"Occipital" vs. "Frontal"

[David Von Pein]

BEN HOLMES SAID:

Where's the occipital located?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

"Occipital" is in the back of the head....as I already said several days ago. (Didn't you pay attention, or even notice the chart/diagram I posted which shows the occipital?)

And, no, the "prosectors" did NOT say there was a big hole in the occipital of JFK's head. The exit wound was "chiefly parietal", with the wounded area extending only "somewhat" into the temporal and occipital regions.

But the autopsy doctors, as I have emphasized dozens of times previously, could not have been talking about MISSING BONE OR SCALP in the "occipital" in that autopsy report verbiage. We KNOW they weren't referring SPECIFICALLY to any MISSING "occipital" bone or scalp, because the photos show no missing bone or scalp in the occipital.

Could that paragraph of the autopsy report have been better worded? Yes, I think it could have been. They could have been more precise as to EXACTLY where the "absence of scalp and bone" was located, instead of making it SEEM as though they were talking about ALL THREE "regions" (occipital, temporal, and parietal) when they said "in this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone".

That language -- "in this region" -- has allowed the conspiracy hobbyists like Ben Holmes to allege that there really was **MISSING OCCIPITAL BONE** in John Kennedy's head---when we know from the autopsy photographs and X-rays that there was no MISSING bone or scalp anywhere in the occipital region of JFK's cranium [see pictures below].




BEN HOLMES SAID:

As I've pointed out before, AND YOU'VE REFUSED TO ADDRESS AT ALL... a wound can be ENTIRELY in the parietal, yet still be in the back of the head.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, that's true. But let's see where Dr. Humes placed the large exit wound....

"The exit wound was a large irregular wound to the front and right side of the President's head." -- Dr. James J. Humes; 1967

https://app.box.com/s/9r44k0y7wx976fz74paaruvyuk6vya89





BEN HOLMES SAID:

If a wound extends, even to the width of a hair, into the occipital - how can the wound *NOT* be in the back of the head?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I already stated my position in a previous post, Ben. I said the "somewhat" paragraph could have been written in a clearer manner, with more detailed emphasis put on exactly what PART of "this region" the doctors were referring to (among the three areas included in "this region").

But, as I said, the photos PROVE they could not be talking about "occipital" in that paragraph about "absence of scalp and bone".


BEN HOLMES SAID:

You know... ***YOU KNOW*** ... that the prosectors didn't see the photos until several years *AFTER* they'd written & signed the Autopsy Report.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But what difference does it make WHEN the autopsy doctors first saw the photos? They were RIGHT THERE in the morgue with the body of JFK during the autopsy. Why would they need PICTURES when they had their eyes on the BODY itself?

Yes, I suppose it would have been useful if Dr. Humes could have had the photos right there with him when he wrote the final draft of the report on November 24, but his notes and his memory should certainly have provided enough information for him to write an accurate report.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Try to keep your mind on the *AUTOPSY REPORT*... it says something quite different... and you're either going to admit that it DIRECTLY CONFLICTS with the photos and X-rays -- or we'll know that you're not the honest person you claim to be.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, yes, it DOES conflict with the autopsy photos and X-rays. I think I made that plain in an earlier post last week also. (I recall admitting the "conflict", and I even used that word. So we're going over old admissions here, Ben.)

And just minutes ago I essentially admitted the "conflict" too when I said....

"Could that paragraph of the autopsy report have been better worded? Yes, I think it could have been. They could have been more precise as to EXACTLY where the "absence of scalp and bone" was located, instead of making it SEEM as though they were talking about ALL THREE "regions" (occipital, temporal, and parietal) when they said "in this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone". That language -- "in this region" -- has allowed the conspiracy hobbyists like Ben Holmes to allege that there really WAS **MISSING OCCIPITAL BONE** in John Kennedy's head---when we know from the autopsy photographs and X-rays that there was no MISSING bone or scalp anywhere in the occipital region of JFK's cranium." -- DVP

So, there's a "conflict". (Oh, the horror!)

What should I do now? Turn Oswald loose for lack of evidence?

Does every "conflict" in the JFK case HAVE to have sinister implications, Ben?


