21 JFK cops who heard a grassy knoll shot

Strange but true:

Moments after JFK’s assassination people ran toward the area known as the “grassy knoll.”

At least two dozen, and perhaps as many as four dozen, of the witnesses to the assassination of President Kennedy in November 1963 thought at least one gunshot came from in front of the presidential motorcade, a claim rejected by the Warren Commission and most U.S. news organizations..

Richard Charnin has proposed a statistical proof of a shot from the front, which I will comment on later this week.

Another way to think about the matter is to review the eyewitness accounts, especially those of people with crime scene training.

Assessing earwitness testimony

Defenders of the U.S. government’s semi-official theory that the 35th president, a liberal Democrat, was shot from behind by a psychopathic leftist will dismiss the earwitness accounts. Earwitness testimony, say crime scene investigators, is notoriously unreliable.

But not always. After all, it is well-documented that some earwitnesses of JFK’s assassination proved to have good hearing that day. Several dozen people reported hearing gunshots from above and behind the presidential motorcade. Their perception was accurate.

President Kennedy and Texas Governor John Connally were both wounded in the back. The location of their wounds proved that Oswald (or someone else) was firing from above and behind had assaulted the motorcade. The earwitnesses in Dealey Plaza proved right.

So what about the several dozen people who said a shot also came from in front of JFK’s car? Were they mistaken? Or could they have been right too?

The issue is well documented. Stewart Galanor says 52 earwitnesses said they thought one or more shots came from in front of the motorcade. Richard Charnin says 88 witnesses heard a knoll shot. Even John McAdams, a die-hard anti-conspiracy theorist, agrees that at least 33 witnesses spoke of hearing a gunshot from in front of the motorcade.

Railroad worker S.M. Holland, who was watching from the Triple Underpass, says he heard a rifle report and saw smoke from behind the stockade face atop the grassy knoll. (Watch Holland tell his story here.)

The area was searched by police within minutes of JFK’s assassination. No gunman was found.

Corroborating earwitness testimony

Law enforcement and criminal justice professionals agree that photographic evidence is more reliable than earwitness testimony.

What about the infamous home movie of the assassination made by Dallas dressmaker Abraham Zapruder. What does it tell us about the source of the shots?

The film captures, in terrible detail, the six seconds in which the commander in chief lost his life. The film shows Kennedy jolted forward when he was struck in the back by a bullet. A few seconds later, the film shows JFK head snapping backwards and to the left from the fatal shot.

The Zapruder film lends credence to — some say corroborates — the earwitness testimony that the fatal shot came from the front and to the right.

Among the earwitnesses to JFK’s murder were no less than 21 law enforcement officers.

While earwitness testimony is unreliable, these 21 cops were probably better earwitnesses than most. All of them were within 150 feet from JFK when the shots rang out. They were trained in the use of firearms and they were experienced in crime scene investigation.

Most importantly, they were dispersed at various around the park-like area of Dealey Plaza, which means they would have heard different echo patterns, a frequent source of faulty earwitness testimony.

What did these earwitnesses say about the origins of the gunshot killed JFK?

21 cops

Twenty one officers said their reaction to the gunfire was to go search the area famously known as “the grassy knoll.”

The unanimity of their reaction is striking. On November 22, after hearing gunfire near the presidential motorcade, they all converged on the parking lot and the railroad yard, lined by a stockade fence, on top of a grassy embankment overlooking the motorcade route.

The Warren Commission ignored all of this testimony, even from cops. The Warren Report said there was “no evidence” of a shot from the front.

That is the sort of misleading statement that prompted a majority of Americans to mistrust the Warren Commission’s conclusions about the causes of JFK’s assassination.

There was credible evidence, in the form of earwitness testimony, that JFK was killed by a shot from the front. Here’s some of it.

Grassy knoll aftermath

Within moments of the gunfire that killed JFK, police officers ran toward the so-called grassy knoll where they thought the shots originated.


What 21 cops said — and did — after JFK was shot

1) Secret Service man Paul E. Landis, Jr., was riding the rear right running board of the third car in the presidential motorcade. After JFK’s assassination, he wrote:

My immediate thought was that the President could not possibly be alive after being hit like he was. I still am not certain from which direction the second shot came, but my reaction at the time was the shot came from somewhere towards the front right-hand side of the road.

2) Secret Service man Forrest Sorrels was riding in the lead car of the motorcade when he heard the shots. He said he “turned around to look up on this terrace part there, because the sound sounded like it came from the back and up in that direction.”

Like many other witnesses Sorrells used the term “terrace” to refer to the area famously known as “the grassy knoll.” There is a monument structure in this part of Dealey Plaza overlooking the street where JFK’s motorcade was passing.  Adjacent to the structure is a parking lot and a railroad yard separated by a line of trees.

Sorrells repeated this observation to the Warren Commission.

“And, as I said, the noise from the shots sounded like they may have come back up or the terrace there …

But the reports seemed to be so loud that it sounded like to me – in other words, that my first thought, somebody up on the terrace, and that is the reason I looked there.

3) Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry was driving the lead car in the motorcade. In a deposition taken in April 1964, Curry said:

I heard a sharp report. We were near the railroad yards at this time, and I didn’t know – I didn’t know exactly where this report came from, whether it was above us or where, but this followed by two more reports (Warren Commission, Vol. XII, 28).

The week after this deposition, Curry was in Washington testifying at great length before the Commission – but he was not asked about where he thought the shots came. He did say where he ordered his men to search for the gunman.

I said over the radio, I said: “Get someone up in the railroad yard and check.” (IV, 161)

After the shots rang out, Dallas police chief Jesse Curry ordered his men to search the railroad yard behind the grassy knoll.

Curry’s memory, though not his language, is confirmed by the audio recording of Dallas Police Department’s radio communications that day. On recording Curry is heard to say, “Get a man on top of that triple underpass and see what happened up there.” He was referring to the area in front of JFK’s limousine.

4) Deputy sheriff Eugene Boone ran towards the knoll and then the railroad yard as soon as he heard the shots (XIX, 507; VII, 105-9).

5) Deputy constable Seymour Weitzman, like most of the other deputies, was standing at the corner of Main and Houston when he heard the shots. He ran toward the President’s car and climbed over a wall in “the monument section,” looking for the assassin (IV, 161).

6) Roger Craig, too, on hearing the first shot, ran until he reached “the terrace on Elm Street” and then the railroad yards (XIX, 524.).

7) Harold Elkins was more explicit:

I immediately ran to the area from which it sounded like the shots had been fired. This is an area between the railroad and the Texas School Book Depository which is east of the railroad. (XIX, 540)

8) “Lummie” Lewis, 9) A. D. McCurley, 10)  Luke Mooney, and 11 ) W. W. Mabra all heard the shots the same way and ran to search the grassy knoll and the freight yard. (XIX, 526, 514, 541, 528).

12) The shots sent Deputy Sheriff J. L. Oxford running toward the triple underpass (XIX, 530).

13) L. C. Smith’s reaction to the shots was to climb the fence behind the grassy knoll and search the parking lot (XIX, 516).

