons on a bridge under which the motorcade would pass were a security hazard. Altgens’ presence there would not have changed that. The only people that should have been on that bridge were the two police officers.
Altgens originally positioned himself on the corner of Main and Houston and, after taking a pre-focused photograph, used the median strip of grass between Elm and Main in the centre of the Plaza to make his way to the next spot he had chosen as a vantage point.
Mr. Liebeler: How far away was the Presidential car when you took the picture that has been marked as Commission Exhibit 203 – you must have had your camera focused.
Mr. Altgens: Yes, Sir; it was about 30 feet. (7H520)
There is a white mark visible in the Altgens 6 photograph which is matched by a reflection visible to Zapruder’s camera in exactly the same location on the windshield. This is consistent with what would be expected given the relative positions of Zapruder and the limousine in relation to the sun. It is also consistent with there being something in or on the glass to cause a reflection at that particular spot on the windshield. That particular spot is a constant in other photographs and verbal descriptions, as we shall now see.
Mr. Altgens: The car never did stop. It was proceeding along in a slow pace (sic) and I stepped out in the curb area and made another picture as the Secret Service man stepped upon the rear of the Presidential car and went to Mrs. Kennedy’s aid. (7H518)
As can be seen the white mark is clearly visible in Altgens second photograph of the assassination sequence. Later at Parkland this photograph, taken at some distance and closely cropped here, the mark is less obvious. But it is in the same place. What’s more, it was described in detail by a bystander.
Windshield Hole Witnesses
Dr Evalea Glanges was a first year medical student at Parkland. In an episode of the British made documentary series “The Men Who Killed Kennedy” this is what she saw;
“But it was very clear, it was a through and through bullet hole, through the windshield of the car, from the front to the back”.
“No way there’s even any cracks associated with that bullet hole, It seemed like a high velocity bullet that had penetrated from front to back in that glass pane”
In the same episode George Whitaker, Snr., a Ford employee at the Rouge plant in Dearborn Michigan also saw the hole. Incredibly, the Limousine had been secretly shipped there for a complete refit and the windshield was used as a template for a replacement before being destroyed. The replacement was suitably damaged but not to indicate a frontal shot. I believe this was necessary because Altgens photograph was in newspapers only hours after the assassination. The substituted windshield is in evidence held at the national Archives in Washington. This is Whitaker’s description.
“It was a good clean bullet hole right through the screen from the front, right, this had a clean round hole in the front and the fragmentation coming out of the back”
Dallas motorcycle patrolman Stavis Ellis observed a penetrating bullet hole in the limousine windshield at Parkland Hospital. Ellis told interviewer Gil Toff in 1971: “There was a hole in the left front windshield…It was a hole, you could put a pencil through it…you could take a regular standard writing pencil…and stick [it] through there.”
[David Lifton, Best Evidence.1988 Edition pp 370-371]
Dallas Motorcycle Patrolman H.R. Freeman, also interviewed by Toff corroborated his colleague Ellis, saying: “[I was] right beside it. I could of [sic] touched it…it was a bullet hole. You could tell what it was.”
[David Lifton, Best Evidence.1988 Edition pp 370-371]
Secret Service Agent Charles Taylor Jr. wrote a report on November 27, 1963 in which he detailed his activities providing security for the limousine immediately after the car’s return to Washington following the assassination. The JFK limousine and the Secret Service follow-up car known as the “Queen Mary” arrived at Andrews AFB aboard a C-130 propeller-driven cargo plane at about 8:00 PM on November 22, 1963. Agent Taylor rode in the Presidential limousine as it was driven from Andrews AFB to the White House garage at 22nd and M Streets, N.W. In his report about what he witnessed inside the White House garage during the vehicle’s inspection, he wrote: “In addition, of particular note was the small hole just left of center in the windshield from which what appeared to be bullet fragments were removed.”
[David Lifton, Best Evidence.1988 Edition pp 370-371]
St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter Richard Dudman wrote an article published in The New Republic on December 21, 1963, in which he stated: “A few of us noted the hole in the windshield when the limousine was standing at the emergency entrance after the President had been carried inside. I could not approach close enough to see which side was the cup-shaped spot which indicates a bullet had pierced the glass from the opposite side.”