DALE H. HAYES, JR. SAID:

David, I have gone round and round with Ben on this issue - it is an absolute black hole with no end in sight. He is both incapable and UNWILLING to honestly interpret the autopsy statement about "chiefly parietal and somewhat occipital".

THIS is the best example of Ben's disingenuous manner of discussion and his dogged devotion to a conspiracy that he just can't prove. Ben is not honest and he's not smart - don't waste your time.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Excellent advice, Dale.

And there's also the OTHER piece of photographic evidence--the Zapruder Film--which totally corroborates those autopsy photos and X-rays that Ben Holmes surely must believe are completely fraudulent.

Here's a discussion I had with David Lifton about the "BOH" matter....


DAVID LIFTON SAID:

I do not understand how today, people can return to these accounts and reasonably claim that this or that doctor did not see what he said he did.

The notion that this is what the President's head looked like, at Bethesda, is--as far as I'm concerned--not just unlikely. It's simply absurd.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And yet we have THREE different forms of photographic proof that indicate the Parkland doctors were wrong --

1.) The autopsy photographs.
2.) The autopsy X-rays.
3.) The Zapruder Film.

Am I really supposed to believe that ALL of the above items are fakes, David, including Mr. Zapruder's home movie? And Mr. Zapruder's movie and camera, keep in mind, are items that were never out of Mr. Zapruder's sight from the time he filmed the assassination to the time the film was developed and processed. So is Abe Z. a part of a plot too? He'd almost HAVE to be in order to even BEGIN to believe that his film is a fake.

[...]

Also:

Mr. Lifton, can I get you to agree that if even one of the above photographic items is NOT a fake and a fraud [including the Zapruder Film], then President Kennedy definitely did NOT have a great-big hole in the back (occipital) area of his head?

Thank you.


DAVID LIFTON SAID:

David Von Pein,

You are so arrogant, and so utterly ill informed.

[...]

I played a role in creating this historical record, which you so glibly, arrogantly (and ignorantly) dismiss.


DVP SAID:

What reasonable person WOULDN'T dismiss your kooky ideas?

I mean, for Pete sake, you think JFK and Connally were struck by NO SHOTS FROM BEHIND. Talk about being "arrogant". Geesh. It really takes some arrogance to put that idiotic theory on the table at a JFK Forum filled with people who have studied this case for a long time.

And you think JFK's body was spirited off of Air Force One and his wounds were ALTERED BEFORE THE AUTOPSY. (Aren't you pleased I didn't use the word you hate--"stolen"?) Here again--it's a dumb theory. Simple as that. Not to mention--impossible.


DAVID LIFTON SAID:

The photographs of those who saw the President's head in Dallas completely contradict the color photograph you are displaying. Those doctors (and nurses) saw the back of the head and they said-in their reports, testimony, and when I interviewed them-that there was an avulsive wound at the back of the head.

The photograph you are using is also contradicted by the clear language of the Bethesda autopsy report, a report written by Dr. James Humes, the Director of the lab, and co-signed by Boswell and Finck. That report states that the large wound extended into the occipital area. But that does not appear in the color photograph you have posted. Do you really believe those three doctors-Humes, Finck and Boswell-were so incompetent that they could not properly describe where a large hole in the head was located-as well as where it was not?


DVP SAID:

I discuss the autopsy report's "somewhat into the occipital" language in the multi-part "BOH" [back Of Head] series posted at my website HERE. In those "BOH" discussions, I am battling mostly just one person--Mr. John A. Canal--who, ironically, believes that Lee Oswald fired all the shots, but Canal believes that Humes deliberately "under-reported" the amount of damage done to JFK's head.

[More battles with Lifton HERE.]


BEN HOLMES SAID:

As Davey admitted, the occipital IS IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD.

Therefore, the wound is in the back of the head, according to the Autopsy Report.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Only a rabid conspiracy believer could possibly manage to transform this description of President Kennedy's head (exit) wound....

"...a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions..." [Warren Report, Page 540]

....into a wound that is ENTIRELY in the occipital region of JFK's head.

And that's precisely what many CTers have magically attempted to do when they endorse this picture of the alleged wound location:



Do you think the above drawing is an accurate one, Ben?