14) Deputy I. C. Todd ran to the railroad tracks, as did 15) Ralph Walters and radio officer 16) Jack Watson (XIX, 543, 505-6, 522).

17) Harry Weatherford told much the same story about when he heard the sound of gunfire. He knew what it was: (XIX, 502)

“I thought to myself that this was a rifle and I started towards the corner when I heard the third report … By this time I was running toward the railroad yards where the sound seemed to come from.”

18) Deputy sheriff Buddy Walthers (XIX, 502) was riding behind JFK’s car in the motorcade. He wrote a memo about what he did on November 22. He told much the same story when he testified in Washington in July 1964.

Walthers heard three shots, ran across Dealey Plaza until he reached the parking are behind the now-familiar “concrete structure on the knoll” (VII, 544-6). He recalled

“At the time there was something in my head that said that they probably could have been coming from the railroad overpass, because I thought since I had got splattered with blood – I was just a little back and left of – a little back and left of Mrs. Kennedy but I didn’t know.”

His second choice for the source of the gunfire was the Texas School Book Depository. (VI, 294-5).

Two photos taken shortly after JFK’s assassination show Dallas deputy sheriff Clyde Haygood parking his motorcycle before he ran up the grassy knoll to investigate.

19) After the shots were fired, Clyde Haygood tried to jump the north curb of Elm Street with his motorcycle and, failing, parked it on the street and ran to the knoll looking for any sign of the assassin. (VI, 297-9).

20) Joe Marshall Smith had his back to the Depository on Elm Street when the shots rang out. “I didn’t know where the shots came from,” he said, but ran “to an area immediately behind the concrete structure” and checked the bushes and all the cars in the parking lot behind the knoll. (VII, 533-6)

21) Edgar Leon Smith, Jr., stood on the east curb of Houston Street about 150 feet from the Depository . He guessed the first two shots were firecrackers but, after the third shot, he drew his pistol and ran down Elm Street.

Wesley Liebeler, a Warren Commission attorney asked him to clarify by referring to a map before them: “You thought the shot came from this little concrete structure up behind No. 7?

Smith said, “Yes, sir.”

Given the unreliability of earwitness testimony, such accounts cannot be dispositive in determining the source of the gunshot that killed JFK.

Some people say it is foolish to think that President Kennedy was killed in the crossfire of two assassins. Others will say it foolish to dismiss the testimony of 21 cops at the scene of a crime.

What do you think?



A note on sources:

This account is adapted from an essay “51 Witnesses: The Grassy Knoll,” written by Harold Feldman.

Stewart Galanor, a teacher and JFK researcher, did the most thorough accounting of eyewitness and earwitness testimony from the crime scene. He compiled the statements of 216 witnesses and provides links to their statements.

Professor John McAdams, a defender of the lone nut theory, says that “only” 33 witnesses thought a shot came from in front of the presidential motorcade. His efforts to dismiss evidence that conflicts with his theory are more revealing than persuasive. You can read it here.


  1. JSA says:

    Witness Gordon Arnold claimed that he had attempted, prior to the arrival of the presidential motorcade, to film from the railroad overpass, but was waived off by someone who presented a Secret Service badge to him. According to Arnold, he moved to a dirt mound in front of the picket fence on the “grassy knoll” where he filmed the motorcade as it moved down Elm Street. He described two shots as being fired over his head from behind, stating that he “hit the dirt” after feeling the first just over his left shoulder. Arnold indicated that he remained lying down for the duration of the shooting until he was confronted by two policemen who confiscated his film and ordered him to leave the area. He suggested that he had been afraid to report the incident due to claims of “peculiar” deaths of witnesses to the assassination. //
    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Arnold

    Also, at least one Dallas policeman said that someone flashed a Secret Service badge when he rushed up the hill and encountered this man (who flashed the badge) behind the fence. From everything I’ve read, there was NO Secret Service detail behind the fence, in the adjoining parking lot, or on the railroad overpass. If true, this indicates (to me) that either the Secret Service was INCREDIBLY negligent or they participated in keeping away from this insecure and vulnerable check point in the motorcade.

    • Phil Gurholt says:

      I think Arnold’s claims are suspect because there is nothing that I am aware of corroborating him being in the plaza that day. I give more credibility to policeman Smith who reported encountering a man showing Secret Service credentials.

      • George Simmons says:

        I have always found the testimony of Dallas Police Officer Joe Marshall Smith to be intriguing :

        “I got to make this statement too. I felt awfully silly, but after the shot and this woman, I pulled my pistol from my holster and I thought this is silly, I don’t know who I am looking for and I put it back. Just as I did he showed me that he was a secret service agent…..he saw me coming with my pistol and right away showed me who he was.”

        As far as I understand it, the secret service stated that all their agents were accounted for and none were on the grassy knoll. Obviously, this leads you to the conclusion that someone was impersonating a secret service agent on the grassy knoll.

        • John McAdams says:

          Obviously, this leads you to the conclusion that someone was impersonating a secret service agent on the grassy knoll.

          No, merely that some agent of some kind flashed credentials at Smith, apparently from a distance.

          Remember, Smith said “Well, he saw me coming with my pistol and right away he showed me who he was.”

          All sorts of agents of one sort of similar looking credentials were around Dealey Plaza that day.


          The HSCA noted that many witnesses claimed to have seen “Secret Service agents” but were mistaken.

      • Joanie Marshall says:

        After reading many books on the Assassination of President Kennedy and seeing a fair few documentaries about the Assassination I am convinced it was a conspiracy and that at least one shot came from the front of the car. Any one with half a brain knows if the fatal shot was from the back JFK’s head would have gone forward instead his head went back and to the side. So simple and people are made to believe that all the shots came from the book depository. LBJ The Master mind behind the plot and the COVER UP with his best friend HOOVER made sure that the public would never know or so they thought. I wonder what their answer will be to God on judgement day. I believe in a second life to cleanse your self of all your evil deeds so HOVER and LBJ will come back as rats to be killed in a rat trap. Read the book LBJ the Master Mind behind the Kennedy Assassination. If not all of it is true some of it is.

    • Photon says:

      He wasn’t. There is no evidence that he was ever there; his excuse for not coming forward for over 10 years was bogus. Plus, he changed his story to fit descriptions made years later, contradicting previous claims.

      • Gerry Simone says:

        While there are several aspects about Arnold’s story that are questionable, I don’t think you can fault a witness who has reason to fear for their safety to avoid publicity or to come forward. After all, WC proponents favor Howard Brennan’s excuse for not identifying Oswald in a line-up fearful of an international conspiracy simply as a result of overhearing police officers or detectives speculate on this.

      • Tom says:

        I was with Gordon Arnold that day, and saw everything. There were men there, and I saw one put a large item like a rifle into a trunk

      • Jack Joseph says:

        Ralph Yarborough saw Arnold hit the floor, and remarked on seeing this that the man (Arnold) was obviously a serviceman or veteran by the way in which he dived.

        I would imagine that the then Senator’s testimony counts as evidence

  2. Hans Trayne says:

    I remember one of my college professors remarking that had Hoover’s FBI, The Warren Commission & (later) the HSCA consulted with a couple of competent winning football coaches instead of all the other ‘experts’ the assassination puzzle could have been solved quickly.

