Who’s telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?

[James H. Fetzer]

I don't understand why you haven't read the articles I have suggested or watched
the Costella tutorial. Until you do, I think you don't have a cue about the Zapruder.

My reaction, too, to your extraordinary post: I haven't enjoyed one so much in years. Keep up the baffling work.

Even if parts of the blood fog were painted-in we still haven't accounted for other photographs that caught it, splatter evidence that backs it, the "pumpkin smashing sound" that was told of by people at the time etc. I believe these are all true to the known facts. Even Fetzer admits a rear shot. He says there were two shots, front and rear, so if we already admit there was a rear shot then couldn't it at least be responsible for some of the blood fog seen in Zapruder? Even if the blood fog was drawn-in couldn't there have been some blood spray that was further enhanced? If it's "baffling" it is so because the evidence makes it that way. That's why it's important to strictly observe the evidence. I don't know what to say. The pumpkin smashing sound conforms more to what is seen in the film and less to the baseball-sized rear wound. I'd be curious how the CT people who claim a small hole entry wound in the front explain the brain splatter material that exited forward and was witnessed by the front seat occupants? And the bone bits clearly seen flying in Zapruder that were then retrieved down-range of their direction (Harper Fragment)? Were they drawn-in too? For all we know the black-out alterations were done simply to make all evidence show a rear shot and nothing else. A simple explanation existing within the complex.