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Can you point to anyplace in the autopsy report where Dr. Humes stated that the wound was to the right and *FRONT* of JFK's head?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It would appear that it was common practice not to utilize words like "back" or "front" in the official autopsy report to describe the location of wounds. They always seem to only refer to the medical terms for the locations, e.g., parietal, temporal, and occipital.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Well... let's see... you've admitted that *ALL* of the occipital is in the back of the head...

You've admitted that it's entirely possible to have a wound ENTIRELY in the parietal, yet still be in the back of the head...

Yet you still can't bring yourself to admit that the Autopsy Report CLEARLY—AND WITH *SPECIFIC* MEDICAL TERMINOLOGY—PLACES THE LARGE WOUND IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But I guess you think Humes is lying here, right Ben?


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Put it in medical terminology... let's compare it to the Autopsy Report.

My guess is that you'll do your best imitation of a squawking chicken before you state what this photo shows.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You think Humes is putting his hand over ANY part of his "Occipital" in the 1967 image above, Ben...is that it?


BEN HOLMES SAID:

You can't even admit just *what* bones are described by Dr. Humes' hand gesture... because the moment you do - YOU'VE ANSWERED YOUR OWN QUESTION. And you'd be agreeing with me. Embarrassing.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Certainly not occipital. That's for sure.

Embarrassing for you, isn't it Ben?


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Thus proving that you COMPLETELY understand just how weak your position is... You just keep running and running and running and running...


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I already admitted the "conflict", you silly little man. What ELSE do you want?

And what the hell am I supposed to do about such a conflict?

Should I assume the THREE hunks of photographic evidence have ALL been faked (autopsy photographs, autopsy X-rays, and the Zapruder Film)? Is that the leap I should make?

Or should I--just maybe--believe that the "somewhat into the occipital" language isn't quite as precise (or accurate) as it should have been?

When faced with that SAME conflict, Ben, what have YOU chosen to believe? ---- Fakery (in triplicate)? Or an autopsy report that isn't quite perfect?


BEN HOLMES SAID:

You've REPEATEDLY refused to specify what this "conflict" is.

You're a xxxx, Davey.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're the xxxx, Benny.

I definitely told you what I think the "conflict" is. HERE'S the Amazon post.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Simply tell everyone *WHAT* was in conflict...

Davey whimpers: "Are you totally insane? Read the post below. How many times do I have to say it?"

Just once, Davey... just once.

Here - since you're too yellow to say it yourself, allow me:

The BOH photo and the X-rays both contradict the Autopsy Report when it comes to the SPECIFIC LOCATION of the large head wound on JFK.

Now, *YOU* were afraid to say that...

So either *AGREE* publicly with that statement -- or run like a yellow dog again.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's not my fault you can't read.

But this sentence is grossly overstated and you know it....

"The BOH photo and the X-rays both contradict the Autopsy Report when it comes to the SPECIFIC LOCATION of the large head wound on JFK." -- B. Holmes

I don't fully agree with the above statement. There is only a partial conflict (or "contradiction"), and that's the "somewhat into the occipital" language that's used in the autopsy report.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

When I ask what *specifically* does the Autopsy Report, BOH photo, and X-rays conflict on... Why can't you simply say "the location of the large head wound".

See how simple that is? AND PROVABLY CORRECT!!!

You're a coward, Davey.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The ONLY "conflict", Ben, is with the word "occipital". You know it. And I know it. The REST of the paragraph in the autopsy report is perfectly accurate and not in "conflict" with the autopsy photos, X-rays, or Z-Film....and that's because there IS "an absence of scalp and bone" in the OTHER TWO areas of President Kennedy's head mentioned in the paragraph in question (i.e., the parietal area and "somewhat" into the temporal area).

Go back to the clinic, Ben. They're waiting for you.


BEN HOLMES SCREAMED:

YOU WANT TO CHERRY-PICK THE AUTOPSY REPORT!!!


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Everybody cherry-picks, Ben. LNers do it. CTers do it. Can't be helped. It's human nature and always will be. (And I already told you that same thing several times in the past.)

Plus....

Ben Holmes is a HUGE hypocrite when he tosses this statement up in my face....

