Jump to content


Spartacus

VIDEO - The Head Wounds


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 Gil Jesus

Gil Jesus

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 642 posts

Posted 06 May 2007 - 01:03 PM

Eyewitnesses describe the REAL JFK head wounds as an entry wound in
the right front of the skull at the hairline, and a large gaping hole
at the rear of the skull, both wounds evidence of a shot from the
front.
Also, the issue of autopsy photo forgery is discussed.



#2 Dawn Meredith

Dawn Meredith

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,496 posts
  • Location:Austin, Tx.
  • Interests:political justice, conspiracy/truth, music, law, Bible prophecy

Posted 06 May 2007 - 05:52 PM

Eyewitnesses describe the REAL JFK head wounds as an entry wound in
the right front of the skull at the hairline, and a large gaping hole
at the rear of the skull, both wounds evidence of a shot from the
front.
Also, the issue of autopsy photo forgery is discussed.




Gil

These are great little videos. I am wondering though if they are receiving a wider audience than here at the forum? This stuff needs to be all over the net so that this generation knows the truth.

Dawn

#3 Gil Jesus

Gil Jesus

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 642 posts

Posted 06 May 2007 - 11:10 PM

Gil

These are great little videos. I am wondering though if they are receiving a wider audience than here at the forum? This stuff needs to be all over the net so that this generation knows the truth.

Dawn


Dawn, have no fear. These videos have reached about 90,000 people since I started posting them 78 days ago. Lately, they've been averaging a little better than 1,000 views per day. And although not everyone who views them will agree with their position, we are reaching the world a little at a time and getting the message out. The feedback as been mostly positive and appreciative, but there are those who for whatever reason feel that they need to respond to these videos (especially the "coughing videos" ) with vicious attacks and verbal threats on me personally, while others resort to childish name-calling. For that reason, I've been forced to disable the comments section of those videos. But in spite of all of this, it's been worth it. If people are getting that upset, I must be on the right track.

Let me end this response by saying that I believe that I now know the source of one of the head shots, but that I have no proof and until I do, I'll keep it to myself. It really is so unbelieveable, that I'm wondering if I should reveal it even if I can prove it.

But until that day comes, I'll keep pointing myself in that direction. Towards the truth.

Sincerely, Gil Jesus.

#4 Dawn Meredith

Dawn Meredith

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,496 posts
  • Location:Austin, Tx.
  • Interests:political justice, conspiracy/truth, music, law, Bible prophecy

Posted 07 May 2007 - 01:00 PM

Gil

These are great little videos. I am wondering though if they are receiving a wider audience than here at the forum? This stuff needs to be all over the net so that this generation knows the truth.

Dawn


Dawn, have no fear. These videos have reached about 90,000 people since I started posting them 78 days ago. Lately, they've been averaging a little better than 1,000 views per day. And although not everyone who views them will agree with their position, we are reaching the world a little at a time and getting the message out. The feedback as been mostly positive and appreciative, but there are those who for whatever reason feel that they need to respond to these videos (especially the "coughing videos" ) with vicious attacks and verbal threats on me personally, while others resort to childish name-calling. For that reason, I've been forced to disable the comments section of those videos. But in spite of all of this, it's been worth it. If people are getting that upset, I must be on the right track.

Let me end this response by saying that I believe that I now know the source of one of the head shots, but that I have no proof and until I do, I'll keep it to myself. It really is so unbelieveable, that I'm wondering if I should reveal it even if I can prove it.

But until that day comes, I'll keep pointing myself in that direction. Towards the truth.

Sincerely, Gil Jesus.



Gil that's wondeful. And of course these will cause many to start reading books...and, hopefully, researching to write new books.

When you say "source of ...headshot" do you mean "who"? or "where"?

Dawn

#5 Dawn Meredith

Dawn Meredith

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,496 posts
  • Location:Austin, Tx.
  • Interests:political justice, conspiracy/truth, music, law, Bible prophecy

Posted 07 May 2007 - 01:03 PM

Gil

These are great little videos. I am wondering though if they are receiving a wider audience than here at the forum? This stuff needs to be all over the net so that this generation knows the truth.

Dawn


Dawn, have no fear. These videos have reached about 90,000 people since I started posting them 78 days ago. Lately, they've been averaging a little better than 1,000 views per day. And although not everyone who views them will agree with their position, we are reaching the world a little at a time and getting the message out. The feedback as been mostly positive and appreciative, but there are those who for whatever reason feel that they need to respond to these videos (especially the "coughing videos" ) with vicious attacks and verbal threats on me personally, while others resort to childish name-calling. For that reason, I've been forced to disable the comments section of those videos. But in spite of all of this, it's been worth it. If people are getting that upset, I must be on the right track.