A hollow point round will dump a tremendous amount of energy into the target in a very short space of time and distance. This causes massive temporary cavitation and consequently massive trauma. This type of trauma is graphically demonstrated in the frames of the Zapruder film showing the fatal head shot. Most experts agree that the round that struck the President was one designed to effect maximum damage. This may sound strange considering the fact that we are discussing a bullet aimed at a human being, but it is perfectly normal for ammunition to be selected that will tend to incapacitate or injure the target.
A question most often asked of my hypothesis (that a single shooter, situated directly in front of the target fired both frontal shots that hit), is “how could the same ammunition that behaved as it did in the head shot penetrate a windshield and still strike its target?”. The logic behind this question, an objection to the suggestion that the same shooter could have fired both shots, is that the ammunition for each shot must surely have been different. The explanation lies in the behaviour of hollow point ammunition.
A hollow-point bullet is an expanding bullet that has a pit or hollowed out shape in its tip often intended to cause the bullet to expand upon entering a target in order to decrease penetration and disrupt more tissue as it travels through the target. It is also used for controlled penetration, where over-penetration could cause collateral damage (such as aboard an aircraft). In target shooting, they are used for greater accuracy and reduction of smoke, fouling, and lead vapor exposure, as hollow point bullets have an enclosed base while traditional bullets have an exposed lead base.
Hollow points are designed to increase in diameter once within the target, thus maximizing tissue damage and blood loss or shock, and to remain inside the target, thereby transferring all of the kinetic energy to the target (whereas some fraction would remain in the bullet if it passed through instead). Both of these goals are meant to maximize stopping power. Jacketed hollow points (JHPs) or plated hollow points are covered in a coating of harder metal (usually a copper alloy or copper coated steel) to increase bullet strength and to prevent fouling the barrel with lead stripped from the bullet. The term hollow-cavity bullet is used to describe a hollow point where the hollow is unusually large, sometimes dominating the volume of the bullet, and causes extreme expansion or fragmentation on impact. In this case “impact” is first the windshield.
What remains of the projectile penetrated the throat but confused doctors because of its shallow penetration.
The characteristics described can be applied to Kennedy’s injuries as observed both at Parkland and later by Tom Robinson of Gawlor’s Funeral Home after the autopsy. He said when he applied embalming fluid to the cadaver it leaked through tiny holes in JFK’s face. It also explains why Charles Taylor Jr. observed bullet fragments in the windshield hole. Obviously we have no way at this late stage of knowing just what type of ammunition was used, but I am of the firm opinion that some form of high velocity hollow point was used. The late Sherry Fiester suggested privately to me that I should focus my attention on .223 ammunition. A Hollow point bullet, particularly one like a .223 high velocity round will leave casing and begin to fragment if it passes through laminated glass before it hits it’s target. Because it is necessary to demonstrate just how one person can fire two shots with seemingly different behaviour using one type of ammunition, I direct the reader to Sherry’s comprehensive explanation of the head wound. At this stage it is simply important to understand that if it hits a human target, it will produce instant and massive damage.
Where Was the Shooter?
This work is wholly indebted to Sherry who, in her book “Enemy of the Truth, Myths, Forensics and the Kennedy Assassination” became the first researcher to apply professional Forensic methods to the study of the head shot. For any serious student of the assassination, and in particular of the shooting sequence in Dealey Plaza it is required reading. That book places the shooter south of the triple underpass. Her book forensically debunked one theory perhaps most cherished by people who believe that Lee Oswald did not kill the President, namely that the fatal head shot originated from the North West corner of Dealey Plaza..the so-called “Grassy Knoll”, or quite often “The Stockade Fence”. For clarification, Sherry’s findings do nothing to invalidate the presence of a shooter in that location but they prove conclusively that whoever shot did not strike the President in the head.
There is one other factor of crucial significance concerning the behaviour of a projectile…any projectile…striking a windshield – deflection. the person firing this shot was not intending to hit JFK in the throat.
With that said, whoever it was must have used telescopic sights of some sort. It would have been beyond the capacity of anyone to attempt such a precise shot without one. There are simply too many obstacles between the shooter and his target and were much too distant to discern with the naked eye. The shooter’s view, aided by a telescopic sight, would, coincidentally, be very similar to Altgens 6.
