Is This The Bullet Entrance on the Skull?

[Pat Speer]

I've been doing a lot of work on the so-called "mystery photo" of late, and have lightened up the dark section of the photos, and morphed them together. (Yes, there are two of them.) This has led me to some surprising conclusions.

But, first things first. I have long assumed the gash apparent on the gif file below is the 15 by 6 entrance measured at autopsy. (This gash was circled by the late Jack White on the first of the images in the gif.) So, gun experts, hunters, rock throwers, etc, what do you think? Does this look like a bullet entrance along the back of the head, as described by the autopsy doctors? Or merely "congealed blood", as claimed by the only single-assassin theorist to address this issue, Dr. Chad Zimmerman? Or is it something else entirely?

Edited August 19, 2015 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

Really? No one has any thoughts as to whether or not this is a bullet wound?

Well, here's some context. The area above is on the left below.

Edited August 20, 2015 by Pat Speer

[Jon G. Tidd]

Two comments:

[1] The photo appears to show a shaved head. Did the autopsists shave JFK's head pretty completely?

[2] Humes told the W.C. that he found the rear skull entry only when a bone fragment brought into the autopsy room was fitted into the back of the skull, completing a circular defect, which had interior beveling.

Pat, what do you think of this Humes testimony? I've always regarded Humes as untrustworthy -- my biggest disappointment of the whole JFK matter.

[Pat Speer]

Two comments:

[1] The photo appears to show a shaved head. Did the autopsists shave JFK's head pretty completely?

[2] Humes told the W.C. that he found the rear skull entry only when a bone fragment brought into the autopsy room was fitted into the back of the skull, completing a circular defect, which had interior beveling.

Pat, what do you think of this Humes testimony? I've always regarded Humes as untrustworthy -- my biggest disappointment of the whole JFK matter.

Kennedy's head was not shaved. The photo shows the scalp reflected (peeled from the skull and folded back over) either to the left side of the head, if the skull is on its right side, or over the face, if the skull is on its back.

The doctors found the small entrance on the back of the head during the earliest stages of the autopsy, and photographed it through the hair. Humes testified that they were able to identify the large defect as an exit after studying the beveling on the large triangular fragment. The bit about using a large skull fragment to complete the entrance wound came from Dr. Boswell, much later. I believe he was simply confusing the story put out by the HSCA--that they'd matched up the exit beveling on the large fragment with a semi-circular beveled exit on the intact skull--and that he then transposed the HSCA's fabrication into a brand new story about the entrance. There is no record of the doctors' matching up any defect on a fragment with a defect on the intact skull in the original autopsy report, nor in their original testimony. It didn't happen, IMO.

As far as Humes, my take is that he mostly told the truth, but that he was manipulated into telling some fibs, about the brain and the back wound and then later about the head wound. This made him quite angry, IMO, not so much that he was forced to lie but that he was forced to take the heat for the lies pushed by others. It upset him to no end, IMO, that people like Baden made out that he was some stupid incompetent, who couldn't tell the top of the head from the bottom of the head.

But Humes couldn't fight back without blowing the whistle on the whole scam. So he mostly kept his silence.

Edited August 20, 2015 by Pat Speer

[Robert Prudhomme]

Walks like an LN, talks like an LN.......

[Pat Speer]

You couldn't be more wrong, Robert. This thread is quite possibly the most dangerous thread ever started on this forum. If people come to agree that that's a bullet hole, then it's game, set, and pretty much match. It would mean that the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel and Clark Panel were wrong, and that those pushing the single-assassin theory under the belief it's backed up by the "experts" (which is pretty much everyone in academia and the media) has built their castle on quicksand. They would then be forced to embrace the original statements of the doctors, at which point the statements of the HSCA Pathology Panel--including that the brain photos absolutely rule out a bullet entering near the EOP's exiting from the top of the head--could be presented against that scenario.

In short, it would force a re-opening of the case among those currently hunkered down in the Oswald-did-it bunker.

But no, let's have none of that. Let's make snarky and ridiculously ill-informed comments about someone who's actually moved the case forward. Brilliant.

Edited August 21, 2015 by Pat Speer

[James DiEugenio]

Pat:

Before I answer your question, I would like to ask a question.

What the heck is this photo anyway?

I have heard so many different takes on it, that I cannot keep them straight.

To this day, some experts cannot explain what it is or why the camera was oriented like that.

Was the point to make it as unrecognizable as possible? Because if that was it, they succeeded.

