Pat Speer Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 (edited) 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. As a result, I would like for you (a supposedly non-theorist who constantly attacks people who doubt the sincerity and competence of those involved in the official investigation) to explain the following: 1. No one seeing the small entrance wound at the back of Kennedy's head at the autopsy ever identified the red oval as the wound observed at autopsy. (Dr. Humes doesn't count as he was pressured into going along with what the HSCA wanted him to say and then immediately changed back.) Do you think they were all lying? Or mistaken, and not nearly as skilled at photo interpretation as yourself? 2. The red oval is on the parietal bone, not the occipital bone, where the wound identified at autopsy was reportedly located. Were the doctors lying? Or unaware of basic anatomy? 3. The red oval is 4 inches--almost the entire height of the back of the head--away from where the wound identified at autopsy was reportedly located. Were the doctors lying? Or so incompetent they couldn't tell the bottom of the skull from the top of the skull? 4. While the red oval is slightly oval, it is nowhere near the 15 by 6 mm (a 2 1/2 to 1 ratio) of the wound identified at autopsy. Were the doctors lying? Or so incompetent they couldn't even measure the size of a gunshot wound? 5. The wound identified at autopsy was spotted in the back of the head photo--TWICE--by the autopsy doctors...in reports written with the help of the Justice Department, prior to the release of Tink Thompson's Six Seconds in Dallas. Thompson's book demonstrated the unlikelihood of a bullet's entering low on the back of the head and exiting high on the head. This helped lead to the creation of a secret panel, which MIRACULOUSLY "discovered" that the bullet actually entered high on the head. Were the autopsy doctors lying when they said the back of the head photo showed the bullet entrance observed at autopsy? Or just so incompetent that they couldn't tell the difference? 6. The radiologist "discovering" that the bullet really entered high on the head provided measurements for this wound that have not been confirmed by anyone to subsequently view the photos and x-rays. It would appear, to some who think about such things, that he was either making stuff up or stretching the truth to "sell" that the red oval really was a bullet entrance. Was he lying? Or were the radiologists to follow simply not as skilled as he? 7. A close colleague to this radiologist was brought in as a consultant to the Rockefeller Commission, and he told them that the autopsy photos and x-rays supported that the bullet entered in the location determined at autopsy...on the occipital bone. Was he lying? Or was he too so incompetent that he too couldn't tell the occipital bone from the parietal bone? 8. Over the past two decades those viewing the autopsy photos and x-rays have almost unanimously come away with the impression a bullet entered in the location described at autopsy, and not high on the head in the cowlick, at the location of the red oval. Are these doctors and "experts", including single-assassin theorists like Larry Sturdivan, Chad Zimmerman, and Dr. Peter Cummings, lying? Or just mistaken, and not nearly as skilled as you in photo interpretation? Your response appreciated. Edited June 10, 2015 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 (edited) 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... 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. More "BOH" discussion: jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/boh.html Edited June 10, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 DVP, Who took the color photo in question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Jon, as far as I know, it was taken by John Stringer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 To argue over a faked photo like it can tell us anything (other than its being faked) seems kind of silly (to borrow a favorite DVD adjective). But carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Has John Stringer ever said he took the photo in question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 (edited) Has John Stringer ever said he took the photo in question? I'm not sure, Jon. But there's this from Vince Bugliosi's book.... "Only four people in the autopsy room [had a close-up view of the president's head], the three autopsy surgeons and John Stringer, the chief medical photographer for the navy at the autopsy who took the only photographs of the president's head. When I spoke to Stringer [by telephone on September 21, 2000], he said there was "no question" in his mind that the "large exit wound in the president's head was to the right side of his head, above the right ear." And in an ARRB interview on April 8, 1996, Stringer said, "There was a fist-sized hole in the right side of his head above his ear." Though...Stringer's recollection of matters is questionable, he said he remembers this very clearly. When I asked him if there was any large defect to the rear of the president's head, he said, "No. All there was was a small entrance wound to the back of the president's head. During the autopsy, Dr. Humes pointed out this entrance wound to everyone."" -- Pages 409-410 of Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" ---------------------------- And there's also this.... "Not only do the autopsy photos and X-rays definitively show that the entrance wound is in the upper part of the president's skull, but they show a bullet track (deposit of small metal fragments as the bullet proceeded forward) only in the upper portion of the skull. Additionally, if the bullet had entered the president's skull at the lower point the autopsy surgeons said it did, there would have been damage to the cerebellum, the lower part of the brain, which there was not. Dr. Baden testified that his forensic pathology panel "did not see any photographic or X-ray evidence...indicating any injury of the brain other than the extensive damage to the right upper part of the brain, consistent with the upper track which the panel agrees to." In concluding that the autopsy surgeons were wrong about the precise location of the entrance wound (as described in the autopsy report), the HSCA also noted that photographs show the lower area of the president's brain to be "virtually intact"—an impossibility had the bullet entered the skull as low as the three autopsy pathologists contend." -- Page 395 of "Reclaiming History" Also See: http://www.maryferrell.org/pages/ARRB_Medical_Interviews.html The above link includes a July 1996 interview with autopsy photographer John Stringer. Edited June 10, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted June 11, 2015 Author Share Posted June 11, 2015 Has John Stringer ever said he took the photo in question? Yes, John Stringer readily identified the back of the head photos as photos taken by him on 11-22-63. When interviewed by the ARRB, however, he had a problem with the brain photos. He was 78 at the time, and had never distanced himself from