    If it is true that ‘Dark Complected Man’ (aka ‘The Cuban’) was CIA Operation 40 operative Orlando Bosch at the scene on the Elm Street sidewalk with his arm in the air one cannot rule out the possibility that diversionary explosives were employed in the attack. Orlando Bosch = terrorist explosives. That was his specialty.

    Puzzling to visuals alterationists is why his presence wasn’t removed from the visuals. More than a few of them believe the shooter was the man with a small machine gun hidden under an overcoat that denied eyewitness Malcolm Summers access to the North Bryan pergola that Phil Willis accidentally captured departing Dealey Plaza in a motorcade vehicle (Willis slide #6).

    It would not surprise me if the entire ambush was accomplished with silenced weapons and the ‘gunfire’ ear witnesses heard were explosive diversions to draw responders away from a fleeing attack person or team.

  3. mitchum22 says:

    Awesome piece. Thank you.

  4. John Kirsch says:

    A question for Jeff. Why did you use the phrase “semi-official” to describe the government’s theory of the assassination?

  5. M.J. Harrington says:

    If it were true that Oswald acted alone in what was an opportunistic killing, it is hard to imagine why a raging controversy has gone on for 50 years. The attempts on the lives of Reagan, Truman, and Theodore Roosevelt and the murder of McKinley did not provoke anything remotely similar.
    No, the gaps, contradictions, and improbabilities in the evidence make clear that the lone assassin in the book depositary cannot provide the whole answer. Especially since he was himself murdered while in police custody.

    • S.R. "Dusty" Rohde says:

      If Oswald acted alone, could someone please explain the smoke from a shot fired from the grassy knoll in this video, and could they also explain why frames were removed from the film?

      *Note: The smoke is in the upper left part of the video, starting around the 20 second mark, just to the right of the person in red on the steps of the sidewalk at the grassy knoll.
      *Note: go to the 46 second mark to the 50 second mark, watch the action of the film speed up briefly then slow again….and Jackie and Agent Hill appearing to morph. This is caused by removing frames.


      This also reduced the visible smoke from a second shot, no telling what else may have been visible.

      • S.R. "Dusty" Rohde says:

        PS: The 12 second mark is when JFK is hit with the head shot. Note that the two middle Motorcycle officers slow to stop and both Officers are looking at the grassy knoll, from where the smoke is seen.

      • S.R. "Dusty" Rohde says:

        Sorry, but I have to add this also….it is significant….

        When the film speeds up due to frames being removed (46 second to 50 second mark)….this also happens to be the exact time that the president’s limo braked! If you watch the film, no tail lights come on….but anyone who saw this film in 1963 knows when the braking took place, inbetween Agent Hills first attempt to get on the back of the limo….and his second attempt. But this is now missing from this film. The brake lights coming on is still visible in the Zapruder film….if you can’t find it I can provide a link.

  6. William Kane says:

    I do wonder what Photon’s thoughts about all of this are? 21 policemen eh? Over to you Photon…….

  7. Photon says:

    How do you explain the Altgens photo?

    • Gerry Simone says:

      You’re referring to a SSA looking over his right shoulder around the moment that JFK is struck in the back. That doesn’t negate all the other accounts of a frontal shot.

      The HSCA’s examination of other photos of the TSBD proves that boxes were re-arranged after Oswald allegedly descended from the sniper’s lair and before the police arrived, proving that someone other than Oswald was up there. Furthermore, other witnesses claimed to have seen a shooter wearing light clothing vs. Oswald’s brown shirt, as well as someone lingering around after Oswald’s encounter on the second floor.

      A shot from the rear is not at issue (some say there’s evidence that points to the Dal Tex Building, not to mention an attempt to frame Oswald with shots from the TSBD), but it doesn’t mean that there was not shot from the front.

  8. Eric says:

    Please point out the moment in the Zapruder film when JFK is “jolted forward” by the first shot. It might come as a revelation to the many people who thought the Stemmons Freeway sign blocked Zapruder’s view of JFK when JFK was first hit. It could also lay to rest many arguments about the timing of the first shot, whether the throat wound was one of entry, and might even solve the Single Bullet Theory conundrum.

    • S.R. "Dusty" Rohde says:

      Eric, I have covered this in a previous post on a different topic, don’t recall which one now. Let me give a short run down.

      “Please point out the moment in the Zapruder film when JFK is “jolted forward” by the first shot.”

      First, let me correct your statement…JFK is not “jolted forward” by the “first” shot, he is jolted forward by the second shot. In the very split second that JFK becomes visible (from behind the freeway sign) his hands start their motion, JFK has already just then been hit. His hands move towards his throat and his arms go up into the “thornburn” position. From that point, roughly two seconds later, JFK lurches forward, his head snaps back….and then forward again.

      The raising of the arms was a reaction to the first shot, the frontal throat shot. The forward lurch was the reaction to being struck by the second shot….the bullet to the back.

      The head shot has not yet been taken.

    • Gerry Simone says:

      The HSCA concluded that JFK was hit around Z 190. I concur for a variety of reasons. Barb Junkarinen has written an article on this point too.

      There is no forward jolt.

      When JFK is hit in the back, he begins to gradually lurch forward as “Dusty” mentions.

      The front neck wound may have been a shot from the front*, however, the bullet wound described as 3mm x 5mm was quite small (smaller than the WCC round used in the MC). It may have been an exit of a fragment from the head shot.

      *If so, is there an X-ray of the neck, assuming it would show the front to back track? Is there an exit wound for the neck shot(I always questioned a fleshy image at the base of Kennedy’s neck as seen on an autopsy photo)?

  9. George Simmons says:

    This is an excellent piece and highlights for me the evidence of a possible shot to the front.
    Seems quite bizarre that the Warren Commission would state there was “no evidence”.

    Mr Morley makes an excellent point regarding the earwitness accounts. If those who thought they heard shots coming from above and behind the president were right, then why can’t those many earwitnesses who thought they heard shots coming from the front also be right?

    And let’s not forget the Zapruder film, highly suggestive of a shot to the front.

    • Jason L. says:

      And let’s face it, if you had 21 cops testify in a trial that they heard a shot from the front, that would be a conclusively proved fact for the purposes of that trial.

      • Polly Gurunath says:

        Yes, the Zapruder film proves clearly beyond any doubt that the fatal head shot has come from the front right side of the President, probably from the Grassy Knoll, since the whole lot of crowd as well as the police officials run towards this area immediately after Kennedy’s head was blown off. Warren Commission’s Report is totally false and misleading to show this killing as executed by a lone assassin (LHO) from behind.

    • S.R. "Dusty" Rohde says:

      George, let’s also not forget the relevant positions of each of the “ear witnesses”…….Those closest to the TSBD were most likely those who heard the shots fired from TSBD. the “ear witnesses” closer to the grassy knoll would have heard the shots from the grassy knoll. It’s not really a case of either/or….more a casse of proximity.