[Robert Prudhomme]

You couldn't be more wrong, Robert. This thread is quite possibly the most dangerous thread ever started on this forum. If people come to agree that that's a bullet hole, then it's game, set, and pretty much match. It would mean that the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel and Clark Panel were wrong, and that those pushing the single-assassin theory under the belief it's backed up by the "experts" (which is pretty much everyone in academia and the media) has built their castle on quicksand. They would then be forced to embrace the original statements of the doctors, at which point the statements of the HSCA Pathology Panel--including that the brain photos absolutely rule out a bullet entering near the EOP's exiting from the top of the head--could be presented against that scenario.

In short, it would force a re-opening of the case among those currently hunkered down in the Oswald-did-it bunker.

But no, let's have none of that. Let's make snarky and ridiculously ill-informed comments about someone who's actually moved the case forward. Brilliant.

Pat

The most dangerous evidence to both the WC AND the HSCA was the testimony of doctors stating there was a large gaping wound in the occipital-parietal region of JFK's skull; a wound not shown in the back of head photo. This wound was corroborated by the suppressed testimony of Bethesda witnesses PLUS the evaluation by a pathologist at Methodist Hospital in Dallas of the Harper Fragment as being occipital bone.

But, of course, ALL of these witnesses were high on LSD that day and suffering from the same hallucination, right, Pat?

While you lower the rear wound to the original EOP position, you still maintain a shot from the rear, and no shot from the front. This is a type of disinformation intended to make readers think a lone shot from the rear is a possibility, priming them for others such as DVP to come in and finish off the propaganda lessons.

[Chris Newton]

Was the point to make it as unrecognizable as possible? Because if that was it, they succeeded.

I'm with Jim on this one. I need some visual aids because I can't make heads or tails of this. Could someone have cropped it for obfuscation purposes?

[Robert Prudhomme]

Two comments:

[1] The photo appears to show a shaved head. Did the autopsists shave JFK's head pretty completely?

[2] Humes told the W.C. that he found the rear skull entry only when a bone fragment brought into the autopsy room was fitted into the back of the skull, completing a circular defect, which had interior beveling.

Pat, what do you think of this Humes testimony? I've always regarded Humes as untrustworthy -- my biggest disappointment of the whole JFK matter.

Kennedy's head was not shaved. The photo shows the scalp reflected (peeled from the skull and folded back over) either to the left side of the head, if the skull is on its right side, or over the face, if the skull is on its back.

The doctors found the small entrance on the back of the head during the earliest stages of the autopsy, and photographed it through the hair. Humes testified that they were able to identify the large defect as an exit after studying the beveling on the large triangular fragment. The bit about using a large skull fragment to complete the entrance wound came from Dr. Boswell, much later. I believe he was simply confusing the story put out by the HSCA--that they'd matched up the exit beveling on the large fragment with a semi-circular beveled exit on the intact skull--and that he then transposed the HSCA's fabrication into a brand new story about the entrance. There is no record of the doctors' matching up any defect on a fragment with a defect on the intact skull in the original autopsy report, nor in their original testimony. It didn't happen, IMO.

As far as Humes, my take is that he mostly told the truth, but that he was manipulated into telling some fibs, about the brain and the back wound and then later about the head wound. This made him quite angry, IMO, not so much that he was forced to lie but that he was forced to take the heat for the lies pushed by others. It upset him to no end, IMO, that people like Baden made out that he was some stupid incompetent, who couldn't tell the top of the head from the bottom of the head.

But Humes couldn't fight back without blowing the whistle on the whole scam. So he mostly kept his silence.

I find it a bit difficult to believe that Humes examined the Harper Fragment and fit it into JFK's skull during the autopsy. According to an interview with Bill Harper, he went to Dealey Plaza the day AFTER the assassination, and found the fragment of human skull while looking for bullet fragments in the grass on the south side of Elm St. He took this 3 inch fragment to a pathologist at Methodist Hospital in Dallas who identified it as being from the rear part of a human skull in the upper occipital region. Bethesda would have received this fragment almost a day after the completion of the autopsy.

Considering that Clint Hill testified to seeing the back of JFK's head lying on the rear seat of the limo, I have to ask, how many fragments of JFK's skull went missing in Dealey Plaza that day?

Edited August 21, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Robert Prudhomme]

Was the point to make it as unrecognizable as possible? Because if that was it, they succeeded.

I'm with Jim on this one. I need some visual aids because I can't make heads or tails of this. Could someone have cropped it for obfuscation purposes?

Oh, no, Chris, they would never do anything like that! >sarcasm off<

[Pat Speer]

Pat:

Before I answer your question, I would like to ask a question.

What the heck is this photo anyway?

I have heard so many different takes on it, that I cannot keep them straight.

To this day, some experts cannot explain what it is or why the camera was oriented like that.