"YOU WANT TO CHERRY-PICK THE AUTOPSY REPORT!!!" -- B. Holmes

....because YOU, Benny, will forever "cherry pick" the autopsy report. You LIKE the "somewhat into the occipital" verbiage (which is obviously inaccurate as far as an "absence of scalp and bone" is concerned, as the photos and X-rays AND Zapruder Film readily confirm for all time)....but you sure as heck HATE these THREE parts of that VERY SAME autopsy report [WCR, p.543], don't you Mr. Kettle?.....

"It is our opinion that the deceased died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high velocity projectiles fired by a person or persons unknown. The projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased."

and....

"The fatal missile entered the skull above and to the right of the external occipital protuberance."

and....

"The other missile...made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck."

So, as we can easily see via the above examples of things that Ben will completely disregard (or label as "lies"), Hypocrite Ben Holmes is a much more blatant and brazen "cherry picker" of JFK's autopsy report than I have ever been.


DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:

An "Occipital" Addendum....

Since we know without a doubt that there was no MISSING BONE OR SCALP in the "occipital" region of JFK's head, I'm wondering if Dr. Humes really meant to say "somewhat into the temporal and FRONTAL regions" when he wrote this paragraph of President Kennedy's autopsy report....

"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."

If the word "occipital" is replaced with the word "frontal" in the above paragraph, it becomes a much more accurate paragraph (based on the autopsy photographs and X-rays, plus a look at the Zapruder Film as well)....




I'll also provide the following excerpts from the 1996 ARRB testimony of two of JFK's autopsy surgeons, Dr. James Humes and Dr. J. Thornton Boswell, which is testimony that most certainly indicates that these two autopsy physicians KNEW that there was no missing bone or scalp in the OCCIPITAL portion of the President's head:


QUESTION -- "Just for any scalp lacerations, were there any tears over the occipital bone?"

DR. HUMES -- "No. No."

QUESTION -- "None whatsoever?"

DR. HUMES -- "No."

QUESTION -- "There were tears, however, over the temporal--"

DR. HUMES -- "Temporal and parietal."

----------------

QUESTION -- "Can you describe generally where there was any missing bone from the posterior portion, to the best of your recollection?"

DR. HUMES -- "There basically wasn't any. It was just a hole. Not a significant missing bone."

QUESTION -- "So a puncture hole--"

DR. HUMES -- "Puncture hole."

QUESTION -- "And no bone missing--"

DR. HUMES -- "No."

QUESTION -- "Anywhere in the occipital?"

DR. HUMES -- "No, no. Unless maybe--you know, these drawings are always strange. Unless the part of this wound extended that far back. I don't think it did, really. Most of it was parietal temporal."

----------------

DR. BOSWELL -- "This is what's missing here."

QUESTION -- "So you're pointing at what I would describe as the temporal and parietal bone on the right hemisphere?"

DR. BOSWELL -- "I guess that would--actually, that looks like frontal there, doesn't it? Frontal, temporal, and some parietal. But that's where this space is here."


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Now you finally admit that Dr. Humes *DID* write "occipital".


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

When did I ever deny that?

Answer -- Never.

Why on Earth would I deny that Dr. James Humes wrote a word that I can see for myself in the autopsy report?

I suspect he SHOULD have written "FRONTAL" there, however. And the Humes/Boswell testimony I cited above provides some good evidence that I'm correct in that assumption, with Dr. Boswell even using that very word -- "FRONTAL" -- to describe one of the missing areas of JFK's head as he looks at an X-ray during his ARRB session. And guess what word he DIDN'T use in that testimony? Answer -- "Occipital". ....

DR. BOSWELL -- "That looks like frontal there, doesn't it? Frontal, temporal, and some parietal. But that's where this space is here."


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Hey Davey!!! You've admitted that the Autopsy Report states that the large wound, devoid of scalp and bone, extended "somewhat" into the occipital... You've admitted that the occipital is in the BACK of the head... When are you going to retract your lie and admit that the prosectors put the wound in the back of the head?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Earth to Ben (again)----

There is NO MISSING SCALP OR BONE in JFK's occipital.

Sorry. But that's the way it is---regardless of the flawed language that we find in the autopsy report on WCR Page 540.


