Jump to content
The Education Forum

VIDEO - The Head Wounds


Recommended Posts

[

But the autopsy photos of A brain were taken afterward at Bethesda Gil.

I guess that's part of chain of events that makes the "autopsy" and "evidence"--like the photos--so clearly bogus.

And it's hard to build a hypothesis around bogus evidence...

Myra: I'm glad you said A brain. I sense you have a good grasp of what happened. Both Paul O'Connor and Jerrol Custer told David Lifton that the skull was empty when the body arrived at Bethesda. Custer asked why he was taking X-Rays of an empty skull and he was told that it wasn't his concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much of the confusion about the head wounds comes from people taking the statements of one or two witnesses and repeating them out of context or as fact.

First of all, my friend, I'm not confused as to the head wounds. I posted a link to the video of Dr. Crenshaw and what he said. I suggest you watch it and pay close attention to whathe said. He doesn't say anything that can be misinterpreted.

Secondly, I personally don't believe anything Humes says in regards to the wounds. He was a xxxx. He was the author of the bogus Rydberg drawings that showed a bullet hole in the base of the neck, clearly shown to be wrong by the autopsy photos. There was no bullet hole in the back above the top of the shoulders. In addition, he burned the original autopsy notes.

In my opinion, his credibility is at best questionable.

It all boils down to who you want to believe, the Dallas doctors who had no agenda, or the military people who struggled with JFK time and time again beginning in 1961.

P.S. F8 does show the entry wound in the front.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much of the confusion about the head wounds comes from people taking the statements of one or two witnesses and repeating them out of context or as fact.

First of all, my friend, I'm not confused as to the head wounds. I posted a link to the video of Dr. Crenshaw and what he said. I suggest you watch it and pay close attention to whathe said. He doesn't say anything that can be misinterpreted.

Secondly, I personally don't believe anything Humes says in regards to the wounds. He was a xxxx. He was the author of the bogus Rydberg drawings that showed a bullet hole in the base of the neck, clearly shown to be wrong by the autopsy photos. There was no bullet hole in the back above the top of the shoulders. In addition, he burned the original autopsy notes.

In my opinion, his credibility is at best questionable.

It all boils down to who you want to believe, the Dallas doctors who had no agenda, or the military people who struggled with JFK time and time again beginning in 1961.

P.S. F8 does show the entry wound in the front.

We agree that F8 is of the back of Kennedy's head. I don't think one can say for sure one way or the other if the tear in the scalp at the front of the head represents an entrance or not. I don't think it is an entrance. As far as Crenshaw, he saw Kennedy for but a second and failed to write about his experiences for many years. He is only slightly more credible than Grossman.

As stated, my conviction that the Parkland doctors were wrong as to the EXACT location of Kennedy's wound came from close examination of their statements. It's clear they are describing the large wound seen in the autopsy photos, but slightly further to the back. Some of them placed it in a part of the skull they never even saw. If they'd seen a small entrance on the forehead or temple and a large exit on the back of the head, I would believe there'd been a shot from the front. But they failed to see this purported entrance, even though it was right in front of their face. As a consequence, one should rightly conclude it didn't exist.

IMO, the mainstream media and the powers that be would like nothing better than conspiracy theorists to go around all day saying everything's a lie and everyone's a xxxx. That makes it easy to dismiss you. In my new video, I attempt to show how specific lies were perpetrated. In order to show this, one must first accept that something is true. Once one accepts that the back wound really was 14 cm from tip of the right mastoid process, as measured at autopsy, for example, one can PROVE that the Rydberg drawings were bogus from the beginning, and that the Justice Department helped perpetuate this fraud. If one holds that everything was a lie, however, one can't see when the lies began and put them in their proper historical context. The effect is to cloud what could otherwise be clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[

But the autopsy photos of A brain were taken afterward at Bethesda Gil.

I guess that's part of chain of events that makes the "autopsy" and "evidence"--like the photos--so clearly bogus.

And it's hard to build a hypothesis around bogus evidence...

Myra: I'm glad you said A brain. I sense you have a good grasp of what happened. Both Paul O'Connor and Jerrol Custer told David Lifton that the skull was empty when the body arrived at Bethesda. Custer asked why he was taking X-Rays of an empty skull and he was told that it wasn't his concern.

I know this'll sound out and out wacky Gil...'cause it is, but I've often wondered if Officer Tipton was killed for spare body parts. They probably didn't take possession of his body though, like they did the President's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

We agree that F8 is of the back of Kennedy's head. I don't think one can say for sure one way or the other if the tear in the scalp at the front of the head represents an entrance or not. I don't think it is an entrance. As far as Crenshaw, he saw Kennedy for but a second and failed to write about his experiences for many years. He is only slightly more credible than Grossman.

