Ramon F. Herrera Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Hi David: Where did you get that image (HoleinOccipital_zps82b5a764.jpg)? What is its source? I am looking for material like that for the Isometric-to-3D Model Project. TIA -Ramon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollie Curme Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Also, see the analysis in What Struck John? by Joseph Riley: https://home.comcast.net/~ceoverfield/riley.html https://home.comcast.net/~ceoverfield/riley2.html He makes the argument that the Bethesda autopsy report and photos and X-rays are consistent with two shots, one lower, one higher. Could the higher half circle hole shown in the Back of the Head Comparison X-ray show both upper and lower holes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 i'm just so grateful that the images aren't too big. god, i hate it when important pictures are so big that you can actually discern what's being proposed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted October 7, 2015 Author Share Posted October 7, 2015 Pat, again, brilliant post! However I have one question that maybe you can clear up. On your Back of the Head Comparison picture, there appears to be half of a circular hole in the skull a few inches above and a bit to the left of the hairline bullet. It's almost in the center of the photograph, which indicated to me that that was the defect the photographer was trying to capture. The half circle appears to have beveling around its edges. What do you make of that hole? One might surmise that it is an exit wound from a bullet shot from the front. I assume you're talking about the beveled exit visible on the open cranium photograph. Well, for years, I thought that matched up with the red spot on the back of the head photo, and reflected an area where the skull was broken up beneath the scalp by a bullet fragment. In recent years, however, I have come to realize that the open cranium photo was not taken from the same angle as the back of the head photo, but from an angle much closer to the top of the head, and that the beveled bone in the photo was part of the large defect on top of the head. It is not on the forehead, where LNers place it, but it is not on the back of the head where I and other CTs have placed it, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted October 7, 2015 Author Share Posted October 7, 2015 Hi David: Where did you get that image (HoleinOccipital_zps82b5a764.jpg)? What is its source? I am looking for material like that for the Isometric-to-3D Model Project. TIA -Ramon If you're asking about the photo I just posted, it's something I made myself. I took a large image of the B and W back of the head photo, cropped it down to the area where the EOP entrance ought to be, and reduced the exposure of the very spot where the doctors said there was a wound...AND voila! there's the wound!!!! People go on and on about the head wounds being the proof of the lie. They're right but they are wrong. They think it's because the wound was on the back of the head, and the body was altered. What they refuse to look at is that when it became clear the entrance wound low on the back of the head observed at autopsy was not an entrance for the large exit on the top of the head, this wound was made to DISAPPEAR from the record, and written off as a mistake made by the autopsy doctors. And that a new and improved wound location was then found. And this even though changing the exposure of the photos proves there was a wound just where the autopsy doctors said there was. That is the proof of the lie, IMO. And yet you won't find one TV program that touches upon it. As of yet, anyhow. Those who insist there is no smoking gun fail to realize just how close we are to knocking over the whole single-bullet theory/cowlick entry/single-assassin house of cards. All it takes is some sunshine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 (edited) I took a large image of the B and W back of the head photo, cropped it down to the area where the EOP entrance ought to be, and reduced the exposure of the very spot where the doctors said there was a wound...AND voila! There's the wound!!!! The entry wound in JFK's head was near the cowlick, just exactly where the ONE AND ONLY thing that even comes CLOSE to resembling a bullet hole is located in the "red spot" BOH autopsy photo. Any other "I Have Found The Entry Wound!" declaration is just wishful thinking and a vivid imagination. (Obligatory: IMHO.) Garden Variety Common Sense Question..... What are the odds of having the ONLY thing in the photo below that looks like a bullet hole really NOT being a bullet hole, with the REAL bullet hole hiding itself from view for 50 years? The odds are mind-boggling. Recent "BOH" discussions: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-954.html http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/08/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1005.html Edited October 8, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted October 8, 2015 Author Share Posted October 8, 2015 I took a large image of the B and W back of the head photo, cropped it down to the area where the EOP entrance ought to be, and reduced the exposure of the very spot where the doctors said there was a wound...AND voila! There's the wound!!!! The entry wound in JFK's head was near the cowlick, just exactly where the ONE AND ONLY thing that even comes CLOSE to resembling a bullet hole is located in the "red spot" BOH autopsy photo. Any other "I Have Found The Entry Wound!" declaration is just wishful thinking and a vivid imagination. (Obligatory: IMHO.) Garden Variety Common Sense Question..... What are the odds of having the ONLY thing in the photo below that looks like a bullet hole really NOT being a bullet hole, with the REAL bullet hole hiding itself from view for 50 years? The odds are mind-boggling. Recent "BOH" discussions: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-954.html http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/08/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1005.html Gonna go down with the ship, huh? Let me remind you that the cowlick entrance myth is fading away...rapidly...about the same rate as the resistance to gay marriage. The number of autopsy witnesses to sign off on the red spot's being the entrance wound measured at autopsy remains locked at zero. The number of "experts" viewing the autopsy materials over the past 15 years to claim the bullet entered at the red spot...is also zero. The cowlick entrance was a myth concocted by the Clark Panel, and Vince fell for it. But you don't have to... