Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Doctor who was at Parkland says JFK was shot from behind

Nov 21, 2003 4:41AM PST
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/11/21/jfk.physician/index.html

It was half-past noon on November 22, 1963, and Dr. Robert Grossman was in his lab just across a parking lot from the Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, Texas.

Kennedy had arrived in Trauma Room 1 at 12:43 p.m. Kemp and Grossman walked in at 12:48.

Grossman remembers 23 people in the room, including first lady Jacqueline Kennedy.

"She was standing toward the foot of the bed, wearing the pink dress," he recalls. There was blood and brain tissue on the front of her skirt. "She was in control of herself, but her face was very white."

Grossman remembers the president's thick, bushy hair, and a mass of white where part of his skull had been blown open.

"As soon as I saw that, I said to myself, 'This is not a survivable wound,'" he says. Grossman had seen gunshot wounds before, but never one that had destroyed so much, he says.

Grossman, now chairman of the Department of Neurosurgery at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, has kept remarkably quiet over the past 40 years about the events of that day.

He says he worried initially that speaking about his involvement might put his children in danger.

Now, at 70, Grossman is trying to provide answers to some of those questions.

Why now? Well, absent the fear for his small children -- they are now grown -- Grossman hopes to dispel some of the myths that surround the Kennedy assassination.

"I believe the preponderance of evidence shows that Kennedy was shot from behind," he says.

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Your assumption as to my understanding is incorrect.
Nov 24, 2003 11:15AM PST

JR implied that some part of the Kennedy slaying was still covered by official secrets designations, which further implies there must be something about the case that is being kept secret, which further implies that we do NOT have all the information we need to make a judgement.

I've read JR's response.

- Collapse -
There is something, else, Ian...
Nov 24, 2003 11:41AM PST

Ian, there is something else that you need to realize. Some people may be blinded by the words top secret and assume things. Example: I have been in a state archives and their list of firearm carry permit holders was classified as top secret. Why? Because such a list could "finger" undercover law enforcement operatives, just as a start. The TS classification can be for many reasons, some of which may not be obvious at first glance. For example: facts in a report may not be critical, but the report information saying that the information was obtained by John Smith working as an agent of X agency in an undercover operation of subject Johnny Jones.

- Collapse -
Yes, I understand that too. However,
Nov 24, 2003 1:43PM PST

that would not stop release of the information, sans names if need be, 40 years later.

I find it very unlikely that anyone could be at risk in those terms in 2003. They'd all be long retired, if not dead of old age.

Ian

- Collapse -
Re:Gunny Hathcock couldn't duplicate Oswald's alleged feat.........
Nov 23, 2003 11:26PM PST

Hi Tony,

Having instructed precision marksmanship I can tell you that for any specific firearm most people will have a slightly different zero because they tend to look at and see things differently. As a "for instance" I was forced for a period of time to fire sitting position with a slight cant to the firearm. This requires a bit of fiddling with sight adjustments because windage and elevation no longer control just windage or elevation--both must be used to control either. For ME elevation moved a shot up and left so to stay on the target line I also had to move the windage to the right. Shooters who fired my rifle ALWAYS grouped high and right. Oswald's stated "lack of coordination" could well have resulted in his zeroing of the scope for himself that would appear as a "misaligned reticle" to others.

Snipers tend to place more emphasis on precision than speed and it would be quite natural for one to take a bit longer trying to get off three WELL AIMED shots rather than the probable three "somewhere on target so pull that trigger" shots Oswald fired.

In all honesty it appears that Oswald was most likely "flock shooting center mass of target" and "lucked into" a head shot rather than specifically intending a head shot.

Regarding Oswald's lousy marksmanship--For anyone familiar with firearms they are aware that a lousy or mediocre shooter gets considerably better by the simple addition of a telescopic sight as it simplifies sight alignment to placing the crosshairs (or post or dot) on target and forgetting centering front sight within rear aperature or V.

- Collapse -
Re:Re:Gunny Hathcock couldn't duplicate Oswald's alleged feat.........
Nov 23, 2003 11:55PM PST

And the people who describe Oswald as a "lousy" or bad shot are incorrect. He was considered an average shot while in the military, not exceptionally good or bad.

- Collapse -
That is right but.........
Nov 24, 2003 4:01AM PST

truth to tell Josh, an "average shot" in the military is indeed mediocre to lousy. They don't hit much more than half of what they shoot at and what they shoot at is a torso sized target rather than a specific point.