If you’ve read my other posts, you’ll realize by now that I’m fond of linking to interviews, if available, with the individuals involved in the events I’m discussing. My feeling in doing this is that you don’t need to take my word for something, you can listen to the person tell you him or herself. After all, if a picture is worth a thousand words, how much is a video worth? I think this leverages the full power of the internet as applied to discussing historical events in the video age. This sort of thing wasn’t possible 20 years ago. Even 10 years ago, the kind of “linking for context” I’m doing here wouldn’t have been possible. It’s only with the growing volume of material available on YouTube that this is possible. Having this material referenced in links adds clarity to events that I believe are not as murky as they’re often presented to be.
A perfect example of this phenomenon at work is seen when discussing the nature of the wounds to President Kennedy’s head after he was shot. The President was taken immediately to Parkland hospital, where he was worked on and looked at by well over a dozen medical personnel. How do these people describe the wounds to President Kennedy? In the Evidence of Revision series, available on YouTube, you can see for yourself.
For the three minute period where I’ve started the clip to about 6:20, you’ll see several reporters describing how Kennedy was shot in the right temple, you’ll see White House Assistant Press Secretary Malcolm Kilduff pointing to his right temple when describing a “bullet to the brain”, and you’ll see Drs. Malcolm Perry, Robert McClelland, Charles Carrico, Ronald Jones, Paul Peters, Kenneth Salyer, Charles Crenshaw, Richard Dulany and Nurse Audrey Bell all describing a large wound in the right rear of Kennedy’s head.
What does the nature of this wound tell us? It tells us that this is an all likelihood an exit wound. From the “Explore Foresics” website:
Exit wounds – as we have already mentioned – are usually larger than the entrance wound and this is because as the round moves through the body of the victim it slows down and explodes within the tissue and surrounding muscle. This slowing down of the projectile means that as it reaches the end of its trajectory it has to force harder to push through. This equates to the exit wound normally looking larger and considerably more destructive than its pre-cursor – the entrance wound.
Here again, is Dr. Malcolm Perry, in the same original video, describing Kennedy’s wounds. He describes an anterior neck wound (a frontal neck wound) and a “large wound of his head in the right posterior [rear] area”. No where will you find any Parkland doctor or nurse describing a significant wound in the front or side of Kennedy’s head. That means that the fatal head shot had to have come from the front and not the rear of Kennedy. In the Evidence of Revision clip referenced above, Dr. Crenshaw even specifically describes this rear injury as an exit wound. In this clip from The Men Who Killed Kennedy, you’ll again see Dr. Paul Peters and Dr. Robert McClelland describing this large rear head wound, and Dr. McClelland provides another good explanation of why this was, in all likelihood, an exit wound. If you’re curious and enterprising enough, you might even find a copy of a Kennedy autopsy photo showing a small hole in Kennedy’s hairline near his right temple, which could very well be the frontal entrance wound where the bullet struck. I’d rather not post gruesome photos, however, so you’ll have to find that one yourself.
Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry echoed the Parkland doctors in believing that, based largely on the direction of the tissue and matter being ejected from the back of Kennedy’s head, there was a likelihood of the shot having come from the front.
I think we’ve seen some pretty compelling testimony that the President’s fatal head wound had to have come from the front, not the rear, which means someone other than Lee Oswald fired that shot. Do you disagree? Then show me some evidence.