    • Klaus Lebrecht says:

      Klaus Lebrecht I have been engrossed with the JFK assassination for over 30 yrs. Many theories have surfaced to try to explain what happened that day. Perhaps the greatest travesty is that most theories fail to take into account the overwhelming evidence the Zapruder film captures. How many murders or assassinations do you know of that have been captured on film? Yet debate continues which the film clearly contradicts. Perhaps most argued about is the (single bullet theory} the Warren Commission endorsed, no mater how you try to duplicate the single bullet theory in a forensics lab or aline Connelly with JFK, you cannot explain why Connelly is totally unresponsive to the bullet that just left JFK,s throat and seems to pause for a while before moving forward to strike Connelly,also note that Connelly is holding his Stetson hat in the very wrist that was shattered by the MAGIC BULLET. This is not a Oliver Stone hollywood lic. to create some drama to please an audience, but a factual frame by frame film shot by Abraham Zapruder that documents the assassination of a president. If the Zapruder film is used as evidence to set a time line of the shooting how could any reasonable mind conclude that the same bullet that struck JFK paused for a moment before it went forward, that would defy the laws of physics. Glad to see some people are thinking George, keep seeking and you will find, best of luck.

  10. Avinash says:

    Many others also claimed shots came from the Knoll.Jean Hill,the Newman’s etc. Even the HSCA claimed that there was a shot from the Knoll.

    • Phil Gurholt says:

      Jean Hill, in my opinion, has very little credibility given Mary Moorman’s statements.

      On the other hand, Ms. Roberts observations of the “honking” police car outside Oswald’s boarding room cinch a conspiracy if true.

  11. photon says:

    Jeff, what is Paul Landis doing in the Altgens photo?

    • mitchell says:

      Altgens 6 is not relevant to the question of whether ANY shots came from the front, but it would corroborated at least one shot to the rear (especially that shot causing the back and throat wounds, I’d think) – which no one is disputing.

      It’s worth noting that the SS Agents don’t seem to be looking up yet in that photo. They may be on their way to raising their heads, but they seem to be looking straight back in the photo. Add to that that you probably can’t objectively demonstrate that they’re looking at the Depository instead of the Dal Tex – which lines up with the 3 shots as well as the Depository, in my opinion.

      I’m more likely to believe anything out of the ordinary, any “commotion”, was a “distraction”. The head movement would just be a little bit of a coincidence. And not even that coincidental, since the movement is not straight away from the most likely location of the disturbance.

      • Photon says:

        ” the shot causing the back and neck wounds, I’d think…”
        Do you realize that you just proved Single Bullet Theory?

        • Paul says:

          So an anonymous comment on a chat board “proves” the SBT? Wow.

          Rather your standard is that anything anybody says that you agree with constitutes “proof,” while any contrary assertions are automatically false.

          BTW, who are you? You act as if people know your name and you have some expertise that qualifies your statements.

        • Jason L. says:

          Hardly, there’s no doubt really that the back wound came from a shot from behind, but there is plenty of doubt as to whether the bullet that caused this wound traversed JFK’s body.

          The Single Bullet Theory is actually plausible with some alterations, i.e. that the shot came from a lower rearward position than the “sniper’s nest” and the bullet that traversed both bodies was not the relatively pristine CE399 but rather a higher velocity round. A lower rearward shooter also better explains the wounding of James Tague.

          • Photon says:

            So a rifle bullet traveling at supersonic speed would not cross the tissue equivalent of 2 boneless chicken breasts? Because that is what had to have happened once you accept that the back wound on JFK was an entrance wound. The round never hit anything more solid than white meat.
            A .22 short would have gone through the neck following the same path.

          • Jason L. says:

            You would think so, but according to the Sibert and O’Neill report, the bullet hole in the back wasn’t very deep and the end of the hole could be felt with a finger. Perhaps the round was a dud, maybe it hit something first, who knows. If it wasn’t so, the round also would have emerged from JFK’s chest, as is demonstrated by one of the History Channel programs trying to prove the SBT.

  12. It should be added, that cop No. 20, Joe Marshall Smith, while checking the grassy knoll immediately after the shots stopped a man there who showed him a genuine looking Secret Service ID – but there were no real Secret Service agents posted on the Plaza this day ! And who provided the Seceret Service IDs these days? The CIA’s Technical Division headed by Sidney Gottlieb. There were two other men in front of the TSBD showing SS-IDs’s to cops after the shootings. That these fake agents were never investigated by FBI and the Warren Commisssion is imho clear evidence for the non-investigation of JFK’s murder and the involvement of the intelligence-military-industrial complex

  13. S.R. "Dusty" Rohde says:

    I find this comment both interesting and telling…..

    “President Kennedy and Texas Governor John Connally were both wounded in the back. The location of their wounds proved that Oswald (or someone else) was firing from above and behind had assaulted the motorcade. The earwitnesses in Dealey Plaza proved right.”

    The comment is interesting because it readily accepts the back wounds as evidence of shots fired from behind. Yet, at the same time offers no such equality of recognition to the frontal throat wound, and while naturally denying a frontal shot to the head, (in absence of any absolute proof, thanks to vanishing Parkland photos and “doctored” Bethesda images.)

    Also telling because witnesses who “heard” shots from the grassy knoll outnumbered the witnesses who “heard” shots from the TSBD, by what, a minimum of 11 to 1? Yet, the minimum amount of witnesses testimonies was promoted, while the majority were ignored. Let’s not forget that witnesses claiming to have seen the smoke from shots fired on the grassy knoll were all but ignored. And for the most part, the smoke filmed in the Oliver Nix film totally ignored.

    It seems to me there is a term for only seeing things the way we “choose” to see them…..it is called “wearing rose colored glasses”. Otherwise, what might be called a falsification of reality or truth.

    JFK was shot from behind and from the front, witness testimonies support this, film evidence documents this as does audio evidence.

    Most telling of all may be this, isn’t it interesting, that a President “soft on Communism” is assassinated by a Lone Nut who is “Pro-Communism”, who happened to also kill one of DPD finest police officers? How utterly convenient for any potential corrupt conspirators. Get the commy loving President out of the way, get rid of the Top Cop likely to pursue any leads and blame the nut that defected. While we are at it, we can blame LHO for the General Walker thing too, after all, Walker was anti-Kennedy and LHO was Pro-kennedy and somehow that makes sense to some people. Maybe we should blame LHO for Tiananman square while were at it.

    Isn’t it also interesting, that witnesses from all four Cardinal directions either saw gunman or smoke or heard shots from the grassy knoll, but have either been ignored or killed?

    Deception layered upon deception is better known as a “Stacked Deck”.