The following statements were given to the FBI on 24/11/63 by Mr. Jack Franzen and 25/11/63 by Mrs. Franzen, eyewitnesses to the assassination.
Mr. Franzen: advised he and his wife and small son were standing in the grass area west of Houston Street and south of Elm Street at the time the time that the President’s motorcade arrived at that location at approximately 12:30 pm on November 22nd 1963. He said he heard the sound of an explosion which appeared to him to come from the President’s car and noticed small fragments flying inside the vehicle and immediately assumed someone had tossed a firecracker inside the automobile.
(22 WCH 840).
Mrs. Jack Franzen: Advised shortly after the President’s automobile passed by where she and her family were standing she heard a noise which sounded to her as if someone had thrown a firecracker into the President’s automobile. She advised at approximately the same time she noticed dust or small pieces of debris flying from the President’s automobile.
The Franzen Family
When I first started studying the assassination one phrase struck me as significant because I kept reading it over and over. That phrase was “It sounded like a firecracker”. The large number of times it occurred was one thing that made it stand out to me but the other was how odd it was. Others disagree with me over this, but what I found odd was that on an American city street, in a State that was no stranger to gunfire, in a country unique in its tolerance of private weapon ownership and use, the first thought many people had was not that they’d heard gunfire but that they’d heard a firecracker. I come from and live in the UK, where until comparatively recently, gunfire was a sound totally alien to the average citizen. Not so the United States. Gunfire was and is something that whilst not exactly commonplace is also not something people would be so surprised by that they were unable to recognise it when they heard it.
Clinton J. HIll: November 30, 1963 statement (Secret Service agent on the left rear of JFK limousine grabbing Jackie Kennedy during assassination)
“The motorcade made a left hand turn onto Elm Street. I was on the forward portion of the left running board of the follow-up car. The motorcade made a left hand turn from Elm Street toward an underpass. We were traveling about 12 to 15 miles per hour. On the left hand side was a grass area with a few people scattered along it observing the motorcade passing, and I was visually scanning these people when I heard a noise similar to a firecracker. The sound came from my right rear and I immediately moved my head in that direction. In so doing, my eyes had to cross the Presidential automobile and I saw the President hunch forward and then slump to his left. I jumped from the Follow-up car and ran toward the Presidential automobile. I heard a second firecracker type noise but it had a different sound – like the sound of shooting a revolver into something hard. I saw the President slump more toward his left.”
[Statement: CE1024: 18H742]
Seymour Weitzman: (Dallas police officer, on the corner of Main and Houston Streets 1st April 1964)
“We heard what we thought at that time was either a rifle shot or a firecracker, I mean at that second.”
[Warren Commission testimony: 7H106]
Winston Lawson: (Secret Service agent in the lead car ahead of the Presidential limousine), April 23, 1964:
“I heard this very loud report which at first flashing through my mind did not say rifle shot to me. It sounded different than a rifle shot. It sounded louder and more of a bang than a crack. My first impression was firecracker or bomb or something like that.”
[Warren Commission testimony: 4H352)
Clifton Carter: (Secret Service agent in the third car behind the Presidential limousine, in front of the Texas School Book Depository at the time of the shooting), May 20, 1964:
“Our car had just made the left hand turn off Houston onto Elm Street and was right alongside of the Texas School Book Depository when I heard a noise which sounded like a firecracker.”
[Warren Commission affidavit: 7H474]
Welcome Barnett: (Dallas police officer holding back traffic and spectators at the corner of Elm and Houston), July 23, 1964:
“When the first shot was fired, I thought it was a firecracker ….”
[Warren Commission testimony: 7H541]
Jerry Kivett (Secret Service agent, three cars back from the Presidential limousine), November 29, 1963:
“As the motorcade was approximately 1/3 of the way to the underpass, travelling between 10 and 15 miles per hour, I heard a loud noise—someone hollered [sic] ‘What was that?’ It sounded more like an extremely large firecracker, in that it did not seem to have the sharp report of a rifle.”
