I think that too, but I’m open to the possibility that he inadvertently killed Kennedy while aiming at Connally.
Sorry, I posted prematurely. The photo of the frame you link to was taken at the moment of impact of the fatal bullet. Kennedy’s body is in the position it is in because he began to lean to his left toward Jackie after having been hit in the neck by the first bullet. The head shot got him as he was moving to his left and down toward her shoulder and drove his head and body upwardly and to his left, so much so that his left shoulder almost crests the boot of the convertible top.
Have you people not seen the Zapruder film?
This may very well be. I never said this happened this way without question. I said it was a recent theory that sounded good to me. However, this theory has been around for awhile and examined thoroughly, I’m sure, or it wouldn’t have gained the credibility it seems to have gained. I imagine the location of the limo and it’s position relative to the manhole may explain whether or not this is feasible.
I’m aware of that and even said so in my posts. The shot seemed to those in the vicinity to have come from the grassy knoll. However, a shot coming from a location such as the manhole could possibly echo from the area of the grassy knoll. I don’t know.
I’m not saying I’m convinced beyond a doubt that the fatal shot came from the manhole. I am saying I’m convinced beyond a doubt, and have been since way before conspiracy theories and possible motives were ever bandied about, that the fatal shot came from in front of Kennedy and to his right. I’ve felt this way since the Zapruder film first came to light.
What do you mean, since the film came to light? It’s never been a secret.
Life Magazine printed stills from the film in the same issue as scenes from Kennedy’s funeral, for crying out loud.
Good furshluginer grief! You can’t swing a dead cat around here without hitting someone who takes issue with every little thing you say. I meant since it came out!
And what makes you think I was excluding the Life photos? But the film makes much clearer the path the bullet took and its impact on Kennedy’s body.
I’m seen the Zapruder film. I have studied each relevant frame. I just do not see how you can come to this conclusion. Sorry, but the evidence just is not there.
Isn’t this a poll? 
A: Lee Harvey Oswald.
I’m not aware aware of any detailed analysis, pro- or con-, of the geometry of a shot from the manhole. But this is hardly surprising. One, very broad, camp considers the very idea of a gunman popping out of the sewers unnoticed the height of sillyness and the other believes it and doesn’t want to test the details too closely.
Against my observations about the layout of the plaza, you’ve gone for handwaving about analyses that may or may not exist. You’ve no idea whether they do or not.
I’m pretty sure that’s wrong and that most witnesses said the shots came from the direction they actually came from (meaning the rear). This site has become my favorite for this subject. It actually exists to poke holes in Oliver Stone’s JFK, but it’s extremely comprehensive. I can’t find a specific cite for the above, but I think they address this in several places and show that most of the people thought the shots came from the book depository. Some even saw the gun.
Some other relevant points:
FWIW, the Discovery Channel did one of their “Unsolved History” shows on the assassination a few months ago. I can’t find anything online describing this part, but they actually put a guy with a camera down the storm drain that conspiracists sometimes claim to be the site of a hidden shooter. The result: No freakin’ way could anyone in there have seen Kennedy from down there. Just geometrically impossible.
Again, I have no dog in the fight over whether or not the manhole was used. What I am saying is that Kennedy was hit in the back virtually straight-on from behind, and that he was hit in the head from a spot in front of the limosine and to his right.
Thus explaining all those witnesses who saw a guy with a rifle squatting in the middle of Elm St. and the massive exit wound on the back left of Kennedy’s head.
I’m telling you. Jackie. The only person who could have conveniently shot him from almost any direction. The ability to get a weapon past the Secret Service (even they would not suspect the dutiful wife). Keep your eye on my pink pillbox hat, America, nevermind what my right hand is holding.
It was Jackie people. First she took out Marilyn (Bobby did it my ass). Jack didn’t get the message and just went after the next pretty young secretary; clearly Jackie’s philandering husband was next.
Anyone who thinks that Aristotle Onasis’s death wasn’t also a bit fishy is a complete rube. This woman has a history of taking vengence on powerful men who cheat on her.