    • John Kirsch says:

      S.R. “Dusty” Rhode, you’ve touched on one of the many aspects of the official story that don’t add up to me. If you stipulate for the sake of argument that it was Oswald who fired at Walker, that makes a strange kind of sense because Walker was a right-wing rabble rouser and Oswald, at least according to the official story, was a communist or marxist or leftist of some kind. But even that only makes sense if you accept the WC’s portrait of Oswald as a violent loner, even though he was married and had a circle of friends, some of whom were, admittedly, unlikely. But JFK is a different story entirely. About 5 months earlier Kennedy had given his American University speech, which could be interpreted as a call to wind down, if not actually end, the Cold War. It isn’t hard for me to imagine the overlords of the “military-industrial complex” (Ike’s words, not mine) interpreting the speech as the first step toward kicking them off the gravy train. I believe Oswald himself expressed admiration for the president’s family. Doesn’t mean Oswald wasn’t the shooter or one of them. But it would be kind of like Booth saying maybe Lincoln isn’t doing such a bad job after all and then shooting Lincoln anyway. Makes you scratch your head in puzzlement (as do so many aspects of the official story).
      Maybe Kennedy had to be dragged kicking and screaming into acting on civil rights, but he did. In other words, Kennedy was at the other end of the ideological spectrum from Walker, which has always made me feel that this particular aspect of the official story, ie, that Oswald shot at Walker, a right-winger, and assassinated Kennedy, a liberal, is implausible.It doesn’t make sense, unless, again, you accept the official view of Oswald as a loser who wanted attention. But if that’s true, then why didn’t Oswald stand in front of the cameras at the police station and tell the whole world he had just shot the president of the United States? Again, it doesn’t make sense.

      • Photon says:

        Actually they weren’t Ike’s words – they were Malcolm Moos’ words.

        • leslie sharp says:

          Photon: Many of us have studied that differentiation. Moos wrote the phrase and Ike liked it. Something about it must have struck a cord with Ike, and he agreed to include it in the speech. Perhaps that cord was his conscience?

          • DRB says:

            The House Select Committee on Assassinations determined there were 4 shots, one of which missed. The WC decided there were 3 shots, one of which missed. If Kennedy got shot in the back before and after emerging from the Stemmons sign and also got shot in the head later, then you must agree with the HSCA that there were 4 shots. If so there had to be a second shooter as everyone agrees that the shooter in the 6th floor fired only 3 shots. Comments?

        • Gary says:

          No…Photon…once again you are wrong. Eisenhower’s farewell address warns us of the Military Industrial Complex. You have stated many “errors” in this conversation but this is on the record.

      • S.R. "Dusty" Rohde says:

        John, you have struck on precisely the point of my previous observation. Walker and Kennedy were at opposite ends of the spectrum. LHO had stated that he felt Kennedy was doing a good job and that he liked JFK. In that vein, it would be far more logical for LHO to shoot Walker, not JFK. Somewhere along the line, there needs to exist a motive for this behavior. Currently, those motives are non-existant, except for opinion.

        • Photon says:

          Actually the night before the assassination at dinner LHO made a derogatory comment about how Joe Kennedy got his money.

          • John Kirsch says:

            So I guess we are to infer that Oswald shot JFK because Oswald had a low opinion of JFK’s father.

          • Photon says:

            No, but it calls into question the accuracy of the previous claim by Dr. Rohde that Oswald liked JFK and felt that he was doing a good job.
            It may well be that Oswald’s motives had more to do with his desire for recognition and belief that he was a revolutionary fulfilling his destiny than any personal animosity to JFK. Oswald was going to strike a blow for Socialism-JFK fit the bill. We will never know why he crossed the Rubicon to kill twice on Nov. 22, 1963.

          • S.R. "Dusty" Rohde says:

            Your comment makes little sense

            “No, but it calls into question the accuracy of the previous claim by Dr. Rohde that Oswald liked JFK”

            ….but then many of your posts don’t, nothing new there.
            However, the very last sentence, I think you have gotten very accurate.

            ” We will never know why he crossed the Rubicon to kill twice on Nov. 22, 1963.”

            In that comment, you are exactly right, we will never know why he (LHO) crossed the Rubicon to kill twice…..because he didn’t, as such, your statement would be the logical conclusion.

          • John Kirsch says:

            This is a response to Photon’s Sept. 27 comment responding to my comment.
            This is from sworn testimony that Francis L. Martello, a lieutenant with the New Orleans police dept., gave to Wesley Liebeler, an assistant counsel with the WC in April 1964. The exchange between the two pertains to Martello’s interview with Oswald in 8/63 after Oswald’s arrest following his activities in connection with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee:
            “Mr. Liebeler: Well, your recollection is quite clear that, in spite of the fact that Oswald demonstrated a general inclination to favor the Soviet Union and its institutions, he did in spite of that indicate a preference for President Kennedy as opposed to Premier Khrushchev?”
            Mr. Martello: That is correct, sir.”
            Mr. Liebeler: And that he in no way demonstrated any animosity or ill feelings toward President Kennedy?
            Mr. Martello: No, sir; he did not. At no time during the interview with Oswald did he demonstrate any type of aggressiveness in any way, shape or form, other than his demonstration on Canal Street with the picket sign.”
            Earlier in his sworn testimony, Martello said that Oswald “showed in his manner of speaking that he liked the president.”

          • Photon says:

            Well by golly,that must mean that he was sincere and obviously he was completely forthright. What I don’t understand is why you have completely left out the part where Mr. Martello stated that at the same time Oswald pretended to want to join a local anti-Castro group in order to provoke an incident by making similar false claims.
            Or the fact that he handed out FPFC pamphlets with a phony address.
            As he was under arrest in NO he likely said what he thought the cops wanted to hear. As he lied repeatedly after being arrested in Dallas I am not as confident as you are in LH Oswald’s honesty while in police custody.

          • John Kirsch says:

            This is a response to Photon’s 9/29 comment. Let me say first of all that I appreciate your response, Photon. You’ve given me so much to work with. The first thing I noticed was the sarcasm, as in “Well by golly,that must mean that he was sincere and obviously he was completely forthright.” You are obviously free to cast doubt on Oswald’s veracity. But that isn’t really the point. The point is that you had questioned the “accuracy of the previous claim by Dr. Rohde that Oswald liked JFK …” and the record indicates that he did. I noticed that you didn’t try to undermine Martello’s sworn testimony to the WC but instead sought to cast doubt on the veracity of the accused assassin, who was murdered before he could defend himself in court.
            Then, after some comments designed to confuse the issue, you write “As he was under arrest in NO he likely said what he thought the cops wanted to hear. As he lied repeatedly after being arrested in Dallas I am not as confident as you are in LH Oswald’s honesty while in police custody.” As a reporter I learned never to assume, but I will go out on a limb here and assume that you were not present when Martello interviewed Oswald. But that doesn’t stop you from speculating about what was going through Oswald’s mind during that interview. I would describe that as speculation, which the Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines as “ideas or guesses about something that is not known.”

          • Photon says:

            What record? One excerpt from an interview where the interviewer expressed doubts about his sincerity? For a guy who repeatedly lied, used aliases, couldn’t hold a job, had extreme difficulties with relationships with virtually everybody he met? The fact is that even his closest family members had no idea what Oswald truly thought about JFK- the subject was rarely if ever brought up. How you go from that to “Oswald liked JFK” is a stretch. You want to give Oswald the benefit of the doubt. As he was a cold- blooded murderer who destroyed two families and deprived the country of its President I would rather not.

          • John Kirsch says:

            Photon, re: your September 30, 2013 at 3:10 am comment. Again, I thank you. You never fail to provide me with interesting material to deconstruct.I was surprised at your dismissive attitude toward the official record of the Warren Commission, the group of esteemed persons appointed to investigate the assassination. You obviously find Martello’s interview with Oswald just months before 11/22 to be inconvenient. I was going to pull apart the rest of your comment but it’s really just bluster and misdirection.