the brain photos prior to that time, despite having been shown them at least twice before. Seeing as he had no recollection of being shown the photos in the 70's, moreover, it seems possible his memory was not all that clear. While it might seem a bit low to mention someone's age when discussing their memory, it's a sad fact of life that people's memories in general are not very reliable, and that old people's memories are even less reliable. And it's also a fact that clarity of memory has no correlation with accuracy of memory. As a result, when an old person tells you they remember blank and they remember it like it was yesterday, you can feel fairly certain that what they're remembering is not nearly as accurate as they would like you to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted June 11, 2015 Author Share Posted June 11, 2015 Nice dodge, David. I ask you if you think the autopsy doctors were lying when they said they saw an entrance wound in the occipital bone in the photo, and you respond by saying the red oval resembles a bullet hole to you, so, heck, it's gotta be THE bullet hole seen by the doctors...even though they repeatedly specified it was not. Just because YOU refuse to see something doesn't mean it's not there. Even if one should dispute that what I suspect is the bullet entrance is the bullet entrance, there is no reason whatsoever to believe the bullet entrance isn't covered by the splash of brain mater low on the head. I mean, that brain matter must have leaked out from somewhere. As a result, that location is a million times more likely to have been the bullet hole discovered at autopsy than a red splotch of blood...found four inches away from the location of the wound discovered at autopsy, with entirely different proportions, and on an entirely different bone... Let's make an analogy. There is a photograph of a wooden floor. Somewhere on this floor there is a trap door. YOU think you see it in the photo by the front door. But the notes of the carpenter say it is across the floor by the window, and every person to ever see the door in person says "Oh yeah, it was right there by the window" and "By the way, what you think is a door is no door." And yet you say "But it looks like a door!" and that therefore they all must be crazy or liars or something, because, gosh darn it, there's just no way you could be mistaken, right? Except you could be. And are. There's a reason those visiting the archives have started abandoning the "cowlick" entry, and it's not because of me. It's because the first generation prints of the photos and x-rays make it even more clear than I can that the red oval is not an actual bullet hole. And, oh yeah, there's also this. Dr. Finck arrived late, after the brain had been removed. And yet he claimed he'd studied the entrance wound on the back of the skull. Well, David, how in the heck could have done this if the entrance wound was in the location of the red spot? Do you think that part of the skull remained intact when they removed the brain? Please answer the questions... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 (edited) And yet he claimed he'd studied the entrance wound on the back of the skull. Well, David, how in the heck could [he] have done this if the entrance wound was in the location of the red spot? Do you think that part of the skull remained intact when they removed the brain? Obviously so, if he examined the entrance wound. Because the entrance wound is so obviously high on the head--near the cowlick. And what about this?..... "In concluding that the autopsy surgeons were wrong about the precise location of the entrance wound (as described in the autopsy report), the HSCA also noted that photographs show the lower area of the president's brain to be "virtually intact"—an impossibility had the bullet entered the skull as low as the three autopsy pathologists contend." -- Page 395 of "Reclaiming History" And let me remind Pat of the Clark Panel "100mm. above the EOP" stuff he is forced to ignore..... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-1968-clark-panel-report.html And the garbage about the HSCA licking the bootstraps of Fisher's Clark Panel just so that Baden & Co. wouldn't have to disagree with the Almighty Dr. Fisher in public is, as I say, garbage. The two panels were independent panels (Clark & HSCA FPP). One wasn't required to bow down to the other. Such a notion is preposterous. IOW, just one more CT myth to add to the sky-high stack of myths that never die in this case. Edited June 11, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 (edited) deleted Edited June 11, 2015 by Ron Ecker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 "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" Well, there you go again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Pat Speer: "Yes, John Stringer readily identified the back of the head photos as photos taken by him on 11-22-63. When interviewed by the ARRB, however, he had a problem with the brain photos. He was 78 at the time, and had never distanced himself from the brain photos prior to that time, despite having been shown them at least twice before. Seeing as he had no recollection of being shown the photos in the 70's, moreover, it seems possible his memory was not all that clear." Stringer told David Lifton in 1972 that the main damage to the skull was "in the back," it was "in the occipital, in the neck there, up above the neck" (Best Evidence, p. 516). I assume that in 1972 Stringer's memory was still pretty clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Do others see what looks to be a dryer area of K's hair down below the larger patch of wettish scalp that might or might not be being held in place by the hand there...? kind of a line of demarcation along the lower part of his scalp? is that too obvious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 (edited) This whole topic, of course, is only an academic one in the first place. Because even if by some miraculous act of God or prestidigitation the bullet hole of entry in President Kennedy's cranium was located low on his head, instead of high on his head as the photographs amply illustrate, it wouldn't change the status of Lee Harvey Oswald's lone guilt one solitary bit. Because either entry site on JFK's head is still perfectly consistent with a conclusion of Oswald shooting the President from the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building.Back to Vince for a moment...."Is it possible we are talking about two separate wounds to the back of the head? No. All seventeen pathologists said there was only one gunshot wound to the back of the president's head. So, by definition, we have to be talking about the same wound. Moreover, the fourteen pathologists who followed the three autopsy surgeons were able to demonstrate that the wound they found was the same wound (same dimensions) the autopsy surgeons described in their report." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 395 of "Reclaiming History" Edited June 12, 2015 by David Von Pein 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