JOHN CORBETT SAID:

Based on what little we have seen of the photos and x-rays, I wouldn't be willing to go so far as to say Humes miswrote what he meant to say. I only know of the one photo of the BOH. My understanding is that the scalp was pulled up for that shot, so it may well have been concealing missing bone. If the drawings that were produced are accurate, so too is Humes' description of the defect.

It would be good from a historical standpoint if the full set of photos and x-rays were made public to clear up any confusion about the nature and extent of the wounds, but I don't expect that to happen in my lifetime. We will have to rely on the original AR, as well as the findngs of the review panels which looked at the autopsy materials to tell us what happened.


BROCK T. GEORGE SAID:

The level of fracturing was massive in JFK's skull and only so much can be told looking at the few relatively poor quality pictures of the body and X-Rays that are in the public domain. I also hope that wider access to the originals will be considered by the Kennedy family as JFK's immediate family members and close associates slowly die off and as the case slips back more and more to being of historical interest only.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But even though we Internet users have only seen some of the autopsy photos (none of which are the originals), there are many people who HAVE seen ALL of the ORIGINAL (higher-quality) photos and X-rays, such as Dr. Baden of the HSCA. And here's what Baden said....

"There was no defect or wound to the rear of Kennedy's head other than the entrance wound in the upper right part of his head." -- Dr. Michael Baden

In addition, the copies of the autopsy pictures and X-rays we DO have for Internet use are certainly good enough to answer this question:

Was there any "absence of scalp and bone" in the occipital area of JFK's head?

After looking at these images, it couldn't be more obvious that the answer to the question I just posed above is --- No.

Plus, a few years ago, John Fiorentino sent me a very high-quality black-and-white autopsy photo of the back of JFK's head. And in that picture, it's very clear that all of President Kennedy's scalp in the occipital is present and accounted for. No "occipital" scalp is missing whatsoever. I can see every individual hair on JFK's head in the occipital.

BTW, I'm not claiming there wasn't some DAMAGE done to the "OCCIPITAL" area of JFK's head. There most certainly IS occipital damage. We can easily see the fractures in the occipital bone in the X-ray. But what I'm emphasizing is that there was no MISSING (or "ABSENCE OF...") scalp or bone in the occipital area of Kennedy's head. And I think the autopsy pictures and X-rays prove that fact very clearly (even second- or third-generation photos).


BROCK T. GEORGE SAID:

I would even go so far as to say that even some *minor* missing scalp was possible that could fit Humes' description. Because even with a high quality BOH photo such as Fiorentino let DVP see, the possibility remains that a minor defect could have gone unobserved amongst JFK's thick hair.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But let's just consider the incredible DOUBLE hunk of photographic deception (not FAKERY, mind you, just ordinary, non-sinister DECEPTION) that we would have to swallow in order for there to be ANY missing "occipital" SCALP or SKULL BONE....

We'd have to believe that the less-than-perfect (but still pretty decent) "Internet" Fox copies of the autopsy pictures and X-rays just happen to NOT show--in tandem--ANY missing occipital bone or scalp, even though (per your suggested theory) there really is a certain amount of missing occipital BONE AND SCALP.

Such a double example of photo deception (or "misinterpretation" might be a better word) would, in my opinion, be truly remarkable---if not completely impossible....or improbable beyond belief.

Plus, we can really make it a TRIPLE batch of misinterpretation if we were to add the Zapruder Film to the photographic mix, because the Z-Film certainly doesn't show any missing occipital either.

In addition --- If we accept the "somewhat into the occipital" portion of the verbiage found in the autopsy report, we'd have to almost certainly conclude that a goodly-sized chunk of the "parietal" bone that extends into the BACK of the head was ALSO missing. And that's because in order for the 13-centimeter "large irregular defect" to actually have reached ANY occipital bone and scalp, that same 13-cm. wound would have HAD to have crossed into the PARIETAL bone that extends into the back of JFK's head as well.

But we know from those same autopsy photos and X-rays that there also is not a single bit of PARIETAL bone missing in the BACK part of Kennedy's head.

So I stand by my first post in this discussion --- i.e., Paragraph #6 of Page 3 of the autopsy report (WCR, page 540) is not an entirely accurate paragraph. The word "occipital" is inaccurate in that paragraph. It should probably say "Frontal" instead of "Occipital" in that particular paragraph.