          • Photon says:

            It is always easy to use a story to support your position if you leave out parts of the story that do not support your position.
            It seems to be a policy of conspiracy buffs to read 80% of a source and then come to a conclusion without caring about the rest of the story.
            Like claiming that earwitnesses heard shots from the front, when the same witnesses in the same sources made statements like ” I can’t be sure of the direction” or ” it seemed to come from the front, but I really couldn’t tell”, etc.
            Or like claiming that the Parkland doctors all thought that neck wound was an entrance wound without mentioning that some of those witnesses never saw an unaltered wound.
            Or claiming that certain MDs examined the head wound while leaving out statements from the same quoted source expressly mentioning that they only performed a brief, incomplete exam.
            If you use the Cliff Notes version of the assassination you can never get a complete and accurate story.

          • Jay says:

            Guessing what’s going on in LHO’s head is one of the slipperiest slopes. His actions and statements in the months leading to the event are vague and make sense when understood as part of the ‘patsyfication’ process. He had contacts in the FBI. The NO pamphlet thing he did as an operative. He was an operative, he did these jobs for money. He didn’t know where it was leading to. At some point, while working in the TSBD, finding out the president’s motorcade would travel near there he then realized he was being set up for something really big. Shots came from multiple angles that day. Some from the TSBD, he was in the building, he didn’t even have to pull the trigger, being in that building was enough.

      • S.R. "Dusty" Rohde says:

        PS John: Those are the types of things that LNT’s would rather not contemplate.

        • John Kirsch says:

          S.R. “Dusty” Rohde, I agree. There are so many contradictions and loose ends in the official story that you almost don’t know where to start. I do think that people such as Martello, a police detective who personally interviewed Oswald just a few months before 11/22, and the statements by Dr. McClelland, who actually saw the president just after the shooting — I think the witness of people like that has to be given great weight.

          • S.R. "Dusty" Rohde says:

            John, the subject of the following quote has been on my mind a lot the last few days.

            “The location of their wounds proved that Oswald (or someone else) was firing from above and behind had assaulted the motorcade.”

            The more I think about this, I’ve come to some theories. I have never doubted someone fired from behind JFK and Connally. However, I don’t think the shots were ever intended to be the “fatal” shots. These shots were a form of multi-tasking in the following areas.
            1) To provide cover for the kill shot from the Grassy Knoll.
            2) To set up the “frame up” for the supposed snipers nest, placing the rifle and shells.
            3) To create misdirection and conflicting witness testimonies, laying the ground work for subversion of evidence.
            4) To provide a plausible excuse to draw attention away from the grassy knoll on the day of the assassination, (assisted of course by one or more phony SS agents herding people away from the grassy knoll).

            I could be wrong, but it will take some outstanding evidence to convice me otherwise.

    • Photon says:

      Connally’s surgeon stated that all of his wounds were from a single bullet fired from behind- in a nationally televised press conference. He also had the luxury of a full examination under general anesthesia over more than an hour, not the rushed 8-10 minute evaluation done on JFK in an ER crowded with 10-12 people.

      • Notohp says:

        Yes but before there was any coercion or influence, he got to the tell truth….a bit different than the latter.

        Kinda like that Mauser, 6.5 mm, now they wouldn’t get that wrong like that would they?

        C’mon you taking a p*ss, ha hahaa DINOSAUR, it is really past the point of absurb, LHO did it, alone, yeah, right………..

      • Gerry Simone says:

        You should seriously watch Reasonable Doubt: The Single Bullet Theory by Chip Selby. In it you will see in an interview, that Dr. Shaw (Connally’s surgeon) doesn’t believe that CE399 did all that damage. Also, the nature of the wound to Connally’s back could’ve been a first, tangential strike as opposed to a tumbling bullet.

    • Klaus Lebrecht says:

      I would like to add comment to the Walker debate, despite the obvious difference between Walker and JFK I find it hard to believe that this expert LHO performance of world class shooting that to date only one expert has duplicated after three attempts. Yet he missed Walker who was sitting at his desk in his office (a none moving target) hard to believe.

    • Joanie Marshall says:

      You are right president Kennedy was shot from the back and the fatal shot came from in front of the car. The Warren Commission chosen by LBJ The Master Mind behind the plot and his master blackmailer friend Hoover covered it up so well or so they thought. The CIA, The Mafia, The Military, The Cubans LBJ, Hoover all had a hand in the crime of the Century. It seems anyone who wants to do good for this earth is killed.

  14. Moderators says:

    Dear readers, this is a general etiquette reminder that is a bit overdue. We recognize that the subject generates passionate debate, but there are some general guidelines we would like to maintain. First and foremost, we ask that you address the issues and not indulge in personal attacks, however subtle. Our patience is growing thin when it comes to snide remarks or condescending language. You may have a truly insightful comment, but if you add an unnecessary jab at those who might disagree, you put your comment at risk. We also ask that individual comments grow no longer than the original posts. Policing comments is a subjective art and we try to be consistent. Please try to respect the guidelines so we can keep the debate a robust and compelling one. Thank you. (This reminder will appear in all the most recent threads and does not necessarily speak to comments within this thread.)

  15. S.R. "Dusty" Rohde says:

    Looking at the top two images provided in this article, one thing immediately caught my attention when I first saw this and continues to draw my attention each time I see it….

    “The Zapruder film lends credence to — some say corroborates — the earwitness testimony that the fatal shot came from the front and to the right.”

    Isn’t it interesting that of all the people in Dealy Plaza, the man, woman, and child laying on the ground are precisely between the corner of the wooden fence (approximate location of smoke in Oliver Nix film and stated by several witnesses where they saw the smoke), and the location of the limo when the head shot was taken?

    A most intriquing bit of evidence.

  16. Kurt Wallander says:

    Garrison was onto something much bigger than he ever guessed. Oswald’s activity in New Orleans contains a key to his killing Kennedy. Just go “on the trail” in New Orleans and check the building with two different street addresses— Camp and Lafayette Street-Guy Bannister’s office next to the ” Fair Play for Cuba Committee.” Oops–urban renewal, they’re gone, but check the area anyway for a feeling of the place. So is the Reilly Coffee Company’ but the keystone marker is still over the entrance to building of Dulles’s United Fruit Company. Quite a group with the old Office of Naval Intelligence there too.
    Well at least go to LaFitte’s Blacksmith Shop and the Masquerade Bar. You’ll get the picture.
    In Dallas of course Ruby’s Carousel Club is long gone as are Ruby and “Oswaldo.”
    Guys put the books down sometimes and walk the walk.Visit New Orleans and Oswald’s room in Dallas and the school book depository so you can speak with some real life experience. Dealey;Plaza will surprise you -it’s a postage stamp. Walk the supposed route he took when he killed Tippet. With a friend try to re-enact that and you will be surprised but do your homework first !
    Good Luck guys and keep investigating– the truth is out there.