Was the point to make it as unrecognizable as possible? Because if that was it, they succeeded.

On November 1, 1966, on a list of the photos prepared for the National Archives, Dr.s Humes and Boswell described the black and white versions of the "mystery" photo as "depicting missile wound over entrance in posterior skull, following reflection of the scalp" and the color transparencies of this image as depicting a "missile wound in posterior skull, with scalp reflected." On November 10, 1966, moreover, Dr.s Humes and Boswell, along with autopsy radiologist John Ebersole and autopsy photographer John Stringer, signed a version of this report prepared by the Justice Department that changed these words a wee bit, quite possibly as a result of a typo. This report described the black and white photos as depicting a "missile wound of entrance in posterior skull, following reflection of scalp.” The "over" had been changed to "of" and "the scalp" had been changed to simply "scalp". The color transparencies of this image, not surprisingly, bore the same description as the November 1, inventory.

So, the doctors, accompanied by radiologist Ebersole and photographer Stringer, when writing an inventory list for the archives, initially claimed this photo showed the entrance wound on the back of the head.

The Clark Panel later claimed it showed the forehead. And the HSCA did them one better and claimed it showed an exit near the forehead by the coronal suture.

I feel certain, however, that the initial inventory was correct. For a number of reasons... within this inventory the doctors claimed the back wound was on the back, NOT on the back of the neck as they'd claimed both in their Warren Commission testimony, and in the weeks and months following their inspection for the archives. We have reason to believe, then, that the inventory was the real deal (outside the Justice Department's last minute addition that no photos were missing).

That this inventory was a problem is confirmed, moreover, by what happened next. The doctors were called back a few months later to write a new report, in which they confirmed the accuracy of the Rydberg drawings for CBS. They fought with the justice department over this report, but eventually relented. And that still wasn't good enough. The justice department then pressured Boswell into writing them a letter telling them they should have an independent panel double-check their findings. The justice department then put together a secret panel to do just that, but with the additional instruction that they were supposed to help refute the junk in Tink Thompson's book (which made much of the fact the low entrance wound was incompatible with a blow-out wound on the top of the head). The findings of this panel were then sealed for a year, only to be released at the beginning of Jim Garrison's trial of Clay Shaw. The timing of this release, moreover, derailed Garrison's attempts at getting Wecht access to the autopsy materials, so he could testify at the trial. So what were the findings? That the photos of the back of the head with the hair showed an entrance wound at the top of the head, 4 inches higher than determined at autopsy. That the x-rays confirmed an entrance wound in this location. That the photos with the reflected scalp showed forehead, and not the posterior skull. And that the back wound was well above the throat wound, and supported the single-bullet theory. In short, the Clark Panel was a total scam.

In any event, someone within the Justice Department knew the 1966 inventory and 1967 reports written by the autopsy doctors would cause an uproar if released. So, mere days before the end of the Johnson Administration, Justice Department official Frank Wozencraft--from the office of legal counsel, and thus a lawyer personally beholden to Johnson--ordered the archives to refuse access to anyone seeking to read the 1966 inventory and 1967 report under the completely made up grounds that any description of the president's wounds in a government report was considered private as per the government's agreement with the Kennedy family. (This was a flat-out lie. The agreement with the Kennedy family had no such clause.)

As a result, these documents didn't surface for years. '73 or '74, after LBJ was dead.

Edited August 21, 2015 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

You couldn't be more wrong, Robert. This thread is quite possibly the most dangerous thread ever started on this forum. If people come to agree that that's a bullet hole, then it's game, set, and pretty much match. It would mean that the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel and Clark Panel were wrong, and that those pushing the single-assassin theory under the belief it's backed up by the "experts" (which is pretty much everyone in academia and the media) has built their castle on quicksand. They would then be forced to embrace the original statements of the doctors, at which point the statements of the HSCA Pathology Panel--including that the brain photos absolutely rule out a bullet entering near the EOP's exiting from the top of the head--could be presented against that scenario.

In short, it would force a re-opening of the case among those currently hunkered down in the Oswald-did-it bunker.

But no, let's have none of that. Let's make snarky and ridiculously ill-informed comments about someone who's actually moved the case forward. Brilliant.

Pat

The most dangerous evidence to both the WC AND the HSCA was the testimony of doctors stating there was a large gaping wound in the occipital-parietal region of JFK's skull; a wound not shown in the back of head photo. This wound was corroborated by the suppressed testimony of Bethesda witnesses PLUS the evaluation by a pathologist at Methodist Hospital in Dallas of the Harper Fragment as being occipital bone.

But, of course, ALL of these witnesses were high on LSD that day and suffering from the same hallucination, right, Pat?

