Jump to content
The Education Forum

Did the autopsy doctors think the fatal bullet exited the back of the head?


Pat Speer

Recommended Posts

David

If you look at the back of head photo, you can see that JFK's head is tilted quite far back, and we are viewing a good portion of the top of his head, as well as the back. This can be proven by looking at a photo of JFK from 22-11-63 prior to the assassination. Normally, JFK's hairline at the back of his head is even with the bottom of his ear. In the BOH photo, the hairline is way below the ear, indicating either the head has been tilted back or the photographer is taking the photo from an angle that places him more above the head.

If we then compare this to the photo on the left, an obvious question must be asked. What happened to the brain and skull matter and the long hair?

At least one of these photos must be a forgery.

Or a substitute body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I would ask this Bob...

Which original Autopsy materials have you, Pat, Tame or anyone else here seen at high magnification. What did Doug Horne, see?

What information would you like to offer that refutes Doug's viewing of these images and the conclusion they are images of an altered head, not altered images?

Who, prior to Boswell's drawing, claims to have seen anything remotely similar to the lateral xray showing the Frontal Bone and the front of the parietal missing?

Now.. Look at the overlay of Boswell's drawing and the image showing the top of his head split open.. eerie how similar it is, no?

f7withBoswelloverlay_zps84774655.jpg

Now the covered back of the head as opposed to Boswell's 1997 drawing showing virtually all of the top of the head over to the left side of the skull missing.

I drew in the laceration line to illustrate that MAYBE scalp was more intact than we thought and was indeed avulsed outward and over to his anatomical left...

That for the sake of misleading history, the scalp was pulled across this rear head wound to, or placed on top of this rear head wound to give the impression the shot exited the front.

Bob... these images are after Humes obliterates the wounds using a saw across the forhead and as testified to, a hammer-like tool to break up the skull...

Please reread my posts about the craniotomy and how it it performed...

Can you please also remember that the brain stem was cut thru, rntirely, so that after 8pm the brain, which showed no damage to the left side, the skull, no damage to the left side, was cleanly separated from the anatomy whcih holds it in place... I posted those images too... the ones taken from the autopsy evidence as offered... and applied to the anatomy of a head... earlier in this thread...

f3withboswelldrawing.jpg

And finally I will post this yet again... where from parkland are there any similarities to the lateral xray, to the photo above swhoing an open skull , not in the occipial but temporal-parietal...

xraysversusreality.jpg

I asked Mr Tame who is sure they are forgeries to post the evidence he feels supports that conclusion... the offer is open to you as well... NOT your impressions of the photos

You remember Dr Ebersole... Have you read the 26 page HSCA deposition of this amazingly self-important man who sees sutured lips, makes up medical terms, and was at the and then compared that to the actual xray technicians (Custer & Reed)) doing the work? Maybe check the chain of command as well - who tells Ebersole what needs "taking care of" ?

Dr. BADEN. You took the head, chest, abdomen, extremities?
Dr. EBERSOLE. The order was skull first, then chest, the trunk.
Dr. BADEN. I see. When Colonel Finck came in these had already been taken?
Dr. EBERSOLE. Yes, and repeated once.
Dr. BADEN. Now when you say repeated, were X rays repeated after the autopsy had started? Do you have an independent recollection of that?
Dr. EBERSOLE. The second group of X rays were taken either before the incision was made or very shortly thereafter.

Q: Do you see the portion in line seven and eight, where he (Ebersole) refers to carrying the cassettes containing the X-rays?

REED: That’s - Yes.

Q: Did he do that?

A: No.

Q: Are you certain that he didn’t do that?

A: I’m 110 percent certain that he did not do that.

Q: And the reason that you’re certain that he did not do it is because… ?

A: I did it. Four flights of stairs, running four floors And I was 20 years old.

I was in great shape. I don’t think Dr. Ebersole could have crawled up those steps as many times as we did, and carry the cassettes. Four or five at a time at a time - at the end, you know.

Q: Did you, at any time, hear any Secret Service agents make requests with respect to taking X-rays?

A: No.

Bob... I am literally thru dealing with those who only want to give us their IMPRESSIONS of what THEY see, as opposed to any evidence to support these conclusions...

"JUST LOOK AT IT" is not evidence...

64th generation internet images are NOT "original Autopsy materials" by any stretch...

I've never been to Mt Everest... but there are those who have and say that it does indeed exist... there are photos of it available...

But I still have never been there to see for myself... I have to trust those who have...

Have you been to the metaphorical mountain to know first hand what's up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Say what you want, David, but it is obvious to anyone that the photos are of two different people.

