Actually, you are quite mistaken about entrance and exit wounds. Anyone familiar with the subject (I’m a physician who has worked in major inner city ERs) will tell you the rule of thumb is that exit wounds are larger because the shock wave travels forward in an expanding cone from the point of initial impact, and the tissues that were damaged by the bullet itself are also pushed foreward and outward in an expanding cone that causes further damage
The stroboscopic photograph you cite is a snapshot of a very special instant of time. Entry occurs before exit, so the shockwave at the point of entry had had more time to expand than the exit point. 10 milliseconds later, the exit wound would be larger, and that would be the final state. Better yet, shoot an apple yourself, and see. If you don’t have a gun and don’t know anyone who does, even a decent BB gun or slingshot will work.
The 1975 House Select Subcommitttee on Assassinations stated in its official findings that they felt it was a conspiracy, but felt Lee Harvey Oswald based on the pictures of the entry/exit wounds, BUT those pictures have always been discredited by the eyewitnesses, including the medical staff who treated JFK at Parkland Memorial
Unfortunately, there was a significant amount of deception, which was discovered and officially documented by the 1993 Assassinations Record Review Board that was commissioned by Congress with the mandate to actually see, review, and release ALL official documents (except tax records and some that was still deemed essential to national security) and all other available evidence. They found a great deal of material that should have been the first things the Warren Commission looked at (like the detective’s notes) but which had been denied to it. A lot of evidence had been destroyed (e.g. the Secret Service motorcade report), claimed not to exist (various investigator notes) or summarized (i.e. the Warren Commission was not allowed to see many CIA document, even though ex-CIA director Dulles was on the commission)
An example of the deception: the 1978 House Select Subcommittee on the JFK Assassination claimed that all the doctors and staff agreed that the pictures and description of the and concluded the official entry and exit wounds were correct. However, they promptly sealed and classified all their materials until 2029 (50 years after the completion of the report)
The 1993 ARRB had access to all material, classified or not, and when they examined the accounts from the Parkland Memorial staff, they found that NOT ONE had agreed that the official photographs they were shown (rear entry fron exit) represented what they saw.
I suggest people interested in the subject start with the more recent government investigations and work backwards, instead of proceeding chronologically from the Warren Commission Report.
See reports at the US National Archives and Records Administration:
Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board Report
Findings of the 1976 Select Committee on Assassinations of the U.S. House of Representatives (NARA LISTS it as the report of the 1978 committee, but the report itself says it is was the report of the 1975-76 committee, whose findings were published in 76. The 1978 Committee (the committee that classified its data+ detailed findings) issued its report in 1979.
I am not a conspiracy theorist. I’m just dismayed but the clear lack of candor by the government in this matter. When a House Committee doesn’t just misreport their evidence, but blatantly says the OPPOSITE, I think it’s something that should be known to every citizen, even if I don’t have any particular interest in or theory of the JFK assassination itself.
I’m rather upset with NARA’s collection, as well. They mislink reports, misrepresent some documents (and haven’t corrected this despite years of complaints), deliberately provide an incomplete list of their JFK holdings, and offer up pre-compiled search results for JFK that are also deliberately incomplete ( It’s not my personal opinion that these lists are deliberately incomplete. Their own website says so.)