...

Pat! Is it possible that a compassionate guy like you really can't see that speaking out would have been the end of Dr Crenshaw's young career and possibly life? He was very clear about this fear in his book, which I think you read. And in fact when he did speak out he was viciously attacked by his peers in JAMA and he successfully sued them over it.

This guy, who has some kind of website on the assassination, describes it well:

"Dr. Charles Crenshaw saw President Kennedy at Parkland Hospital. In 1992 he wrote a book, JFK: Conspiracy of Silence, which related his memories of November 22, 1963, and his theories on the assassination. After its publication, he was nearly crucified. Articles were printed in the Journal of the American Medical Association suggesting he was a xxxx—that he’d never even seen Kennedy—and so on. After winning a lawsuit against JAMA, he corrected some minor errors in his book, and updated his story to include a section on the lawsuit."

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter20:conclusionsandconfusions:

:)

And I find it very unlikely that the civilian Parkland doctors could have been disoriented so they all described the head wound in the wrong place. Whereas nothing at Bethesda was credible, largely 'cause the Drs were military and followed orders. I guess it's obvious what the orders were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

We agree that F8 is of the back of Kennedy's head. I don't think one can say for sure one way or the other if the tear in the scalp at the front of the head represents an entrance or not. I don't think it is an entrance. As far as Crenshaw, he saw Kennedy for but a second and failed to write about his experiences for many years. He is only slightly more credible than Grossman.

...

Pat! Is it possible that a compassionate guy like you really can't see that speaking out would have been the end of Dr Crenshaw's young career and possibly life? He was very clear about this fear in his book, which I think you read. And in fact when he did speak out he was viciously attacked by his peers in JAMA and he successfully sued them over it.

This guy, who has some kind of website on the assassination, describes it well:

"Dr. Charles Crenshaw saw President Kennedy at Parkland Hospital. In 1992 he wrote a book, JFK: Conspiracy of Silence, which related his memories of November 22, 1963, and his theories on the assassination. After its publication, he was nearly crucified. Articles were printed in the Journal of the American Medical Association suggesting he was a xxxx—that he’d never even seen Kennedy—and so on. After winning a lawsuit against JAMA, he corrected some minor errors in his book, and updated his story to include a section on the lawsuit."

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter20:conclusionsandconfusions:

:)

And I find it very unlikely that the civilian Parkland doctors could have been disoriented so they all described the head wound in the wrong place. Whereas nothing at Bethesda was credible, largely 'cause the Drs were military and followed orders. I guess it's obvious what the orders were.

To be clear, I don't believe Dr. Crenshaw lied. In sorting through the statements of witnesses, one needs to assess how likely they would be to have a clear memory of the event described. One needs to take into account how long they were exposed to the images they describe and how long after the event it had been when their recollections were recorded. Dr. Crenshaw's first book was written with the help of conspiracy theorists many years after the events described. By his own admission he only saw Kennedy for a moment. As a result, his recollections are not very credible. Beverly Oliver, even if she is who she says she is, is not very credible as well. In order to establish a reasonable scenario, IMO, one can't simply pick some latter-day statements that fit one's theory. One has to find statements as close to the event as possible, with as little input from the outside world as possible.

Back of the head theorists most always say they're going by the earliest descriptions of Kennedy's wounds, but they most always ignore Newman and Zapruder. Quite often they misrepresent Burkley and use Kilduff's statement to insinuate Burkley saw the small entrance wound of their desires. They ignore the more logical conclusion that Burkley saw only one head wound at Parkland and that this was by the temple.

As far as the doctors screwing up the wound location, that is most probably what happened. Only a few of them got a good look at it. The rest all took their cue based on what they'd heard afterwards. When one considers that Kennedy's feet were up in the air and that the top of his head was where the back of his head would most normally be located, it's easy to see how a mistake could be made. My mother, sister, brother, and sister-in-law are all long-time medical professionals, with over a hundred years combined experience. When I tell them that people scoff when I tell them that the doctors most logically screwed up, they LAUGH. It seems that some people are as reluctant to believe an emergency team that doesn't take notes could make a mistake regarding a wound's location as others are to believe that the government would lie. Even though their scenario--where the doctors didn't make a mistake--entails that they made an even BIGGER mistake by not noticing an exploding bullet's entrance wound on Kennedy's forehead or right temple. Go figure.

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...