As with every “theory” advanced in this case, SlyFrog’s notion can be supported by a “witness”, in this case one of the Parkland ER docs, who at one point during a press conference that day speculatively connected a “front neck entrance wound” with a “top of the head exit wound.” Well, there was only one person in a position to effect that trajectory, and Lord knows she had motive. (We will, as is required by the Conspirators’ Oath, overlook the fact that the doctor later disavowed his speculation. . . .)
Seriously:
Regarding what the Zapruder film has to say about the direction of the final shot: one needs to compare the position of JFKs head in frame 312 (before bullet impact) with frame 313 (after bullet impart). His head clearly pivots “forward” (chin towards neck), the movement the head usually makes when whacked from behind. It’s easiest to see if you compare the gap between the back of his head and the top front part of the seat. (And, a look at the next few preceeding frames show that the motion in 312/313 is not the continuation of a previous motion.)
Oh, yeah, the OP question: the killer was Alex J. Hidell, famous Castro enthusiast and occasional LHO alias.
That also explains why she tried to climb out the back of the limo (to make her escape, hoping no one would notice) and why she wore the pink suit that day (“maybe the blood will dry-clean out, and I can wear it again!”).
One more tidbit about the Zapruder film - not only does the change from 312 to 313 indicate a rear shot, but there are two additional things not consistent with a frontal or front-rightal head shot.
First is the splatter itself. It clearly goes up, slightly forward, and to JFK’s right. This would be toward the supposed front gunman.
The second is the back-and-to-the-left motion. A bullet doesn’t have enough momentum to move a grown man like that, so the motion had to be due to something else.
As to the OP: Oswald, acting alone.
I’ve seen the movie, read a few books on both sides of the story, so why not?
#1) It was Oswald, acting alone, because he was a nut.
Advantage: Certainly the simplest solution.
Disadvantage: Doesn’t quite explain the guy with the umbrella, why Oswald claimed he was a patsy, or why Jack Ruby shot him to “spare Jackie’s feelings”.
#2) It was a massive conspiracy from [fill in the blank]
Advantage: It tries to explain all the “facts”.
Disadvantage: Memory can be a tricky thing, and evidence can be interpreted incorrectly. Plus this one raises too many other questions, namely, why hasn’t anybody found anything less circumstantial after all this time?
#3) It was more than one gunman, acting separately.
Advantage: This does sort of explain some of the oddities, and it’s a “compromise” solution to #1 and #2. (So maybe poor old Ozzie didn’t mean to kill the President, just shoot at him and scare him silly. The other gunman, on the grassy knoll or wherever, was actually planning the assassination.)
Disadvantage: It still doesn’t explain Jack Ruby, but maybe he was crazy, too.
I’m not an expert at guns, but what I’ve seen the Zapruder (sp?) film suggests that the President was indeed shot from the back. (It looks like his face explodes with gore, like he was hit with a paintball, and as far as I know that’s consistent with an exit wound.) The “back, and to the left” motion is then probably whiplash as the head reacts per Newton’s Third Law to getting blown open by a projectile hitting it at ungodly forces.
So personally, I believe most strongly in #1, but on some days #3 definitely seems possible as well. #2 fails both Occam’s Razor and a convincing body of evidence.
Tongue-in-cheeck conclusion: Eh, this is another one of those things I have to ask God when I get to the Afterlife.
I have never, ever, never ever understood how anyone could give any probative value to Oswald’s “I’m a patsy” statement. There are two types of folks who deny guilt: those who didn’t do anything, and those who did.
[Oh, and in keeping with section 342, paragraph 21(a)(vii) of the Conspirators’ Oath, I’m obliged to speculate that Oswald was actually saying “I’m a Patsy Cline fan” but was cut off when a TV camera rolled over his foot.]
For those who have seen the movie, I highly recommend this site, particularly the section on Oliver Stone’s movie, JFK.
IIRC, the “logic” goes like this: if he really were a nut out to kill the president, he would have bragged about it afterwards, not deny it. But what most conspiracists forget is that human psychology is a lot more complicated than that.
I still think it was somewhat possible for at least two assassins attempting to blow JFK’s head off, but not that they were in collusion, but that’s just a hypothesis that I don’t have the energy to come up with a detailed, testable methodology for.