Again --- "IMHO".


DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:

One more (important) thought on this "Occipital vs. Frontal" subject....

After viewing several of the photos and X-rays of President Kennedy's head, it's hard for me to believe that the autopsists would have failed to come to the conclusion that the large "absence of scalp and bone" on the right side of JFK's head extended into the FRONTAL BONE of the head. It sure looks to me like some "frontal bone" is blown out, just as much as it's clear that there is no OCCIPITAL bone or scalp missing from the President's cranium:



And yet, in the controversial paragraph on Page 3 of the autopsy report, there is no mention whatsoever of the "Frontal Bone" or "Frontal Region" of the head. Instead, we find this:

"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."

And yet, when we check out some of the later testimony given by the autopsy doctors, including the ARRB testimony repeated below by Dr. Boswell, we can see that the "Frontal" region is an area of the President's head that was most definitely void of some skull:

DR. BOSWELL -- "That looks like frontal there, doesn't it? Frontal, temporal, and some parietal. But that's where this space is here."

David Von Pein
October 3-8, 2015
October 7-12, 2015

Edited October 13, 2015 by David Von Pein

[David G. Healy]

BEN HOLMES SAID:

Where's the occipital located?

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

"Occipital" is in the back of the head....as I already said several days ago. (Didn't you pay attention, or even notice the chart/diagram I posted which shows the occipital?)

[...]

not going to work hon... You've been found wanting... A PR campaign everywhere except AMAZON is worthless... but the looney, nutter fringe have a tenuous hold on reality these days...

[David Von Pein]

Go away, Healy. Please. For everybody's sake. You're an embarrassment everywhere you go. How can you possibly not realize that fact by now?

Edited October 13, 2015 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JFK-Head-Wounds

Edited October 13, 2015 by David Von Pein

[James R Gordon]

David,

I do find the idea of the wound in the back of the head difficult to agree with. A wound of that size I would have thought Zapruder would have captured.

However the people below boxed in red - all of whom were in Trauma 1 - are clear where the wound was. Only Dr Baylor - boxed in blue - agrees with you.

Why do you think all of these doctors - who were there and actually saw the body - are all wrong and only Dr Baylor is right?

I find it difficult to believe that all - not just one or two - could be wrong about the location of this kind of wound.

This is not the throat wound - which was a discrete wound and very few saw - this was a blatant wound that wound be impossible to miss -- even with the body in a supine position

James

[David Von Pein]

James Gordon,

I agree that the whole "Back Of The Head" topic is very strange and contradictory. I've often said it's the #1 thing that bugs me the most. But, then too, we DO have what I believe is BETTER evidence than those (admittedly many) "BOH Wound" witnesses --- with that "better evidence" being the autopsy photos and X-rays. Plus, to a lesser extent, the Zapruder Film as well, which also does not agree--at all--with those many "BOH" witnesses.

To answer the question you asked above, I'll offer up the following excerpt from my review of Vincent Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming History":


CHAPTER 3 (68 PAGES) -- "PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S AUTOPSY AND THE GUNSHOT WOUNDS TO KENNEDY AND GOVERNOR CONNALLY":

DVP: This chapter brings about a "closure" (of sorts) for me with respect to the single biggest "question mark" that I personally have had regarding the entire JFK case -- that being: How could so many different witnesses claim to see a large hole in the back of President Kennedy's head on 11/22/63 (at Parkland and at Bethesda)?

I've scratched my head more than a few times when thinking about those back-of-the-head wound witnesses. But at the same time, I have also always realized that there is a bunch of evidence that totally contradicts those witnesses (regardless of how many of them there might be).

That contradictory evidence includes: The official autopsy report (signed by three doctors), the autopsy photographs and X-rays, the Zapruder Film, and the never-wavering testimony of all three autopsy doctors (with each doctor agreeing that President Kennedy was hit by only two bullets, with both of those bullets coming from "above and behind" John F. Kennedy). And all of this evidence is also pointed out numerous times by Vince Bugliosi in this chapter as well.

