Response to Critics
"Using a Gaping Hole to Calculate Trajectory"
The article “Shooting Holes in theory that a Secret Service agent killed President Kennedy” states that, “It’s dubious to use a gaping hole to calculate trajectory.” (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/Shooting_holes_in_theory_that_a_Secret_Service_agent_killed_President_Kennedy.html?c=r)
Aside from the erroneous claim that, “If Donahue’s trajectory is wrong, his whole theory falls apart” (it does not), there may actually be some substance to an argument against Donahue’s trajectory. On the one hand, Donahue “rejected a specific outshoot.” On the other hand, he did calculate trajectories based on both the entry wound location as the autopsy doctors determined it and as HSCA determined it, with "outshoots" as HSCA determined it and from the middle of the the "gaping hole." So rejecting specific outshoots while still calculating trajectories does contradictory. And while I agree that Donahue's trajectory analyses alone doesn't implicate Hickey, what Donahue did do with his trajectory analyses was show that the "official" trajectories (based on the "official" evidence of the Zapruder film and wound drawings) simply don't work.
For example, Donahue demonstrated that the HSCA outshoot (the most forward defect in the skull, the only place where a trajectory could conceivably be traced back to the Texas School Book Depository) was wrong. It did not fit with the rotation of Kennedy’s head at Z-312 (the frame right before the explosive head shot). Nor did the fracture patterns fit with an outshoot at this location (all of the fractures above this defect, and none below).
And since there was a gaping hole, Donahue used Kennedy’s body position and Z-312 and traced the middle of this hole back through the HSCA entry point, and continued backward, and found it to pass over Hickey’s position in the follow-up car.
The “Shooting Holes” critic is correct that there may be some issues with this trajectory…but not for the reasons he thinks.
The author of this article questioned Donahue’s trajectory analysis of a Carcano round, based on the results of the ballistics gelatin block tests. But in fact, Mortal Error includes pictures of the ballistics gel blocks tests! (See http://jfkassassination.net/russ/ jfkinfo/hscastur.htm for the testimony involving the gelatin block tests.) Donahue certainly must have accounted for yawing and tumbling in his trajectory analyses. I’m not sure how the author could even use the gelatin block tests to impugn Donahue’s work. Donahue was the ballistics expert. I’m sure he knew more about the gelatin block trajectory than the author of this article does.
But it's not the Carcano round gelatin block test that is actually the most interesting; it's the AR-15 round gelatin block test.
Isn’t it funny that HSCA even had a gelatin block test done for an AR-15 .223 (M-16) round, and that the results from this test (No. 113 on the adjacent list of exhibits from the Committee’s ballistics hearings, Sept. 8, 1978) were omitted from the Committee’s final report (even though the gelatin block tests done for HSCA on other types of rounds besides Carcano were included).
That said, I think there may be some genuine problems with Donahue’s trajectory analysis from the “gaping hole.”
First, there is evidence that the HSCA’s “revised entry wound location” was wrong, and that the original autopsy doctors reported it correctly. The pathologists, when shown pictures purported to be of the high entry wound in the skull, denied that a bullet entered there. Most stuck by their original (lower) location. The article’s author is correct that the lower entry wound location as determined at autopsy may have been the actual entrance site. (Note that there was no bullet recovered from Kennedy’s head at autopsy—only small fragments—and Donahue naturally must have reasoned that the main body of the bullet must have exited, per the official story. I disagree, as we will see later.) Donahue trusted HSCA’s entry location more than the originally stated location because an outshoot at the lowest and most forward part of the skull wound (the exit most consistent with the official story) or anywhere within the “gaping wound” would have meant the shot would have had to come from the trunk of the car!
However, Donahue was dubious of the HSCA outshoot as an actual exit point. Per Mortal Error:
The more he looked at the committee’s reasons for selecting this (exit) point, the more doubtful Donahue became. For one thing, Donahue had over the years reinforced his convictions that the designation of a single exit point was not just problematic but unjustifiable. The bullet, everyone agreed, had disintegrated and sprayed a multitude of fragments across the right side of the brain. In one of the appendices the committee said: “…the anterior-posterior and lateral X-rays of the skull indicate that the vast majority of missile fragments moved in a cylindrical, slightly coned, pathway, in the same direction as the bullet’s path prior to striking the skull.”