Thanks Bob, I will "say what I want" and back it with evidence not airy opinions

Bob... I am literally thru dealing with those who only want to give us their IMPRESSIONS of what THEY see, as opposed to any evidence to support these conclusions.. yet I guess I need to do this yet one more time.

===

"Obvious to anyone" is Non sequitur and a poor excuse for evidence supporting your conclusion.

"anyone" consists of you and a handful of equally vision impared individuals not willing to take the time to read and illustrate the autopsy evidence so their opinoion are actually based on something.

READ what the autopsy says, what HUMES says about the autopsy he performed and from which he authored the document in the record which in itself has a dubious history...

Below are illustrations of what he describes...

This is called analysis of the evidence not "I see it that way so it must be true" tautological mumbo jumbo presented by Mr Speer, Mr Tame and now you of all people...

I honestly thought you had a clue here Bob...

How about you stick to the ballistics and proving that the rifle that wasn't his, that wasn't fired that day, fired a bullet that wasn't ever in Dallas nor hit anything other than either water or cotton... and does not come into existence until the Chief of the Secret Service hands it to Elmer Todd.... so it can become the "BULLSH!T" in the Single BULLSH!T Theory... :up

And let those who can address the evidence with honesty and effort do the heavy lifting for you...

so all you need keep are opinions about that which you seem incapable of analyzing impartially or thoroughly.

Ya, I know.. I'm an A$$hole and abrasive... yet opinions are not analysis. and I'm tired of hearing it presented that way

Brainandskulldetail-Illustratedwoundsacc

JFKsheadinjurypertheautopsy_zpsdc748eb5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see you here lurking Scott... as you see me... how about that evidence in support of your conclusions...

Can there possibly be more to you than just argumentative talk and unsupported opinions?

Be espcially nice if you actually came here and attempted to prove something...

:ice

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, folks, it appears that Dave is back from his insult laden hissy fit! Very mature Mr. Joseph's! And he accuses me of being a five year old. How rich! I find it amusing that someone who has been belligerent on two different threads here accuses me of being argumentative. I'll let you be the judge.

It's also comical that someone who was forced to concede that two of his so called 8:00 witnesses described a wound in the back of the head like the Parkland witnesses, despite his claims to the contrary, makes the following statement:

"Be espcially nice if you actually came here and attempted to prove something..."

You can add to that list Godfrey McHugh, William Greer, Roy Kellerman and James Metzler.

Now let's get on to the photos and x-rays. To support my assertion of alteration I will direct you to this study by David W. Mantik.

http://assassinationresearch.com/v2n2/pittsburgh.pdf

I will post some relevant quotes from this study below.

"I examined the JFK autopsy materials at the National Archives (NARA) on four separate days in 1993, on two days in 1994, and on two days in 1995. This review included the photographs, X-rays, clothing, magic bullet, and two metal fragments removed from the skull."

"Shortly after the autopsy, a large white (i.e., relatively transparent) patch was

superimposed (in the darkroom—not on a physical skull) over the posterior portion of both
lateral skull X-rays during the production of altered copies. These are now part of the
official collection at NARA. This left unaltered a large, dark area at the front of the skull,
which made it appear that a posterior bullet had blown out the front. Even Humes, during
his ARRB deposition, repeatedly expressed his bewilderment at this dark area, most likely
because the white patch subconsciously confused him. An obvious corollary to this
conclusion is that both original, lateral skull X-rays have vanished—without a trace."

"Shortly after the autopsy--by using a simple, double exposure technique in the dark

room—a 6.5 mm, metal-like object was superimposed over an authentic, but smaller, metal
fragment (within the right orbit) on the original, frontal X-ray during the production of a
copy film. This is now part of the official collection. The evidence for this conclusion derives
from eight separate lines of evidence, most based on optical density (OD) measurements of
the X-rays. During their ARRB depositions, the autopsy pathologists did not recall seeing
this object on 22 November 1963—nor for that matter did anyone else (including the
radiologist). This X-ray forgery was done with a single purpose: to incriminate Oswald via
the 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano carbine. Within the past several years, Larry Sturdivan,
the ballistics expert for the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), has also
stated his absolute conviction that this 6.5 mm object cannot be a bullet fragment. This new
interpretation of the 6.5 mm object (as an irrelevant artifact) totally contradicts the Clark
Panel (1968) and the HSCA (1978), both of whom interpreted this object as an authentic
bullet fragment. Even more to the point, this object played a crucial role in their
conclusions—which have now been thoroughly undermined. The extant frontal X-ray,

therefore, also cannot be an original but must be a copy. The original has vanished without

a trace. Therefore, no original unaltered skull X-ray remains."