Vincent doesn't pull some magical rabbit out of a hat when he discusses this often-heated controversy about the head wounds of the late President. Instead, he relies on basic sound judgment and common sense (like always) to try and figure out a reasonable answer for why the many Parkland witnesses thought they saw what they said they saw.

And Vincent's primary explanation regarding this matter is actually an explanation offered up by someone else, HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel member Michael Baden:

[Quoting from Mr. Bugliosi's book:]

"Dr. Michael Baden has what I believe to be the answer, one whose logic is solid. [Quoting Baden] "The head exit wound was not in the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said. They were wrong," [baden] told me. "That's why we have autopsies, photographs, and X-rays to determine things like this. Since the thick growth of hair on Kennedy's head hadn't been shaved at Parkland, there's no way for the doctors to have seen the margins of the wound in the skin of the scalp. All they saw was blood and brain tissue adhering to the hair. And that may have been mostly in the occipital area because he was lying on his back and gravity would push his hair, blood, and brain tissue backward, so many of them probably assumed the exit wound was in the back of the head. But clearly, from the autopsy X-rays and photographs and the observations of the autopsy surgeons, the exit wound and defect was not in the occipital area. There was no defect or wound to the rear of Kennedy's head other than the entrance wound in the upper right part of his head." [End Baden quote]." -- Pages 407-408 of "Reclaiming History"


DVP: The above explanation is one that I, too, have postulated as the probable answer to this enduring "head wound" mystery over the years, such as HERE, HERE, and HERE.

One other point that I think is worthy of mentioning here is the fact that (as far as I'm aware) there wasn't a single witness at Parkland or Bethesda who claimed to have seen TWO large wounds of exit in JFK's head on 11/22/63.

This fact would certainly suggest that there was, indeed, only ONE large wound in Kennedy's head, and that wound was located, per the autopsy and the authenticated autopsy photographs, "chiefly parietal" (i.e., the side and top of the head).

On page #410, Bugliosi provides some additional strength to the "No Exit Wound In The Back Of JFK's Head" rope, when he says:

"Lest anyone still has any doubt as to the location of the large exit wound in the head...the Zapruder film itself couldn't possibly provide better demonstrative evidence. The film proves conclusively, and beyond all doubt, where the exit wound was. Zapruder frame 313 (when the president's head exploded) and frame 328 (almost a second later) clearly show that the large, gaping exit wound was to the right front of the president's head. The back of his head shows no such large wound and clearly is completely intact." [bugliosi's emphasis.] -- Vince Bugliosi; Page 410 of "RH"


DVP: Another excellent visual demonstration that pretty much proves that JFK was shot in the head from BEHIND is the following slow-motion clip from the Zapruder Film, which positively depicts the President's head being pushed FORWARD at the all-important moment of impact when Oswald's bullet strikes the back of Kennedy's head:

[Ray Mitcham]

David, do you admit that at the autopsy photos and X-rays could have been altered or faked. Note - not that they were, but that they "could have been"

[David Von Pein]

David, do you admit that at the autopsy photos and X-rays could have been altered or faked[?] Note - not that they were, but that they "could have been"[?]

That would have been virtually impossible, Ray. And that's because the photos exist in stereo pairs. ....

• "The single most important discovery, and one that establishes with absolute and irrefutable certainty that the autopsy photographs have not been altered, is the fact that many of the photographs, when combined in pairs, produce stereoscopic images. ....

  The only way a forger can successfully alter a detailed stereoscopic image...without detection is to alter both images identically, which is, [photographic expert and HSCA panel member Frank] Scott said, "essentially impossible." ....

  The entire photographic panel of the HSCA concluded that "the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner." This fact alone demolishes the conspiracy theorists' allegations that photographic fakery was used to conceal the plot to kill the president.

  It also destroys another prime conspiracy belief--that the eyewitness descriptions of the president's wounds that were offered by the Parkland Hospital doctors (and later by some eyewitnesses to the autopsy) are proof that the autopsy photographs had been altered.

  Obviously, if the autopsy photographs are genuine and unaltered (which all the experts agree), then eyewitness descriptions of the president's wounds that contradict those photographs are not proof of alteration, as some critics claim, but nothing more than examples of understandable, mistaken recollections, or if not that, then deliberate and outright falsehoods." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 223-224 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History"

Edited October 13, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

God forbid I should coach a LN how to effectively fend off a common CT argument. But here goes.