Let me end this response by saying that I believe that I now know the source of one of the head shots, but that I have no proof and until I do, I'll keep it to myself. It really is so unbelieveable, that I'm wondering if I should reveal it even if I can prove it.

But until that day comes, I'll keep pointing myself in that direction. Towards the truth.

Sincerely, Gil Jesus.



Gil that's wondeful. And of course these will cause many to start reading books...and, hopefully, researching to write new books.

When you say "source of ...headshot" do you mean "who"? or "where"?

Dawn

#6 Gil Jesus

Gil Jesus

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 642 posts

Posted 07 May 2007 - 02:26 PM

I would describe that as "where".

#7 Guest_Gary Loughran_*

Guest_Gary Loughran_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 May 2007 - 05:08 PM

I would describe that as "where".


Hi Gil,

I read your post with a sense of wonderment last night prior to going to bed. It ran around in my head and the only thought that stuck was that you believed Connally to be involved.

I've checked in on the forum today and see you've asked about Connally carrying a pistol. Is this a query in pursuit of "pointing yourself in that direction, towards the truth"??

Thanks

Gary

#8 Pat Speer

Pat Speer

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,410 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 May 2007 - 08:43 PM

Eyewitnesses describe the REAL JFK head wounds as an entry wound in
the right front of the skull at the hairline, and a large gaping hole
at the rear of the skull, both wounds evidence of a shot from the
front.
Also, the issue of autopsy photo forgery is discussed.




Gil, any discussion of the head wounds that does not explain that the Parkland doctors saw ONE wound, and Newman and Zapruder described this ONE wound in a slightly different location, is misleading. The evidence suggests that Dr. Burkley only saw ONE wound at Parkland as well, and yet Kilduff described this wound as being in the same location as Newman and Zapruder...in the SAME location depicted in the autopsy photos and Zapruder film.

This film implies that the entrance described by Kilduff was a small entrance leading to a large exit on the back of the head, and is therefore deceptive. 1) There is no mention of a large exit by Kilduff. 2) There is no mention of a small entrance by ANY of the Parkland witnesses, who are supposedly so reliable.

For these reasons, I concluded that the Parkland doctors were indeed mistaken as to the exact location of the large head wound. During his treatment, Kennedy's feet were elevated above his head. This placed the top of his head at the location normally occupied by the back of his head. When viewing upside down items, people receive visual information, and then rotate it in their minds before identifying the spacial relationships. We are really bad at this, and rotation errors are common.

#9 Myra Bronstein

Myra Bronstein

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,895 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

Posted 07 May 2007 - 11:47 PM

I would describe that as "where".


Hi Gil,

I read your post with a sense of wonderment last night prior to going to bed. It ran around in my head and the only thought that stuck was that you believed Connally to be involved.

I've checked in on the forum today and see you've asked about Connally carrying a pistol. Is this a query in pursuit of "pointing yourself in that direction, towards the truth"??

Thanks

Gary


Well, that would sure explain some edits to the Z-film..

#10 Gil Jesus

Gil Jesus

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 642 posts

Posted 08 May 2007 - 03:17 PM

Gary: I'm afraid that I'm bad at keeping a secret. I've tried to keep it to myself until I can PROVE it, but your investigative skills have "outed" me. Before anyone suggests I see a psychiatrist, let me explain why I suspect that one of the head shots may have come from Nellie Connally's jump seat.

1. The location of the wounds. Kilduff claimed that he got the entry wound in the front of the head from Admiral Burkley. In addition, the "frontal stare" autopsy photograph of Kennedy on his back shows a "black square" in exactly the spot where Kilduff indicated the entry wound was. This is not a photographic error, this is a deliberate obliteration of the entry wound to eliminate the evidence of a frontal entry.
[attachment=11007:frontal_stare.JPG]

As far as the rear exit wound goes, one can argue that ALL of the medical experts were wrong about the location and nature of the wounds, however, the medical experts were not the only ones to see the exit wound in the back of the head. Witnesses at the scene of the shooting saw the back of the President's head fly off. Autopsy photograph F8 definitely shows, without doubt, the entrance wound where Kilduff said it was and the large gaping wound in the rear.
[attachment=11008:rear_head_wound.JPG]

2. Zapruder frame 312. Once I was satisfied that the existance of the wounds had been established, my next step was to go to the Zapruder film and look at the position of Kennedy at the time of the head shot and to try to lineup the wounds as described.
[attachment=11009:zapruder1_312c1.JPG]

I was stunned when I added a bullet trajectory to the wound locations:
[attachment=11010:zapruder1_312c2.JPG]

It seemed to me that the origin of the shot was from Nellie Connally's jump seat. But, according to the Zapruder film, Governor Connally wasn't even looking at the President when the head shot rang out. Then I was reading in one of Jim Fetzer's books where he said that at Z-314, Connally was thrown into the back of the front seat and that he believed that it was at that time that Connally received his back wound. But Connally's position at Z-314 did not support the trajectory, he was already leaning back on Nellie's lap.

