This is an update by Milicent Cranor to an earlier article, “More Proof JFK was Hit from the Front”.
Forensic facts—definitive of an entrance wound—seem to apply to the wound in Kennedy’s throat. Yet these fascinating facts have been suppressed by the government, and many who write about the medical evidence seem unaware of them. If we ever get the chance to bring our research to the attention of Congress, this report may be useful to those looking for simple physical proof of conspiracy.
The author’s narrative gifts are as pronounced as her investigative acumen. And with this book as her lifetime achievement on a case that still remains relatively obscure in light of the JFK assassination, she will likely establish herself as the preeminent authority on the subject for years to come, avers Michael Le Flem.
Jim Finn shows how the Warren Commission Issue of Life Magazine went through at least two redactions in which the frames and captions presenting the fatal shot were changed in order better to bolster the official conclusion. This was not the first instance of such duplicity for Life.
When there is enough humidity, bullets traveling over a certain velocity always create vapor trails. They last only milliseconds, and usually go unseen unless captured on film. Following is an explanation of this phenomenon, and a suggestion that it might explain the white lines seen on the Z film, or the puffs of “smoke” reported by witnesses.
David Mantik's home site can now be found at http://themantikview.com
Dr. Mantik states: “It is unique for me to write a second review, but too much remained unsaid after the first review. Wagner’s book clearly required more attention, especially since his profound mistakes are so often duplicated by the unenlightened mainstream media.”
Secret Service agent Glen Bennett saw something small but extraordinary that indirectly proves a shot from the front. Too bad he was discredited, and for quite illogical reasons.
From Dr. Mantik's conclusions: “Nalli runs into surprisingly many buzz-saws. If even one critical assumption is seriously wrong, his conclusion cannot stand. This review has demonstrated several such assumptions that clearly must be wrong. At the very least, the uncertainty in many of his parameters casts a strong shadow over the entire work.”