The measurements for the head wound in the autopsy protocol were obtained after the scalp was peeled back and skull fell to the table. It's as simple as that. There was no hole on the back of the head in the back of the head photos. But there was shattered skull beneath the scalp. The scalp was then peeled back, and skull fell to the table. There was now a large wound extending into the occipital area.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Either there was a high-level conspiracy to kill JFK or there was no conspiracy. Why? Because either nothing got in the way of a cover-up or there was no cover-up. There is no in-between that has held up for 52 years.

There you have it: high-level conspiracy or no conspiracy.

My biggest gripe isn't with DVP and his companions who maintain there was no conspiracy.

My biggest gripe is with those who believe in conspiracy-lite. A little but not too much conspiracy.

[David Von Pein]

The measurements for the head wound in the autopsy protocol were obtained after the scalp was peeled back and skull fell to the table. It's as simple as that. There was no hole on the back of the head in the back of the head photos. But there was shattered skull beneath the scalp. The scalp was then peeled back, and skull fell to the table. There was now a large wound extending into the occipital area.

Pat,

Your explanation could possibly explain the "absence of BONE" verbiage that we find in Paragraph 6 of Page 3 of the autopsy report. But your explanation most certainly does not explain the "absence of SCALP" portion of that paragraph. Because even the "peeled back" scalp does NOT have anything MISSING from it in the OCCIPITAL area of JFK's scalp.

Plus, there's also still that one word which is, IMO, curiously missing from the description of the large exit wound -- "FRONTAL".

The more I look at the pictures and X-rays (and the ARRB comments made by both Dr. Boswell and Dr. Humes), the more conspicuous the absence of the word "Frontal" becomes.

Edited October 13, 2015 by David Von Pein

[David G. Healy]

David, do you admit that at the autopsy photos and X-rays could have been altered or faked[?] Note - not that they were, but that they "could have been"[?]

That would have been virtually impossible, Ray. And that's because the photos exist in stereo pairs. ....

• "The single most important discovery, and one that establishes with absolute and irrefutable certainty that the autopsy photographs have not been altered, is the fact that many of the photographs, when combined in pairs, produce stereoscopic images. [...]

And Dr. Mantik reviewed these "stereo pairs?"

Also, lest you forget that same HSCA determined a "conspiracy" murdered the president of the United States.

[James DiEugenio]

DVP: : the Zapruder Film as well, which also does not agree--at all--with those many "BOH" witnesses.

This is simply not true.

Ask Sydney Wilkinson.

[Ray Mitcham]

David, do you admit that at the autopsy photos and X-rays could have been altered or faked[?] Note - not that they were, but that they "could have been"[?]

That would have been virtually impossible, Ray. And that's because the photos exist in stereo pairs. ....

• "The single most important discovery, and one that establishes with absolute and irrefutable certainty that the autopsy photographs have not been altered, is the fact that many of the photographs, when combined in pairs, produce stereoscopic images. ....

  The only way a forger can successfully alter a detailed stereoscopic image...without detection is to alter both images identically, which is, [photographic expert and HSCA panel member Frank] Scott said, "essentially impossible." ....

  The entire photographic panel of the HSCA concluded that "the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner." This fact alone demolishes the conspiracy theorists' allegations that photographic fakery was used to conceal the plot to kill the president.

  It also destroys another prime conspiracy belief--that the eyewitness descriptions of the president's wounds that were offered by the Parkland Hospital doctors (and later by some eyewitnesses to the autopsy) are proof that the autopsy photographs had been altered.

  Obviously, if the autopsy photographs are genuine and unaltered (which all the experts agree), then eyewitness descriptions of the president's wounds that contradict those photographs are not proof of alteration, as some critics claim, but nothing more than examples of understandable, mistaken recollections, or if not that, then deliberate and outright falsehoods." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 223-224 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History"

Good, you agree that it was virtually impossible, but not completely impossible.

So we have a case where the views of up to forty people, in the Parkland emergency room, saw a massive open head wound against photos, which you have agreed could possibly be faked, do not show any wound here at all.

I know which version I believe.