  17. Gary says:

    Keep this in mind Photon…Connally admitted that he wasn’t hit with the first bullet….then he was hit. Then he heard the 3rd shot that struck JFK in the head. So my question is, ….if you so believe in the WC….which bullet hit James Tague….which bullet hit the front windshield (from the front)…which bullet hit the dashboard. Even if you believe that Connally had a delayed reaction to the first shot….how do you explain the other bullet evidence in the car and James Tague?

  18. Alex Grills says:

    Convenient how nobody mentions that a majority of people thought the shots came from the observatory(wasn’t it something like 60 percent?), that there were only 3, and it seems beyond crazy that a mass conspiracy involving the top agencies in the U.S.A. would ever give John F. Kennedy an option to stay alive on the day of the attack. When they arrived at the airport, JFK was asked whether or not he wanted the “bubble” on his car. Basically a removable bulletproof window like on the popemobile used to protect Kennedy while he was in the convertible. He chose not to since it was a nice day, but it still seems ridiculous they’d give him the option. If anything, on that day of all days, they would conveniently “forget” to offer the choice.

    Also, the book depository was a well-selected position to fire from, unlike the grassy knoll. JFK was surrounded by positions where he could’ve been shot from, but every theorist chooses the grassy knoll because smoke was seen there by ONE witness afterward and the story was printed as if a second shooter had been seen, and Oliver Stone promises that’s where the shots came from. I’ve heard conspiracists say the shot Oswald took was too hard, too fast, he lacked the ability. And then, I’ve actually fact-checked those claims. Turns out, it was a sharpshooter’s wet dream, novice documentary filmmakers(but, of course, expert conspiracist forensic investigators) have accidentally cycled three bullets in a Carcano in under the time Oswald did, and Oswald once came within a hair of being declared a sharpshooter in the U.S. Army. Did I mention he was discharged for erratic behaviour?

    Every claim has been a lie so far. I’m sorry, but I refuse to go along with conspiracies without evidence being provided. I guess I’m too sheepish, but I have a problem with the idea JFK was killed by a guy with a musket on a slight incline by the greatest, or at the very least most creative, assassins in history(the CIA). There are a few thousand ways they could have finished him without a messy display, pictures and videos, questions and commissions. The official story may have inconcistencies, but not nearly as many as the conspiracists bring up. Just because something is a “coverup” doesn’t mean you don’t have to provide one single shred of legitimate evidence. Otherwise 9/11 was an inside job, the moon landing and Holocaust were staged, the illuminati is watching, and we all might as well blow our own heads off. I had high hopes for this website to offer more facts than fiction.

    • jeffmorley says:

      Actually Alex you are factually mistaken about what the witnesses said about the origins of the gunshots.

      The most conservative estimate, done by anti-conspiracist John McAdams, holds that 33 witnesses thought shots had come from the grassy knoll area.

      A more generous estimate by Harold Freedman, a writer who suspected conspiracy, found that 51 people thought a shot had come from the grassy knoll area.

      The statements of the witnesses are subject to differing interpretation but there are can be no doubt that a significant minority of the witnesses thought a shot had come from in front of the motorcade.

      I did my own research for JFK Facts and found 21 law enforcement officers on the scene who investigated by going to the grassy knoll area.

      These are facts, not fiction.

      • John McAdams says:


        If you admit that any shots came from the Depository, then you have to deal with the fact that only three witnesses (by my count, 4 or 5 by others’) heard shots from two directions.

        Does this suggest shows from two directions, or shots from one direction, with witnesses being confused as to the origin?

        • Jason L. says:

          This is such nonsense. The fact that not many people heard shots coming from both directions could equally be used to try and discredit “only TSBD” or “only grassy knoll” witnesses. It’s a curiosity, nothing more.

        • leslie sharp says:

          John McAdams: picking up on a recent thread relating to ear/sound witness testimony, the following are excerpts of an exchange I had with Jean Davison:

          Leslie, Jean Hill testified under oath that she heard 4 to 6 shots coming from the knoll. S.M. Holland testified to 4 shots, only one from the knoll. Others said 3 from the TSBD. And many other variations. ….. They’re all correct?

          Jean, you make my point for me. There were shots from both directions, and the number {of shots} is in dispute only because of the position the various witnesses held at the time/intervals of each shot. Why is that so unreasonable? And why are you so inclined to believe the shots came from the TSBD but NOT the Knoll?

          Jean says: The vast majority said either one direction or the other — not both. You “restate” this as, “There were shots from both directions.” That’s your opinion about what their testimony means, not what their testimony actually says.

          Jean, we’ll have to disagree on the semantics. Their testimony, when considered in the collective, indicates {there were} shots from both directions, not simply one or {but not} the other. I dislike football metaphors, but: The quarterback testifies that he threw the ball, and the tight end testifies that he received the pass; the testimony in its entirety describes the play. That is not opinion.

    • RICH RUSSO says:

      People visit Dealey Plaza, do some research, look at photos of that day. There is no doubt that there was more than one gunman. Smoking Gun(TV Special) points out that head shot was much different than other wounds because it was caused by a different type of bullet. Also it was pointed out that many witnesses on ground level smelled gunpowder that day and it is impossible for that to happen with a shooter firing 6 floors above street level. There had to be another shooter on ground level firing a different type of bullet. Read about James Files, it all makes sense………..2 shooters that day.

    • Jay says:

      The bubble was not bulletproof

  19. Dan says:

    Apparently, if the first shot that missed came from where Oswald was supposed to be, he missed 20 feet high and 30 feet wide, making the official theory even more unbelievable.

  20. Richie (from Sunny South of France) says:

    I always thought that motorcycle patrolman Clyde Haygood left an “incomplete” testimony in front the W.C…..as Haygood said, when reaching the top of the grassy Knoll, he didn’t notice unusual ? …Lee Bowers Jr, on the other hand, declared to the W.C….the suspects were still behind the fence, when the motorcycle patrolman (Haygood)was seen by Lee Bowers …..

    • John McAdams says:

      Bowers saw two men, said they were not together, and didn’t see them doing anything suspicious.

      One clearly stayed around after the shooting. Bowers said he could not tell about the other, since his clothing blended in with the foliage.

  21. [...] "21 JFK cops who heard a grassy knoll shot, " (Sept. 24, 2013). [...]

  22. RDE says:

    One thought always made me wonder – I’ve hunted many time. If I’m LHO, why wouldn’t I take the shot(s) when the motorcade was closest AND coming at me (no means of escape?) – i.e.. before the left turn. Strange that one would take a shot at a target going down and away from you ??

  23. Matthew Patnoe says:

    I find it interesting that with all the theories, evidence, reports, testimony that we still (after 50 years)can’t come up with an answer. Some theories seem better than others. I’ve heard people talk about cover ups and how our country wouldn’t do that but there isn’t a country in the world that hasn’t covered up something or did something they wouldn’t want to advertise. The case with the JFK assassination, unless we build a time machine and are in the exact spots where the action took place, there is never going to be one answer.

  24. DCH says:

    This is a followup comment from comments by Alex Grills about convertible bubble top.
    I’m certain that a bubble top would be bullet proof. It makes sense in order to protect the total interior and the occupants that the windshield would be bullet proof as well. How is it then that a bullet hole has been reported, and this was the frontal shot that struck JFK in the throat just below his adams apple?