So I wondered if Connally's slamming into the back of the front seat wasn't a reverse movement. That is the reverse of what really happened. What if Connally WAS looking at Kennedy when the head shot rang out. So I took Zapruder frames 308-316, when Connally appears to be moving towards the front seat and reversed Connally's position 180 degrees, and quite frankly, the results were startling.

Kennedy's head moves forward at Z-313, Connally lunges at Kennedy in Z-314, then Kennedy's head moves violently backwards at Z-315.

Of course (conveniently) you cannot see Connally much below his shoulders from Z-270 to about Z-335, but the sequence is staggering.

Which is why I was asking about him carrying a gun.

There were also witnesses who claimed that a gun was fired in the car. Mary Moorman thought she saw Greer shoot back. Jean Hill tried to tell Arlen Specter about a gun being fired in the car. Austin Miller told Specter the shots came from "right there in the car". Hugh Betzner claimed to see a gun in the hand of a Secret Service agent and heard a sound "like firecrackers going off in the car." Royce Skelton thought that the shots had come from "around the President's car".

Witnesses at the scene of the shooting claimed that they smelled gunpowder at street level.

Connally's coat was taken and locked away by LBJ aide Cliff Carter until it could be cleaned. Was this to remove any gunpowder residue from it ?

Jack Ruby felt unsafe speaking in Dallas.

Then there is the matter of Connally's insistance and role in the selection of the luncheon site, which directly affected the motorcade route.

Connally was not an honorable man. As Johnson's campaign manager, he was involved on the notorious BOX 13 scandal of 1948, the election fraud that got LBJ elected to the Senate. And he was no friend of JFK, responsible for attacks on Kennedy during the Democratic primaries. In addition, there are connections between Connally, Oswald, Ruby, Walker and HL Hunt.

Consider this:

In the three previouis Presidential assassinations, McKinley, Garfield and Lincoln, all three Presidents were murdered from a distance of three feet or less. All three were killed by handguns. All three victims were either stopped or walking at a normal pace. No attempt on the life of a President from a distance of more than three feet has ever been successful.

I'm convinced that the entry wound of the front of the head was fired point-blank, much as the rear entry wound was to Robert Kennedy.

Whether it was John Connally or his wife, I'm leaning towards that shot coming from the jump seat of Nellie Connally.

#11 Gil Jesus

Gil Jesus

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 642 posts

Posted 08 May 2007 - 05:37 PM

This film implies that the entrance described by Kilduff was a small entrance leading to a large exit on the back of the head, and is therefore deceptive. 1) There is no mention of a large exit by Kilduff. 2) There is no mention of a small entrance by ANY of the Parkland witnesses, who are supposedly so reliable.

For these reasons, I concluded that the Parkland doctors were indeed mistaken as to the exact location of the large head wound. During his treatment, Kennedy's feet were elevated above his head. This placed the top of his head at the location normally occupied by the back of his head. When viewing upside down items, people receive visual information, and then rotate it in their minds before identifying the spacial relationships. We are really bad at this, and rotation errors are common.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gil Jesus: I would disagree with most of that comment. Just because Kilduff didn't mention an exit wound, doesn't mean that it didn't exist. It's entirely possible that he was repeating what Dr. Burkley told him and that Burkley simply never mentioned the exit wound.

I find it hard to believe that medical experts could mistake the locations of the wounds because they couldn't tell the top of his head from the back.

Then we have autopsy photo F8 which shows exactly where the large exit wound was.

[attachment=11011:rear_head_wound.JPG]

In addition, Dr. Charles Crenshaw DID see a wound of entry, he called it a "tangential" shot connected with the rear exit wound and he located it precisely where Kilduff had indicated.



#12 Myra Bronstein

Myra Bronstein

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,895 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

Posted 08 May 2007 - 06:22 PM

This film implies that the entrance described by Kilduff was a small entrance leading to a large exit on the back of the head, and is therefore deceptive. 1) There is no mention of a large exit by Kilduff. 2) There is no mention of a small entrance by ANY of the Parkland witnesses, who are supposedly so reliable.

For these reasons, I concluded that the Parkland doctors were indeed mistaken as to the exact location of the large head wound. During his treatment, Kennedy's feet were elevated above his head. This placed the top of his head at the location normally occupied by the back of his head. When viewing upside down items, people receive visual information, and then rotate it in their minds before identifying the spacial relationships. We are really bad at this, and rotation errors are common.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gil Jesus: I would disagree with most of that comment. Just because Kilduff didn't mention an exit wound, doesn't mean that it didn't exist. It's entirely possible that he was repeating what Dr. Burkley told him and that Burkley simply never mentioned the exit wound.