To Donahue, this description was inherently inconsistent with the stance that “the bullet” had a single exit point. Indeed, in another passage in the committee’s text, the medical panel openly acknowledged that the exit point might well be at any one of several such “defects” detectable in the X rays, or it could even be at some other point where the skull was so damaged that there were portions of it altogether missing, either blown out onto Dealey Plaza or pulverized entirely.”
Donahue looked still closer at the committee’s argument. The committee’s chosen exit location was at the extreme forward edge of the wound. This was untenable, he felt. If the bullet had exited there, why was the skull shattered for five inches above and behind that location, and why could metal fragments be seen embedded in the inner table of the top of the skull all across those five inches? It was hard to believe that “the bullet” would smash to pieces skull four and five inches above and behind its point of exit-impact and yet not extend the portal even a centimeter below and in front of it.
HSCA’s exit point was dependent on the higher entry point. Without their higher entry point, a trajectory back to the sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository failed. However, Donahue convincingly demonstrated that HSCA’s “exit point” made no sense, even with medical panel’s higher entry point. With the autopsy doctors’ lower entry location, HSCA’s exit point made even less sense. That left the “gaping wound” for the exit point, if there was one. But Kennedy’s head would have had to be tilted extremely forward for any trajectory (except from the trunk of the car) to work with the original autopsy entry point and an exit point at either HSCA’s exit, or within the “gaping wound.” Such a forward tilt to Kennedy’s head was not seen in Z-312 (the frame immediately before the explosive head shot). A HSCA entry and the middle of the “gaping hole” exit, however, did line up—with Hickey’s position in the follow-up car. Otherwise, the “gaping hole” exit lined up with nothing, as did the HSCA exit.
Additionally, there may not have even been a “gaping hole” in the right front part of Kennedy’s head—at least, not until the “pre-autopsy surgery of the head.” Former ARRB Analyst Douglas Horne points out (e.g., https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=J_QIuu6hsAc) that Parkland staff were consistent in describing a “back of the head blow-out,” yet none described a “gaping hole” on the right front part of Kennedy’s head. Horne corroborates David Lifton’s (Best Evidence) “pre-autopsy surgery of the head” with mortician Tom Robinson’s remarks for the ARRB in describing the damage to the front/right of Kennedy’s head, “That’s what the doctors did, to make it look like that’s what the bullet did” (e.g., https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=fSV0FyWJa0c).
The Donahue critic who wrote the “Shooting holes” article is correct that Donahue’s acceptance of the higher entry wound location may have been wrong, but that acceptance was based on what made sense to Donahue, based on Donahue’s belief that HSCA’s revised entry point was correct, and that other evidence was unaltered. Donahue took it for granted that the “gaping wound” on the top right side of JFK’s skull was genuine.
Additionally, Donahue also took it for granted that the Zapruder film was genuine. He used Z-312 (the frame just before the explosive head shot) for his trajectory analysis in determining Kennedy’s body position at the time of the explosive head shot. Given the evidence Donahue was able to access, he proved that the explosive head shot could not have come from the sixth floor of the TSBD (and was more likely to have come from the AR-15).
So either the evidence Donahue trusted was correct, and the trajectory traced back over the follow-up car, or the evidence was forged and his trajectory was therefore erroneous. Since the integrity of the evidence upon which Donahue relied for his trajectory analysis is in question (as I will show later), his trajectory analysis based on that evidence could also be brought into question.
However, the author of the “Shooting holes” article erroneously claims that, “If Donahue’s trajectory is wrong, his whole theory falls apart.” It does not! It wasn’t just a trajectory analysis that led Donahue to his theory. It was also the “galaxy of stars” (numerous bullet particles) in the X-Rays, witness statements, and many other clues that led Donahue to his theory. There is a lot of other evidence beyond just the trajectory analysis supporting his theory of the explosive head shot.
And, despite claims to the contrary, there is no real evidence to dispute that theory.