[Statement: CE1024: 18H778]
All six of the above will have been familiar with gunfire. Seymour Weitzman had once owned a sporting goods store…selling, amongst other thing, firearms. These were all people who were also close to the limousine. Remember too what the Franzen’s both said, that whatever they saw and heard appeared to be happening inside the limousine. Other witnesses said something similar. These witnesses, including Victoria Adams and Roy Truly are not literally referring to bombs or cannons. They are referring to fireworks widely used at the time…for example, as Adams says, at football games. No two descriptions are identical, they range from very loud to “wasn’t real loud”, but the Firecracker descriptor is universal. Another term for such a device is a Cherry Bomb A rifle sound is very different from that of a Cherry Bomb in that it produces a prolonged echo. That may of course be due to location it is being fired in that particular demonstration. Dealey Plaza, an area surrounded by large, tall buildings would produce a different but not dissimilar sound, i.e. one that is more prolonged. The cherry bomb by contrast produces a distinctive, sharp “crack”.
Was It a Firecracker…or a Windshield?
There is one possible explanation for the widespread impression given of hearing a firecracker, that the rifle that fired the shot could have been suppressed. If that were so, the only noise many would hear would be the bullet’s impact with the windshield. It is a sharp “crack” not dissimilar to the cherry bomb.
The widespread use of the term Firecracker is in my view significant and whilst I accept that eye and ear witness testimony can be wide and varied, I include it here because in this instance I think it is proof of the sound of a bullet – a suppressed bullet, impacting a windshield.
Sherry Fiester’s analysis use of the Zapruder film draws the most criticism from those unwilling or unable to accept her conclusions. For these detractors, the Zapruder film is tainted evidence, ranging from tampered to outright forgery depending on the conviction of the proponent of that particular viewpoint. You will note that this study makes extensive use of the Zapruder film and it does so for the following reasons.
Having read the extensive work on the subject by former ARRB analyst Douglas Horne I agree with his conclusion that “In my view, the alterations that were performed were aimed at quickly removing the most egregious evidence of shots from the front (namely, the exit debris leaving the skull toward the left rear, and the gaping exit wound which the Parkland Hospital treatment staff tells us was present in the right-rear of JFK’s head)” and that “They did an imperfect job, the best they could in about 12-14 hours, which was all the time they had on Sunday, November 24, 1963, at Hawkeyeworks. Besides, there was no technology available in 1963 that could convincingly remove the head-snap from the Zapruder film; you could not animate JFK’s entire body without it being readily detectable as a forgery”. This from the man those suggesting the film is unusable as evidence cite as their champion. In their haste to “conspiracise” the film they ignore what the man whose work is most frequently referenced himself believes – That the film was altered cosmetically but the physics of the event it depicts is accurate and shows what actually happened.
Having watched and collected the work of Ant Davidson, who has skillfully and ingeniously created panoramic reworkings of the three most important films taken in the Plaza that day, the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films, it is obvious to anyone viewing them that at the moment of the head shot they all depict exactly the same thing. All of Davison’s work is in the video appendices section of my website www.jfksouthknollgunman.com
In “Enemy of the Truth” Sherry explains in great detail that the reason we only see back spatter from the head shots frontal entry for one frame is because its speed and composition is such that one eighteenth of a second is all it will be visible for to a camera lens at that distance. Besides, the phenomenon of back spatter was unknown in 1963 and so the reason it too wasn’t obscured or removed is because those who ordered the alteration probably thought its inclusion provided proof of a shot from the rear.
The subject of Zapruder film alteration is almost as complex as the assassination itself and cannot be covered in any detail here. But the film’s use here as a primary source of evidence for this hypothesis does require explanation for that reason. You can see Davison’s convincing renditions on my website . With all that said I will now lay out my hypothesis, marrying my own research with that of Sherry Fiester. As you will see, they are mutually supportive. JFK’s assassin stood not on the Grassy (north) Knoll but it’s opposite number… the South Knoll.
The curve of Elm Street itself, particularly in the area visible in the Zapruder film. As he pans his camera left to right the road curves with him. This gives an illusion we are following a vehicle in a straight line. The direction Zapruder is facing. He is stood at the south west corner of the north pergola and is facing the junction of Main Street (which runs horizontally in the lower half of the image) and Houston Street (which runs vertically at the right of the image). The direction the limousine would be pointed whilst traversing Elm Street as indicated by the vehicles in the image. Again, the Zapruder film gives a completely different impression of this direction due to the lack of background reference points. Your mind’s eye imagines a path more akin to that of main Street, especially when Main Street becomes visible in the film.