  25. Steve D says:

    I’m not going to get into a technical discussion other than to say that CBS did a special on the Warren Commission report with Cronkite narrating. I don’t recall the year but I think it was in the late 60′s or early 70′s. It included a re-enactment of the assassination.
    While the program concluded the WC’s conclusion was probably correct on Oswald, there was one point made during that program that always stayed in my mind. Based on experts interviewed and testimony if there was a shot from the front coming from the grassy knoll area there was just one frame in the Zapruder film where that shot could’ve been fired without some obstruction, frame 313. Sure enough that was the frame Kennedy was hit – the only frame CBS concluded it was possible! Frankly, if you add all the witness testimony there are enough doubts to make you question the WC’s findings. I don’t think there can be convincing proof one way or the other. I still wonder how CBS could come to the conclusion the WC was right.

    • Klaus Lebrecht says:

      In reply to Steve D comment, One thing that keeps confusing me is so many comments keep getting made regarding the WC findings and debate as to if the findings are valid. HSAC findings were that they concluded that there was more than one gunman and further investigation should take place. This in my mind would nullify the ongoing debate as to a single shooter theory. Why does the main stream media accept the WC and ignore or fail to acknowledge the findings of the HSAC? It is seldom ever mention when debating the JFK shooting by any media outlets, yet the WC finings remain the final authority on the assassination.

  26. Steve D says:

    Just a quick follow up. I checked and the CBS program was in 1967 and the full episode is on YouTube.

  27. Kryton says:

    Ladies & Gentleman,
    Many times new eyes are the best weapons in the search for
    Fact…BOTH ER nurses at Parkland Hospital ” especially the male ER nurse …said that the BACK of the Presidents head had a massive wound..Bullet goes in small ..comes out large..I am sure Utube has that interview with the male nurse wearing his scrubs making this statement to a movie camera. I know the female nurse’s statement said the same thing.

  28. Kryton says:

    This is the ER’s nurse’s written statement as
    shown on Utube concerning the large in wound in
    the BACK of the head
    NOT rocket science here team.

  29. TimT says:

    Until the laws of physics are repealed “that for every action, there is an equal an opposite reaction”, the violent reaction of Kennedy’s head “back and to-the-left” and corresponding skull and brain matter blown backwards onto the trunk, alltogether is concrete visual evidence that the killing shot came from the grassy knoll. End of discussion.

    • GJones says:

      The Zapruder film is the best evidence. Not sure how the WC apologists can argue that the fatal shot was not from the right front into his right temple, and threw brain matter to the left and rear. But, there are a lot of authors that have made a lot of money doing just that, like …. Posner. I find the James files interview to be very believable and corroborates this point of view (Shot from the front). He (Files) has nothing to prove or anything to gain. He says he was just a driver for Johnny Roselli. He had military infantry experience. He was put in place at the Grassy Knoll as a last chance back-up and was not supposed to fire unless there was no head shot. He did not come forward, the journalists found him after an FBI tip. The Zapruder film tells the story. Can you imagine a defense attorney for Oswald in a trial using this to discredit the prosecution not winning an acquittal? Reasonable doubt for the jury trial that mobbed up Jack Ruby was ordered to stop from ever happening. One lone nut we might buy. Two lone nuts? Come on.
      [edited by the moderator]

  30. Zapiler says:

    Ref the “grassy knoll” Aren’t people running up the hill to follow where the Presidents car seems to be going?

  31. Joman says:

    As to the exploding of Kennedy’s head, I think it is uncertain as to where that shot came from because as the bullet enters the skull the pressure ramps up and whatever part of the head is weakest will give way.
    A foremost national forensic scientist that studied the forensic evidences once they were released after decades stated that…

    a) Kennedy’s brain is missing. (The brain being the most revealing artifact of bullet path.)
    b) There is a bullet hole four inches down from the back top of Kennedy’s shirt collar.
    c) That the forensic photo’s of Kennedy have been doctored. (seemingly to hide visible evidence of enterance and/or exit wounds)
    d) That doctoring the photos destroyed any forensic value.

    • GJones says:

      JFK’s brain is not missing. The Zapruder film clearly shows it was vaporized and blown all over Dealey Plaza, to the rear and left of the Limo. Also, note Jackie recovering a piece of the back of his head from the trunk lid. The emergency room doctors and nurses have also made statements to this affect. They knew JFK had a fatal wound but he was still breathing and his heart was still beating so they had no choice but to try.

  32. Coyote says:

    Gorden Arnold WAS on the knoll, read Senator Yarborough’s statement. He said that during the shooting he saw a young soldier (hit the ground) Yarborough stated that he (Arnold) must have been a well trained soldier. Gorden Arnold just got out of basic training.

    • Gerry Simone says:

      Lone assassin proponents say Yarborough might have been referring to Mr. Newman who hit the dirt.

      Did Yarborough actually say he saw a ‘soldier’ or ‘soldier in uniform’?

      This is a crucial distinction.

      (I question certain other statements made by GA, and sometimes witnesses embellish their accounts to taint their credibility, but perhaps it’s possible that GA wasn’t seen in any photos because he lay flat on the ground, until he got the heck outta there later).

  33. Gerry Simone says:

    This is an excellent compilation of PROFESSIONAL witnesses for a GK shot.

    @ Jeff Morley: How many of these accounts were made or repeated before the Warren Commission (as opposed to FBI reports or statements to the press or researchers)?

  34. Tom Wendt says:

    I watched an interview that Mark Lane did with S.M. Holland. In his documentary “Rush to Judgement”. Very convincing! No one ever mentions this eyewitness account. The Warren Comission just blew him off also!

  35. LYLE B says:


  36. Mike Rago says:

    John McAdams ear witness data needs to be checked for accuracy.

    He also puts people in the Not Sure Category who heard shots from both the Knoll area and the TSBD area….

    An example is Harry Weatherford

    Harry Weatherford is put in the “Not Sure” category.

    Here is what Harry Weatherford stated

    “I heard a loud report which I thought was a railroad torpedo, as it sounded as if it came from the railroad yard. Thinking, this was a heck of a time for one to go off, then I heard a 2nd report which had more of an echo report and thought to myself, that this was a rifle and I started towards the corner when I heard the 3rd report. By this time I was running towards the railroad yards where the sound seemed to come from.”

    So Harry Weatherford was not sure if the shot came from the Railroad Yard or the Depository.

    There are over 35 people in the “Not Sure” Category.

  37. Mike Rago says:

    John McAdams says “His ‘where the shots seemed to come from’ could not have been his perception”.

    Mr. McAdams you always try to say that someone did not say what they actually did say.

    Here is what he said
    “I heard a loud report which I thought was a railroad torpedo, as it sounded as if it came from the railroad yard.”

    Weatherford is “Knoll ear witness” and should be counted as such. He may have misidentified an echo as a shot and maybe he did not. The important fact is he identifies himself as a Knoll ear witness.

    You cannot arbitrarily say he did not mean what he said.

    This is just one of many ways that your bias shows up in the tabulation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more