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 (edited) Gonna go down with the ship, huh? I'm merely using my EYES, Pat. (And the exacting "100mm. above the EOP" measurements provided by the Clark Panel, which is a four-man panel that you think was filled with four bald-faced liars, which is ridiculous, IMO.) jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-1968-clark-panel-report.html And I'll ask again.... What are the odds of having the ONLY thing in this photo that looks like a bullet hole really NOT being a bullet hole, with the REAL bullet hole hiding itself from view for 50 years? Of course, most CTers here at The Education Forum don't believe there was ANY "entry hole" in the back of President Kennedy's head at all. So Pat and myself — both of us! — are certainly going against the CT grain by proposing ANY "BOH Entry Wound". Pat has probably been subjected to almost as much verbal abuse as I have been over the years when it comes to this "Head Entry Wound" topic. But good luck with the EOP entry anyway, Pat. If Vince and I and Baden and the Clark Panel are all wrong....so be it. But given what I can SEE for myself in the BOH red-spot photo, if that bullet hole is anyplace other than high on JFK's head near the cowlick, I'd be flabbergasted (for the reasons emphasized in the question I asked above). ========================================== Addendum..... Here are some excerpts from a similar discussion between Pat and myself from earlier this year.... PAT SPEER SAID: There is a red oval in the back of the head photo that resembles a gunshot wound. But it was quite clearly not the bullet wound identified at the autopsy. You seem to think it is... DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Pat, Okay, I'll stop you right there. You readily acknowledge the fact that the "red oval" in the autopsy photograph below "resembles a gunshot wound". So, here's a simple observation and what I think is a very logical (and basic) question to ask after reading your quote above.... Since there is a spot on the back of JFK's head that DOES look like it could be a bullet hole---and since we both KNOW for a fact that there WAS, indeed, one single bullet hole of entry on the back side of President Kennedy's head---then what do you suppose the chances are of the thing that "resembles a gunshot wound" in the autopsy photo really NOT being a bullet hole in JFK's head after all? Seems like a fair question to me. And I don't think it's a question that can be reasonably answered in the following manner (as some CTers and LNers seem to want to do)..... Well, DVP, the red spot only LOOKS like a bullet hole. The REAL bullet hole is hiding somewhere else in that autopsy picture. It's just a coincidence that the red spot (of blood?) in the photo just happened to take the form and general shape and appearance of a bullet hole. Whereas the REAL bullet hole, which cannot be seen at all in the picture (or at least most people have a hard time seeing it, except perhaps Patrick J. Speer) has decided to go AWOL from the photo, with no "redness" or other qualities to it at all that can be easily noticeable, even though that photo was taken under very good (and bright) lighting conditions. ~shrug~ [End Silly Explanation.] So I'm just trying to wrap my head around the notion that the thing that looks like the bullet hole in the back of JFK's head really isn't a bullet hole at all. But at the same time, there really is a bullet hole of entrance somewhere else on the back of JFK's head in the above photograph. What an amazing piece of unintentional and miraculous photographic misinterpretation that would turn out to be indeed, if it is to be believed. And, amazingly, Pat Speer (and many other CTers and LNers) actually do believe in it. I, however, cannot stretch unbelievable coincidence quite that far. The red spot, in my opinion, is definitely the bullet hole. DVP June 2015 Edited October 8, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted October 8, 2015 Author Share Posted October 8, 2015 A couple of points. 1. The autopsy photos were not developed by the autopsy photographer, but by people who were not even present at the autopsy, who had never read the autopsy report. It follows then that they would not know what areas of the black and white photos should be accentuated. As a result, the area near the EOP in the Fox photos was left too dark. Fortunately, however, that glitch can now be corrected. As shown on the photos I've presented, the EOP entrance is readily visible on photos where the area in question is slightly more exposed. 