It is important to realise that Houston Street, the Elm Street spur that runs along the south edge of the School Book Depository Building and the equivalent road that runs along the north edge of the Terminal Annex building (just out of sight at the left of the image) are at the same elevation – 429 feet. Only the the north and south parking lots and the Triple Underpass itself are lower, 424 feet at the northern end, 422 feet at the southern end. Using an online elevation finder the area shaded in red on the previous image is also at 422 feet elevation. So from the spot this photograph was taken to the point at which the throat shot occurred as previously indicated the road surface drops by seven feet.
The following image was what enabled this whole hypothesis to come together, a true “Eureka” moment. I realised that with a known bullet hole, a known victim and direction of travel all that was needed was to orient the limousine in the correct position and bearing on Elm Street and the shooter’s location could be extrapolated.
This photograph was taken at approximately 07:30 on the morning of November 20th 2016. With the help of several volunteers from the JFK Assassination Conference being held at the nearby Crowne Plaza on Elm Street I was able to stand in the position seen in the earlier composite images determining the shot zone on Elm Street. Volunteer helpers were keeping watch on the traffic signals behind me. My friend Scott Reid directed me into position on the street from where Zapruder had stood using visual cues (as depicted and derived from earlier photo composites). It took several attempts because of interrupting traffic (had we attempted this any later or on any other day it would not have been possible) but eventually we were jointly able to position my camera to enable me to take a photograph from a point on Elm Street I believed was the spot the throat shot had struck. The centre of the photograph depicts the direction of travel at that spot. The tripod I used had a fluid head which allowed measurement by increments of 9 degrees. In the centre of the road ahead you can just make out the “X” painted regularly by Robert Groden which marks the spot depicted in Zapruder frame 313 where JFK’s life ended. If you can believe it, people actually stand smiling and grinning on that spot having their photograph taken…I will make no further comment.
(Note: Calculation of this exact spot involved a complicated series of photo compositions too lengthy to include here. They can be viewed on my website www.jfksouthknollgunman.com. Meanwhile this image summarises the whole process nicely.)
Remember the 15 degree angle established using the model limousine. It was now necessary to take a photograph at an angle of 15 degrees left of the one above.
Using the scale on the tripod I turned the camera to the angle calculated in the above composite photograph. Next I used image editing software to place the yellow spot where the origin of the shot would be if stood on the edge of the Terminal Annex parking lot…dead centre of the photograph.
You will note that thus far I have assumed that the bullet responsible for the windshield hole must have been responsible for the throat wound. The reason for that is simple. There is one bullet hole and one wounded person. In reality there are only two possible locations for the person who fired that bullet, the north or south knoll. The only other possible location in-between is the Triple Underpass. If that were the case the shooter was both invisible and inaudible to the railroad workers stood on that bridge.
If the shooter was behind the stockade fence on the more famous “grassy knoll” then the resultant shot would not and could not have struck John Kennedy but would instead have hit one of the three occupants on the left side of the limousine. To assume a frontal windshield bullet hole during a Presidential assassination resulting in a wound to the intended target means drawing a straight line from one to the other. Occam’s Razor.
The Shooter’s Location Today
This is a view of the area the previous photograph was taken from. It shows just how far the tree foliage has been allowed to overhang. It is hardly conspiratorial thinking to wonder why it has been allowed to almost reach the heads of passers by on the adjoining sidewalk. This photograph (taken near midday) also illustrates how bright the sun is looking in that direction. From further away it only gets worse. It is impossible to look at the South Knoll from the north side of Elm Street without having to shield ones eyes.
The Perfect Match
If my hunch was right, that the shooter I believed I had now placed and that determined by Sherry Fiester were one and the same then using the same method on the spot where Zapruder frame 313 occurred should result in an identical location. I needed to replicate my experiment there too.