I find it hard to believe that medical experts could mistake the locations of the wounds because they couldn't tell the top of his head from the back.

Then we have autopsy photo F8 which shows exactly where the large exit wound was.

[attachment=11011:rear_head_wound.JPG]

In addition, Dr. Charles Crenshaw DID see a wound of entry, he called it a "tangential" shot connected with the rear exit wound and he located it precisely where Kilduff had indicated.


I guess I'm very confused about the status of any remaining brain tissue.
If I'm remembering correctly:

-Supposedly about 1/3 of the brain was missing at Parkland, blown out by the bullet(s).
-Supposedly 100% of the brain was missing at the Bethesda autopsy. They describe the skull as an empty cracked egg shell.
So, even though I know the autopsy photos are fakes, I still don't understand the presence of the brain tissue visible in the photo.
-Then supposedly the brain disappeared from the national archives, reportedly taken by RFK.
Where did the brain tissue come from to put in the national archives if it was gone at the autopsy?

#13 Gil Jesus

Gil Jesus

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 642 posts

Posted 08 May 2007 - 06:37 PM

Myra:

My opinion is that the brain was removed at Walter Reed and handed over to RFK. But before it was, any bullets or fragments of bullets that could have been removed were.

#14 Pat Speer

Pat Speer

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,410 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 May 2007 - 07:43 PM

This film implies that the entrance described by Kilduff was a small entrance leading to a large exit on the back of the head, and is therefore deceptive. 1) There is no mention of a large exit by Kilduff. 2) There is no mention of a small entrance by ANY of the Parkland witnesses, who are supposedly so reliable.

For these reasons, I concluded that the Parkland doctors were indeed mistaken as to the exact location of the large head wound. During his treatment, Kennedy's feet were elevated above his head. This placed the top of his head at the location normally occupied by the back of his head. When viewing upside down items, people receive visual information, and then rotate it in their minds before identifying the spacial relationships. We are really bad at this, and rotation errors are common.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gil Jesus: I would disagree with most of that comment. Just because Kilduff didn't mention an exit wound, doesn't mean that it didn't exist. It's entirely possible that he was repeating what Dr. Burkley told him and that Burkley simply never mentioned the exit wound.

I find it hard to believe that medical experts could mistake the locations of the wounds because they couldn't tell the top of his head from the back.

Then we have autopsy photo F8 which shows exactly where the large exit wound was.

[attachment=11011:rear_head_wound.JPG]

In addition, Dr. Charles Crenshaw DID see a wound of entry, he called it a "tangential" shot connected with the rear exit wound and he located it precisely where Kilduff had indicated.


I guess I'm very confused about the status of any remaining brain tissue.
If I'm remembering correctly:

-Supposedly about 1/3 of the brain was missing at Parkland, blown out by the bullet(s).
-Supposedly 100% of the brain was missing at the Bethesda autopsy. They describe the skull as an empty cracked egg shell.
So, even though I know the autopsy photos are fakes, I still don't understand the presence of the brain tissue visible in the photo.
-Then supposedly the brain disappeared from the national archives, reportedly taken by RFK.
Where did the brain tissue come from to put in the national archives if it was gone at the autopsy?


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. When one reads all the statements and records re the autopsy it's clear the mystery photo F8 is NOT a photo of a large exit on the back of Kennedy's head, but is instead a photo of Kennedy's skull AFTER his scalp had been peeled back and his brain removed. The amount of missing skull in this photo is far larger than the size of the skull fragments found outside the skull. Accordingly, it would seem some of this skull was removed at autopsy in order to remove the brain. VOILA! Dr. Humes repeatedly testified that skull fell to the table as he peeled back the scalp. He also admitted breaking some shattered skull off in order to pull out the brain. Well where is this shattered skull on the x-rays? At the back of the head. There is no photographic or x-ray evidence for a large exit at the back of the head. It is a myth...like the single bullet theory and the Easter Bunny.

As far as the missing brain at autopsy... that is also a myth. Years afterwards people were asked about the autopsy as if it had happened the day before. Their descriptions of the autopsy are at odds with each other. Some said there was NO brain, some said there was some brain, one said there was some brain but that it had been severed and placed back in the cranium. As the brain in the photographs is inconsistent with the bullet trajectories described by the WC and HSCA I believe it is the brain removed at autopsy. I mean, why fake evidence that contradicts your convenient conclusions?

Edited by Pat Speer, 08 May 2007 - 07:46 PM.


#15 Myra Bronstein

Myra Bronstein

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,895 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

Posted 08 May 2007 - 08:31 PM

Myra:

My opinion is that the brain was removed at Walter Reed and handed over to RFK. But before it was, any bullets or fragments of bullets that could have been removed were.


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...




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users