2. The color photos now on the internet were developed for the HSCA, by people who'd been told the bullet entrance was in the cowlick. As a result, no effort was made to lighten the hair near the EOP. As a result, the color scheme was off, whereby the purported entrance wound in the cowlick was made to appear much darker on the color photos than on the black and white. When one increases the exposure on the color photos, moreover, an entrance wound becomes visible in the exact same location one is visible on the black and white photos, which is in the exact location of the wound described by EVERY autopsy witness claiming to see an entrance wound on the back of the head. So, YIKES, David, that's the coincidence you need to be thinking about. EVERY witness says the wound was low on the skull about an inch to the right of the EOP. And, by golly, EVERY photo shows an entrance in that location, when the exposure is increased so one can separate the wound from the hair. Hmmm, that would be a heckuva coincidence, unless...unless...hmmm, there really was a wound where everyone seeing a small bullet hole on the back of the head said they saw a wound. It bears repeating of course that NOT one witness saw a wound where the Clark Panel said there was a wound. And not only that, but that no radiologists since the Clark Panel have ever seen, or even pretended to see, the bullet hole in the cowlick the Clark Panel claimed was observable on the x-rays. And not only that, but that none of the "experts" to view the evidence in recent years have even pretended the "red spot" on the color autopsy photos is a wound. So, in short, there's no there there. All the evidence for the cowlick entrance has evaporated over time. Poof! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Newton Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 Of course, most CTers here at The Education Forum don't believe there was ANY "entry hole" in the back of President Kennedy's head at all. So Pat and myself — both of us! — are certainly going against the CT grain by proposing ANY "BOH Entry Wound". Pat has probably been subjected to almost as much verbal abuse as I have been over the years when it comes to this "Head Entry Wound" topic. Plenty of CTers believe he got shot in the back of the head. Lots of CTers think he was shot in the back, in the throat, and in the head. Some CTers think he was shot in the back of the head twice. "All generalizations are false, including this one." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Fordiani Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 While I admire Mr. Speer's research and tenacity, for the life of me I can't understand why he continues to put stock in the fake autopsy photographs and x-rays.From ARRB Testimony of FBI Agents O'Neill and Sibert, known up-close witnesses to the JFK autopsy:•MR. GUNN: Okay. Can we take a look now at view number six, which is described as 'wound ofentrance in right posterior occipital region", Color Photograph No. 42.•BY MR. GUNN Q: I'd like to ask you whether that photograph resembles what you saw from the back of the head at the time of the autopsy?•Francis O'Neill: This looks like it's been doctored in some way.•Q : But do you see anything that corresponds in Photograph No. 42 to what you observed during the night of the autopsy?•James Sibert: No. I don't recall anything like this at all during the autopsy. There was much -Well, . the wound was more pronounced. And it looks like it could have been reconstructed or something, as compared with what my recollection was...So while I am reasonably sure that I will not convince Mr. Speer (or Mr. Von Pein) that these photos lack veracity, those of you newer to the case should realize these photos are not true representations of the back of JFK's head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted October 9, 2015 Author Share Posted October 9, 2015 (edited) While I admire Mr. Speer's research and tenacity, for the life of me I can't understand why he continues to put stock in the fake autopsy photographs and x-rays. From ARRB Testimony of FBI Agents O'Neill and Sibert, known up-close witnesses to the JFK autopsy: •MR. GUNN: Okay. Can we take a look now at view number six, which is described as 'wound of entrance in right posterior occipital region", Color Photograph No. 42. •BY MR. GUNN Q: I'd like to ask you whether that photograph resembles what you saw from the back of the head at the time of the autopsy? •Francis O'Neill: This looks like it's been doctored in some way. •Q : But do you see anything that corresponds in Photograph No. 42 to what you observed during the night of the autopsy? •James Sibert: No. I don't recall anything like this at all during the autopsy. There was much -Well, . the wound was more pronounced. And it looks like it could have been reconstructed or something, as compared with what my recollection was... So while I am reasonably sure that I will not convince Mr. Speer (or Mr. Von Pein) that these photos lack veracity, those of you newer to the case should realize these photos are not true representations of the back of JFK's head. Thanks for demonstrating what I'm up against, Al. You took the statements of two seniors, who were trying to remember what they saw more than 30 years earlier, and used this to imply the autopsy photos and medical evidence are fake...and that the body really showed NO entrance wound by the EOP, just a large exit wound. (That is what you're doing, right?) Only this misrepresents what Sibert and O'Neill actually believed. Both men believed a bullet entered low on the back of the head and exploded out the top of the head. That is what they were told happened during the autopsy, and that is what they believed happened until their dying days. Their job was to observe the autopsy. And neither of them saw any body alteration, or recalled any discussion of shots from the front, etc. They were not conspiracy theorists. While the autopsy photos shown them decades after the shooting failed to correspond to their memories of Kennedy's wounds, their memories of Kennedy's wounds did not convince them the shot came from the front or any such thing. O'Neill, in fact, made numerous references to an entrance wound low on the back of the head, in the location described in the autopsy report. There are reasons I came to believe the autopsy photos and x-rays are legit, and the way people twist the words of Sibert, O'Neill, Robinson, Boswell, Stringer, Ebersole, etc, is one of them. Edited October 9, 2015 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 Sibert and O’Neill Report “....it was also apparent that a tracheotomy had been performed, as well as surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull” Wouldn't this constitute body alteration? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Fordiani Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 While I admire Mr. Speer's research and tenacity, for the life of me I can't understand why he continues to put stock in the fake autopsy photographs and x-rays. From ARRB Testimony of FBI Agents O'Neill and Sibert, known up-close witnesses to the JFK autopsy: •MR. GUNN: Okay. Can we take a look now at view number six, which is described as 'wound of entrance in right posterior occipital region", Color Photograph No. 42. •BY MR. GUNN Q: I'd like to ask you whether that photograph resembles what you saw from the back of the head at the time of the autopsy? •Francis O'Neill: This looks like it's been doctored in some way. •Q : But do you see anything that corresponds in Photograph No. 42 to what you observed during the night of the autopsy? •James Sibert: No. I don't recall anything like this at all during the autopsy. There was much -Well, . the wound was more pronounced. And it looks like it could have been reconstructed or something, as compared with what my recollection was... So while I am reasonably sure that I will not convince Mr. Speer (or Mr. Von Pein) that these photos lack veracity, those of you newer to the case should realize these photos are not true representations of the back of JFK's head. Thanks for demonstrating what I'm up against, Al. You took the statements of two seniors, who were trying to remember what they saw more than 30 years earlier, and used this to imply the autopsy photos and medical evidence are fake...and that the body really showed NO entrance wound by the EOP, just a large exit wound. (That is what you're doing, right?) Only this misrepresents what Sibert and O'Neill actually believed. Both men believed a bullet entered low on the back of the head and exploded out the top of the head. That is what they were told happened during the autopsy, and that is what they believed happened until their dying days. Their job was to observe the autopsy. And neither of them saw any body alteration, or recalled any discussion of shots from the front, etc. They were not conspiracy theorists. While the autopsy photos shown them decades after the shooting failed to correspond to their memories of Kennedy's wounds, their memories of Kennedy's wounds did not convince them the shot came from the front or any such thing. O'Neill, in fact, made numerous references to an entrance wound low on the back of the head, in the location described in the autopsy report. There are reasons I came to believe the autopsy photos and x-rays are legit, and the way people twist the words of Sibert, O'Neill, Robinson, Boswell, Stringer, Ebersole, etc, is one of them. We have been through this before: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21535&page=3 so there is no need to repeat it here. The referenced thread includes drawings from ARRB testimony of numerous eye-witnesses and includes the contemporaneous observations of Parkland doctors. Yes, Pat, I believe the autopsy photos are fakes. So I believe that whether there was or was not an EOP entrance, or a shot from the front for that matter, cannot then be answered using the fake evidence. Interesting that you imply that I am twisting the words of Sibert and O'Neill by directly quoting them. Yes, they believe Oswald acted alone. Yes, they believe three shots from the back hit JFK -- not the WC 2 shots -- as declared by Humes (an evasive xxxx if there ever was one). Still, when confronted with the autopsy photos during their ARRB testimony, they were at a loss since the photos clearly didn't match what they saw. In my opinion, as loyal career FBI men, they just couldn't make the leap that the federal government was covering up the truth in the assassination of their president. You imply that somehow as "seniors" their memories were faulty. I believe that as true "Oswald-did-it-alone" believers, it gives their testimony weight since they had no agenda. For those new to the case, read the contemporaneous reports of the Parkland doctors who treated JFK. There was a large hole in the back of his head with cerebellar tissue dripping out. Again, for the life of me, I do not see how any other conclusion can be drawn. It is unfortunate that some of the Parkland doctors equivocated when faced with fraudulent autopsy results, Secret Service pressure, etc. But that is what happened. I will leave this thread now to those who want to pursue their studies of these photos. As I said Pat, I admire your tenacity and much of your research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted October 9, 2015 Author Share Posted October 9, 2015 Sibert and O’Neill Report “....it was also apparent that a tracheotomy had been performed, as well as surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull” Wouldn't this constitute body alteration? They were repeating something they overheard during the autopsy. My statement was "neither of them saw any body alteration". Well, of course they did. It was an autopsy, after all. But in this context, I was trying to convey that both Sibert and O'Neill believed they had witnessed the real autopsy, and that it wasn't some show put on for them after the wounds had been re-arranged by Karnak, or whomever... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now