This composite image was produced by Sherry Fiester. It shows an oversized skull to represent JFK’s line of sight at the moment he was struck in the head as seen in Zapruder frame 313. The line drawn from the skull is at 25 degrees to profile and represents the direction he was facing – not bullet trajectory. Because of the military and political influence imposed upon the Naval personnel conducting the autopsy it is worthless as a means of honestly determining the actual bullet wounds. Sherry’s analysis skillfully uses the flawed autopsy report to prove where the wounds had to to have been on the head and uses blood spatter and many other measures such as skull fracture patterns to determine direction. Adding these two factors together still gives us, even with the carefully contrived official report, an entry point that had to be in the front right quadrant of the president’s head and an exit point in the right rear quadrant.
I produced this composite image by using a freeze frame of my own video footage taken from the small concrete abutment upon which Zapruder stood and superimposing the horrific frame 313 from his film over the place it happened. That spot is represented by an “X” regularly painted and repainted by veteran researcher Robert Groden. In simple terms, the original film has no visible points of reference. Without them a wholly different impression of the shot to the head and it’s point of origin is given. It is for that reason alone that the undisputed shot from behind the stockade fence has been assumed to be the origin of that fatal shot for half a century. The simple inclusion of background buildings shows that Zapruder was facing the junction of Houston and Commerce Streets. Because JFK was obviously tilted away from him in the still image (some 15 degrees) and facing 25 degrees from profile, a bullet entry and exit in the right quadrant of the head from an area which is in fact behind us and to our right in this image is demonstrably impossible.
Also note that this composite demonstrates the incline down which the limousine was traveling. This allows you to see how the fatal shot could have cleared the metal frame behind Kellerman and Greer. I urge you to watch “A Coup in Camelot,” which has computer graphics illustrating how the shot could also have passed under that metal frame. It must be remembered how audacious and accurate our marksman had already proved himself with the throat shot.
This image uses the same technique as that used for the throat shot to demonstrate the direction JFK was estimated to be facing at the point of bullet impact to his skull in Zapruder frame 313. Because the bullet entered and exited in the right half of JFK’s skull this estimated angle is going to be almost the same as the bullet trajectory. I have used the figure of 25.7 degrees from profile calculated by Dale Myers in his computer animation which supports the single bullet theory. The single bullet theory is a construct forced on the Warren Commission by its own insistence of only three bullets, all fired from the rear and as such is a nonsense.
Using Myers’ calculation for the position of JFK relative to Zapruder does not invalidate an anti single bullet (ie conspiracy) conclusion any more than showing a plane fly into tower one of the World Trade Center invalidates the argument that there were no Muslim Terrorists aboard that plane. Besides, the HSCA concluded that JFK was facing 25 degrees from profile so we are talking fractions of a degree. The use of Myers’ calculation still results in a shooter on the South Knoll.
Of greater importance is what the angle shows within the vehicle itself. The only person in this image in the path of the incoming bullet is Nellie Connally. In Zapruder Frame 313 both Nellie and John Connally, whom she has pulled toward her but downward are much lower in the vehicle than they were when sitting upright. If the trajectory shown reflects the actual shot fired this leaves us with two possibilities. Either the elevation of the shooter versus the elevation of the metal bar behind the Driver, Secret Service Man Bill Greer, was sufficient to give a clear sight of Kennedy or the shooter fired to Greer’s left and under the metal bar (used for the removable roof). One difference from image 007 is that the vertex – the point at which the angle is measured, in this case representing JFK’s head rather than throat you will note that I have estimated a position between that shown on the model and the figure of Jackie to illustrate that the President was leaning toward her at this point.
The idea of such an intricate bullet path is not as far fetched as it first appears when you consider that at the vehicle had come to a rolling stop and was either momentarily stationary or near stationary at the moment of impact. It must also be remembered that if my hypothesis that the throat and head shots were made by the same gunman, that gunman had already demonstrated the ability to fire an audacious shot through the car windshield from a distance of over 100 yard
This is the moment my hypothesis becomes apparent. Using my own figures to estimate the origin of the throat shot and those used by Sherry Fiester to estimate the origin of the head shot you will note that in all trajectory projections there are only a few feet separating the results. This can be explained by any combination of the following; For the Throat Shot
I have estimated the position of the bullet hole in the windshield using a model of the vehicle. a slight difference in location results in a slightly different angle.
The model may not accurately represent the position of the President in the vehicle.
I have estimated the direction of travel against which I have calculated the trajectory.
The position of the point on Elm Street used is the earliest the shot could have occurred. If it occurred slightly later the trajectory would differ accordingly.