"Based on 3D viewing of the autopsy photographs with a large format stereo viewer,

the scalp hair on the posterior head photographs (b & w # 15, 16 and color # 42, 43)

appears starched and flat, i.e., not naturally 3D."

"No matter how the stereo viewer is employed, the upper scalp hair on the posterior

head photographs looks starched and flat, i.e., two-dimensional. This is how two precisely

identical photographs appear when viewed in stereo. In a bizarre image over the left top of

the head, the hair extends well out into space, looking as if it had been glued into position.

When the paired photographs are reversed (left for right), or even when they are each

rotated by ninety degrees, this odd appearance of the hair persists. This is true both of the

color transparencies and of the color prints. Such a 2D effect would occur if the same

photograph (of extraneous hair) had been inserted (as in a soft matte technique) into two

slightly different views of the same pose. This conclusion that the upper scalp hair (just

where there should be a large hole, according to the score or more of witnesses assembled

by Gary Aguilar, M.D.) forms an unnatural 2D image in the stereo viewer is strikingly at

odds with the HSCA, which implied that the stereo images appeared normally 3D. By

contrast, stereo viewing of the hair on other photographic pairs in the autopsy collection

seems normal."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've had these discussions with Dr Mantik... thanks for posting these excerpts...

They are all based on the "original" xrays.... I have no doubt that there were things done to these images to make them even more incriminating toward Oswald...

Yet:

This left unaltered a large, dark area at the front of the skull,

which made it appear that a posterior bullet had blown out the front...
superimposed over an authentic, but smaller, metal
fragment (within the right orbit) on the original
So Scott... I wonder again, how the xray of the huge hole at the front of JFK's skull, this UNALTERED area... was created... ??
Or on the Anterior xray.. how is it that this unaltered original shows the entire right and top portion of the skull GONE... when there was only a hole in the occipial?
What was that an xray of... if all that was happening were xrays of an intact frontal area of the skull, and the covering of a posterior hole?
(and off into the sunset he goes.... I hope an answer is forthcoming...)
Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David

If you look at the back of head photo, you can see that JFK's head is tilted quite far back, and we are viewing a good portion of the top of his head, as well as the back. This can be proven by looking at a photo of JFK from 22-11-63 prior to the assassination. Normally, JFK's hairline at the back of his head is even with the bottom of his ear. In the BOH photo, the hairline is way below the ear, indicating either the head has been tilted back or the photographer is taking the photo from an angle that places him more above the head.

If we then compare this to the photo on the left, an obvious question must be asked. What happened to the brain and skull matter and the long hair?

At least one of these photos must be a forgery.

I talked to James Jenkins about this in November. I'd thought maybe they'd rinsed some of the brain from the hair. He said that the brain soaked hair was draped down to the left side of Kennedy's head. No surprise, I think he's correct, and that the two photos are both of Kennedy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Scott... I wonder again, how the xray of the huge hole at the front of JFK's skull, this UNALTERED area... was created... ??
Or on the Anterior xray.. how is it that this unaltered original shows the entire right and top portion of the skull GONE... when there was only a hole in the occipial?
What was that an xray of... if all that was happening were xrays of an intact frontal area of the skull, and the covering of a posterior hole?
Not really sure what Mr. Joseph's is referring to here since Dr. Mantik says nothing about the right front of the head missing.
Would love to see the people claiming that the head was reconstructed explain who did it and how they were able to create an intact back of the head when the guys who do it for a living couldn't even do it!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I asked Mr Tame who is sure they are forgeries to post the evidence he feels supports that conclusion... the offer is open to you as well... NOT your impressions of the photos

Bob... I am literally thru dealing with those who only want to give us their IMPRESSIONS of what THEY see, as opposed to any evidence to support these conclusions...

"JUST LOOK AT IT" is not evidence...

64th generation internet images are NOT "original Autopsy materials" by any stretch...

And yet, Mr. Joseph's, it's you who has been presenting "your impressions" of "64th generation internet images" to claim that the right front of the head is missing. I think I'll take the word of a radiologist who has examined the actual x-rays over your "impressions".

... yet opinions are not analysis. and I'm tired of hearing it presented that way

You mean like your opinion that the photos and x-rays are of a reconstructed head?

Again, I cannot wait for you to explain who reconstructed the head and how they were able to eliminate the area of missing scalp in the back of the head when the morticians were unable to do it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...