"Using a Gaping Hole to Calculate Trajectory"
The article “Shooting Holes in theory that a Secret Service agent killed President Kennedy” states that, “It’s dubious to use a gaping hole to calculate trajectory.” (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/Shooting_holes_in_theory_that_a_Secret_Service_agent_killed_President_Kennedy.html?c=r)
Aside from the erroneous claim that, “If Donahue’s trajectory is wrong, his whole theory falls apart” (it does not), there may actually be some substance to an argument against Donahue’s trajectory. On the one hand, Donahue “rejected a specific outshoot.” On the other hand, he did calculate trajectories based on both the entry wound location as the autopsy doctors determined it and as HSCA determined it, with "outshoots" as HSCA determined it and from the middle of the the "gaping hole." So rejecting specific outshoots while still calculating trajectories does contradictory. And while I agree that Donahue's trajectory analyses alone doesn't implicate Hickey, what Donahue did do with his trajectory analyses was show that the "official" trajectories (based on the "official" evidence of the Zapruder film and wound drawings) simply don't work.
For example, Donahue demonstrated that the HSCA outshoot (the most forward defect in the skull, the only place where a trajectory could conceivably be traced back to the Texas School Book Depository) was wrong. It did not fit with the rotation of Kennedy’s head at Z-312 (the frame right before the explosive head shot). Nor did the fracture patterns fit with an outshoot at this location (all of the fractures above this defect, and none below).
And since there was a gaping hole, Donahue used Kennedy’s body position and Z-312 and traced the middle of this hole back through the HSCA entry point, and continued backward, and found it to pass over Hickey’s position in the follow-up car.
The “Shooting Holes” critic is correct that there may be some issues with this trajectory…but not for the reasons he thinks.
The author of this article questioned Donahue’s trajectory analysis of a Carcano round, based on the results of the ballistics gelatin block tests. But in fact, Mortal Error includes pictures of the ballistics gel blocks tests! (See http://jfkassassination.net/russ/ jfkinfo/hscastur.htm for the testimony involving the gelatin block tests.) Donahue certainly must have accounted for yawing and tumbling in his trajectory analyses. I’m not sure how the author could even use the gelatin block tests to impugn Donahue’s work. Donahue was the ballistics expert. I’m sure he knew more about the gelatin block trajectory than the author of this article does.
But it's not the Carcano round gelatin block test that is actually the most interesting; it's the AR-15 round gelatin block test.
Isn’t it funny that HSCA even had a gelatin block test done for an AR-15 .223 (M-16) round, and that the results from this test (No. 113 on the adjacent list of exhibits from the Committee’s ballistics hearings, Sept. 8, 1978) were omitted from the Committee’s final report (even though the gelatin block tests done for HSCA on other types of rounds besides Carcano were included).
That said, I think there may be some genuine problems with Donahue’s trajectory analysis from the “gaping hole.”
First, there is evidence that the HSCA’s “revised entry wound location” was wrong, and that the original autopsy doctors reported it correctly. The pathologists, when shown pictures purported to be of the high entry wound in the skull, denied that a bullet entered there. Most stuck by their original (lower) location. The article’s author is correct that the lower entry wound location as determined at autopsy may have been the actual entrance site. (Note that there was no bullet recovered from Kennedy’s head at autopsy—only small fragments—and Donahue naturally must have reasoned that the main body of the bullet must have exited, per the official story. I disagree, as we will see later.) Donahue trusted HSCA’s entry location more than the originally stated location because an outshoot at the lowest and most forward part of the skull wound (the exit most consistent with the official story) or anywhere within the “gaping wound” would have meant the shot would have had to come from the trunk of the car!
However, Donahue was dubious of the HSCA outshoot as an actual exit point. Per Mortal Error:
The more he looked at the committee’s reasons for selecting this (exit) point, the more doubtful Donahue became. For one thing, Donahue had over the years reinforced his convictions that the designation of a single exit point was not just problematic but unjustifiable. The bullet, everyone agreed, had disintegrated and sprayed a multitude of fragments across the right side of the brain. In one of the appendices the committee said: “…the anterior-posterior and lateral X-rays of the skull indicate that the vast majority of missile fragments moved in a cylindrical, slightly coned, pathway, in the same direction as the bullet’s path prior to striking the skull.”