This latter point is exacerbated by the curvature of Elm Street.
The same is true for the Head Shot:
I have used Dale Myers’ calculation for JFK’s line of sight. Using that of the HSCA would alter the outcome. Both are themselves estimates.
I have not corrected for the angle the bullet passed through the president’s skull. That need not match the direction he was facing, in fact it is unlikely it did. No matter how small the difference, projected over 100 yards the result is feet not inches.
Again, I have estimated the direction of travel against which I have calculated the trajectory.
It is possible the vehicle veered slightly at this point, as some have testified.
And in all instances using calculated estimates there is of course a margin for error.
What is most important is that the trajectory estimates all point to a very limited area – an area within the confines of the Terminal Annex parking lot.
As with the throat shot, for the head shot I took an image facing direction of travel as zero this time standing on the “Groden X” marked in the centre lane of Elm Street.
Again because of the 9 degree gradations on the tripod’s fluid head I could not easily replicate either 25 or 25.7 degrees from zero. However I could exactly measure 27 degrees and my logic for doing so runs like this. If 25.7 degrees was the direction JFK’s head was pointed from direction of travel (profile) at the instant he was shot, and the bullet entered his right temple (or right forehead as several witnesses reported) and exited the right occiput this means that the bullet itself traversed an angle, however small, versus the centre line of the skull. By erring on the larger of my alternative, accurate measurement choices I was likely to be closer than if I erred lower.
As before, the differences involved are sufficiently minimal to fall within acceptable margins of error. I again placed a yellow dot in the dead centre of the image at parking lot level.
There is massive irony in this next image. It was taken during the filming of the “JFK, Inside the Target Car” one of the countless mainstream propaganda exercises designed to slowly brainwash humanity into accepting white is in fact black. It shows the limousine, positioned by the program makers on Elm Street at the point of head shot. It needs no caption.
William Robert “Tosh” Plumlee was stood below the large tree to the left of the foot of the steps which are the mirror image on the south of the plaza of their more famous counterparts on to the north. This is his statement, given as early as 1966 to investigators.
“While on the south knoll, Sergio and I were attempting to evaluate the most logical places where shooters might be located, but everything was confused, the timing was off, team members were late getting into position. They were not where they were supposed to be and the limited radio contacts that we had with them were not working, or spotty at best. It was soon after our arrival that the motorcade arrived. When the shots rang out, I had the impression of 4 or 5 shots, with one being fired from behind and to my left on the South Knoll, near the underpass and south parking lot. While leaving via the south side of the underpass near the train tracks, Sergio and I smelled gunpowder.”
This was where Tosh stood…
This was the map he produced for investigators…
In the Final Analysis
Whilst it is possible that this whole hypothesis is in error, it’s strength lies in the fact that it ties several disparate pieces of evidence. It’s weakness is that it challenges half a century of received wisdom. Because of this it has been resisted by many.
Some of that resistance is factually based, but none of it is backed by solid research such as is presented here. For example, it has been suggested that the neat entry wound in JFK’s throat is inconsistent with a ragged frangible bullet shard. Whilst that is in itself a reasonable objection it is incomplete. If true, and if the wound was indeed from a bullet fired not from the south knoll but elsewhere then any alternative explanation would of necessity need to explain two things.
Firstly, how did a bullet fired unimpeded into the President’s throat produce only a shallow wound and did not, like those of Connally, traverse in and out of the lesser obstruction presented by a thorax as opposed to a muscular chest cavity?
And secondly it fails to account for the actual trajectory of the bullet that made the windshield hole, including how and why it missed the other occupants and where the shooter was located.
It must be remembered, the intended victim of this attack was undoubtedly the President (Connally too may also have been a target, either in his own right or mistaken for Yarborough).
Taken as a whole, the existence of a frontal entry bullet hole, photographed a mere 1.6 seconds after the President is seen to suffer a wound to his throat (i.e. frontal, at the same height) at the exact same time what many thought were either firecrackers or gunfire was heard with as yet no injury to other occupants and, crucially, eyewitness accounts of debris seen flying inside the vehicle is very compelling.
How compelling only the reader can decide. But if they decide it is not, I insist they be as specific as I have been in explaining how and why.