While you lower the rear wound to the original EOP position, you still maintain a shot from the rear, and no shot from the front. This is a type of disinformation intended to make readers think a lone shot from the rear is a possibility, priming them for others such as DVP to come in and finish off the propaganda lessons.

I'm not lowering anything. The entrance wound on the back of Kennedy's head was by the EOP. Everyone who saw an entrance wound on the back of Kennedy's head said it was by the EOP. Such a wound is incompatible with the single-assassin conclusion. Which is why the government made it go away.

As far as the Parkland witnesses, that's a separate issue which I have discussed in detail elsewhere. IF the body AND photos AND x-rays AND Zapruder film were altered to hide the true nature of Kennedy's wounds, as some believe, it does not change the indisputable historical fact that the government moved the entrance wound on the back of Kennedy's head to a more convenient location once the wound described in the autopsy report was found to be at odds with the single-assassin conclusion. And that they did so without any support from those actually viewing the body!

IF this was ever explored on Nat Geo, or ABC, the 30-40 percent supporting that Oswald acted alone would dwindle down to 10 percent, IMO.

[James DiEugenio]

Ok, if its taken at an angle to the table, where is the camera, above or below the table? And in what position is the corpse?

Is it lying on its stomach or its back?

If its on its stomach, is someone lifting the head up?

And why that bizarre angle? You can't orient anything with it.

What does this mean: depicting missile wound over entrance in posterior skull,

Is he saying there are two wounds in the rear of the skull?

Edited August 21, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Pat Speer]

Two comments:

[1] The photo appears to show a shaved head. Did the autopsists shave JFK's head pretty completely?

[2] Humes told the W.C. that he found the rear skull entry only when a bone fragment brought into the autopsy room was fitted into the back of the skull, completing a circular defect, which had interior beveling.

Pat, what do you think of this Humes testimony? I've always regarded Humes as untrustworthy -- my biggest disappointment of the whole JFK matter.

Kennedy's head was not shaved. The photo shows the scalp reflected (peeled from the skull and folded back over) either to the left side of the head, if the skull is on its right side, or over the face, if the skull is on its back.

The doctors found the small entrance on the back of the head during the earliest stages of the autopsy, and photographed it through the hair. Humes testified that they were able to identify the large defect as an exit after studying the beveling on the large triangular fragment. The bit about using a large skull fragment to complete the entrance wound came from Dr. Boswell, much later. I believe he was simply confusing the story put out by the HSCA--that they'd matched up the exit beveling on the large fragment with a semi-circular beveled exit on the intact skull--and that he then transposed the HSCA's fabrication into a brand new story about the entrance. There is no record of the doctors' matching up any defect on a fragment with a defect on the intact skull in the original autopsy report, nor in their original testimony. It didn't happen, IMO.

As far as Humes, my take is that he mostly told the truth, but that he was manipulated into telling some fibs, about the brain and the back wound and then later about the head wound. This made him quite angry, IMO, not so much that he was forced to lie but that he was forced to take the heat for the lies pushed by others. It upset him to no end, IMO, that people like Baden made out that he was some stupid incompetent, who couldn't tell the top of the head from the bottom of the head.

But Humes couldn't fight back without blowing the whistle on the whole scam. So he mostly kept his silence.

I find it a bit difficult to believe that Humes examined the Harper Fragment and fit it into JFK's skull during the autopsy. According to an interview with Bill Harper, he went to Dealey Plaza the day AFTER the assassination, and found the fragment of human skull while looking for bullet fragments in the grass on the south side of Elm St. He took this 3 inch fragment to a pathologist at Methodist Hospital in Dallas who identified it as being from the rear part of a human skull in the upper occipital region. Bethesda would have received this fragment almost a day after the completion of the autopsy.

Considering that Clint Hill testified to seeing the back of JFK's head lying on the rear seat of the limo, I have to ask, how many fragments of JFK's skull went missing in Dealey Plaza that day?

Yikes. Humes never saw the Harper fragment. He never said he did. No one ever said he did. The largest fragment was not the Harper fragment, but the fragment discovered on the floor of the limo by Sam Kinney.

And double yikes. Cairns said he thought the Harper fragment was low occipital, near the base of the skull, and not upper occipital, where some of the Parkland witnesses placed the large head wound. Cairns inspected the fragment, moreover, after news reports had claimed the wound was on the back of the head. So he was pushed in that direction and was agreeing with what he thought was the official story, as strange as that may sound today.

And triple yikes. The Harper fragment never made it to Bethesda. Humes was never even told of its existence. The FBI, apparently, gave it to Dr. Burkley, who is presumed to have either destroyed it or to have given it to Robert Kennedy.