To Donahue, this description was inherently inconsistent with the stance that “the bullet” had a single exit point. Indeed, in another passage in the committee’s text, the medical panel openly acknowledged that the exit point might well be at any one of several such “defects” detectable in the X rays, or it could even be at some other point where the skull was so damaged that there were portions of it altogether missing, either blown out onto Dealey Plaza or pulverized entirely.”
Donahue looked still closer at the committee’s argument. The committee’s chosen exit location was at the extreme forward edge of the wound. This was untenable, he felt. If the bullet had exited there, why was the skull shattered for five inches above and behind that location, and why could metal fragments be seen embedded in the inner table of the top of the skull all across those five inches? It was hard to believe that “the bullet” would smash to pieces skull four and five inches above and behind its point of exit-impact and yet not extend the portal even a centimeter below and in front of it.
HSCA’s exit point was dependent on the higher entry point. Without their higher entry point, a trajectory back to the sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository failed. However, Donahue convincingly demonstrated that HSCA’s “exit point” made no sense, even with medical panel’s higher entry point. With the autopsy doctors’ lower entry location, HSCA’s exit point made even less sense. That left the “gaping wound” for the exit point, if there was one. But Kennedy’s head would have had to be tilted extremely forward for any trajectory (except from the trunk of the car) to work with the original autopsy entry point and an exit point at either HSCA’s exit, or within the “gaping wound.” Such a forward tilt to Kennedy’s head was not seen in Z-312 (the frame immediately before the explosive head shot). A HSCA entry and the middle of the “gaping hole” exit, however, did line up—with Hickey’s position in the follow-up car. Otherwise, the “gaping hole” exit lined up with nothing, as did the HSCA exit.
Additionally, there may not have even been a “gaping hole” in the right front part of Kennedy’s head—at least, not until the “pre-autopsy surgery of the head.” Former ARRB Analyst Douglas Horne points out (e.g., https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=J_QIuu6hsAc) that Parkland staff were consistent in describing a “back of the head blow-out,” yet none described a “gaping hole” on the right front part of Kennedy’s head. Horne corroborates David Lifton’s (Best Evidence) “pre-autopsy surgery of the head” with mortician Tom Robinson’s remarks for the ARRB in describing the damage to the front/right of Kennedy’s head, “That’s what the doctors did, to make it look like that’s what the bullet did” (e.g., https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=fSV0FyWJa0c).
The Donahue critic who wrote the “Shooting holes” article is correct that Donahue’s acceptance of the higher entry wound location may have been wrong, but that acceptance was based on what made sense to Donahue, based on Donahue’s belief that HSCA’s revised entry point was correct, and that other evidence was unaltered. Donahue took it for granted that the “gaping wound” on the top right side of JFK’s skull was genuine.
Additionally, Donahue also took it for granted that the Zapruder film was genuine. He used Z-312 (the frame just before the explosive head shot) for his trajectory analysis in determining Kennedy’s body position at the time of the explosive head shot. Given the evidence Donahue was able to access, he proved that the explosive head shot could not have come from the sixth floor of the TSBD (and was more likely to have come from the AR-15).
So either the evidence Donahue trusted was correct, and the trajectory traced back over the follow-up car, or the evidence was forged and his trajectory was therefore erroneous. Since the integrity of the evidence upon which Donahue relied for his trajectory analysis is in question (as I will show later), his trajectory analysis based on that evidence could also be brought into question.
However, the author of the “Shooting holes” article erroneously claims that, “If Donahue’s trajectory is wrong, his whole theory falls apart.” It does not! It wasn’t just a trajectory analysis that led Donahue to his theory. It was also the “galaxy of stars” (numerous bullet particles) in the X-Rays, witness statements, and many other clues that led Donahue to his theory. There is a lot of other evidence beyond just the trajectory analysis supporting his theory of the explosive head shot.
And, despite claims to the contrary, there is no real evidence to dispute that theory.