Jump to content
The Education Forum
Pat Speer

JFK's Head Wound: a Timeline of the Earliest Statements

Recommended Posts

1.The Parkland witnesses were not consistent....

2.Jackie was not a .....

3. While Clint Hill made some early statements suggesting......

don't get dizzy with all that spin...

Going on the offensive? ... let's see, who else was tasked with going after the Dallas recollections

:idea

Your apologies and alignments are clear.

BowronandGrodensF4_zpscdecaf7c.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On another thread, Daniel Gallup stated:

"Scott, I've stayed out of discussions on the medical evidence for a long time now, having gone back and forth with Pat Speer on all these matters long ago. I basically agree with David Josephs and simply ask: if the chain of possession of Kennedy's body is lost, its worth as evidence in the case is non-existent. Therefore, I believe that the only reliable account of the condition of Kennedy's head would be the earliest recollections of those who saw the body in Dallas, and that includes Clilnt Hill, Jackie, and the Dallas doctors and nurses who made contemporaneous notes. A very good reference book would be First on the Scene by Brad Parker, who has collected a number of early affidavits from Parkland on the condition of Kennedy's head. In a similar point of view, I would argue the earliest recorded recollections of personnel at Bethesda (when they were finally allowed to talk) would be the most accurate, before anyone understood the implications of what they saw. Same with the Dealey Plaza witnesses: their testimony gains weight when they are given early, or if it is clear that what they are saying is given before they have knowledge of the "official" story line."

Here are the statements of the witnesses which Daniel claims provide the "only reliable account of the condition of Kennedy's head wound."

The John F. Kennedy Head Wound: a Timeline

At approximately 12:45 P.M., within 15 minutes of Kennedy's being shot, assassination witness William Newman, who was less than 30 feet to the side of Kennedy when the fatal bullet struck, was interviewed live on television station WFAA. This was 45 minutes before the announcement of Kennedy’s death. Newman told Jay Watson: “And then as the car got directly in front of us, well, a gun shot apparently from behind us hit the President in the side, the side of the temple.” As he said this, he pointed to his left temple, with his only free hand. (Newman was holding one of his children with his right hand.) Subsequent statements would clarify that Newman was talking about Kennedy’s right temple. (Newman continues to claim he saw a large wound at this location, and has never wavered.)

Around this same time, news photographer and assassination eyewitness James Altgens wrote a dispatch for the Associated Press. He declared: "There was a burst of noise - the second one I heard - and pieces of flesh appeared to fly from President Kennedy's car. Blood covered the whole left side of his head.” Now, this is undoubtedly confusing. Newman pointed to his left temple around the same time Altgens said he saw blood on the left side of Kennedy’s head.

Within a few minutes, outside Parkland Hospital, however, Charles Roberts of Newsweek interviewed Senator Ralph Yarborough, who’d arrived at Parkland Hospital just after President Kennedy, and had witnessed his removal from the limousine. In his 1967 book The Truth About the Assassination, Roberts, working from his original notes, recalled that he asked the Senator where Kennedy had been shot, and that a horrified Yarborough responded "I can't tell you," as he unconsciously held "his hand to the right side of his head, where he had seen blood streaming from the President."

At 1:17, approximately 30 minutes after Jay Watson interviewed her husband, Watson interviewed Gayle Newman, who'd been standing right beside her husband and had had an equally close look at the President's wound. She reported: "And then another one—it was just awful fast. And President Kennedy reached up and grabbed--it looked like he grabbed--his ear and blood just started gushing out." As she said this she motioned to her right temple with both of her hands. In 1969, while testifying at the trial of Clay Shaw, Mrs, Newman would make the implications of this even more clear, and specify that Kennedy "was shot in the head right at his ear or right above his ear…" (Mrs. Newman has also never wavered from seeing a wound at this location.)

Around this time, Darwin Payne of the Dallas Times-Herald tracked down assassination witness Abraham Zapruder at his office in the Dal-Tex Building. Notes found in the Herald’s archives, almost certainly based on Payne’s interview of Zapruder, and reported in Richard Trask’s Pictures of the Pain, reflect “Abraham Zapruder…heard 3 shots///after first one Pres slumped over grabed stomac…hit in stomac…two more shots///looked like head opened up and everything came out…blood spattered everywhere…side of his face…looked like blobs out of his temple… forehead…” And this wasn’t the only time Zapruder described the wounds shown in his film—before he’d seen his film. Around 2:10, less than forty minutes after the announcement of Kennedy's death, Zapruder took his turn before the cameras on WFAA, and confirmed the observations of the Newmans. Describing the shooting, Zapruder told Jay Watson: “Then I heard another shot or two, I couldn't say it was one or two, and I saw his head practically open up, all blood and everything (at this time, Zapruder grabbed his right temple), and I kept on shooting. That's about all, I'm just sick, I can't…”

At 1:33 p.m. on November 22, 1963, Assistant Press Secretary Malcolm Kilduff announced President Kennedy’s death from Parkland Hospital. He told the country: “President John F. Kennedy died at approximately one o’clock Central Standard Time today here in Dallas. He died of a gunshot wound in the brain…Dr. George Burkley [Kennedy's personal physician] told me it is a simple matter…of a bullet right through the head. (At this time, Kilduff pointed to his right temple) . . . It is my understanding that it entered in the temple, the right temple. As Dr. Burkley had seen Kennedy in the Dallas emergency room and was later to tell the HSCA that Kennedy’s wounds didn’t change between Dallas and Bethesda, the site of the autopsy, Kilduff’s statements are a clear indication that the large head wound Burkley observed at Parkland Hospital is the same wound, in the same location, later observed at Bethesda. That no one at the time of Kilduff's statement had noted a separate bullet entrance anywhere on Kennedy's head, moreover, suggests that Burkley had seen but one wound, a wound by the temple, exactly where the Newmans, Zapruder, and presumably Yarborough had seen a wound.

At 2:16 PM CST, Dr.s Malcolm Perry and William Kemp Clark, two of the Parkland Hospital physicians who'd tried to save President Kennedy, appeared at a press conference. Note that it has been over an hour since they last saw the President’s body. (Their words come from a transcript discovered years later at the Lyndon Johnson Library.)

Dr. Malcolm Perry, who had performed a tracheostomy on the President in an effort to save his life: (When asked if a bullet had passed through Kennedy's head) "That would be conjecture on my part. There are two wounds, as Dr. Clark noted, one of the neck and one of the head. Whether they are directly related or related to two bullets, I cannot say...There was an entrance wound in the neck. As regards the one on the head, I cannot say." (When asked the direction of the bullet creating the neck wound) "It appeared to be coming at him." (When asked the direction of the bullet creating the head wound) "The nature of the wound defies the ability to describe whether it went through it from either side. I cannot tell you that." (When asked again if there was one or two wounds) "I don't know. From the injury, it is conceivable that it could have been caused by one wound, but there could have been two just as well if the second bullet struck the head in addition to striking the neck, and I cannot tell you that due to the nature of the wound. There is no way for me to tell...The wound appeared to be an entrance wound in the front of the throat; yes, that is correct. The exit wound, I don't know. It could have been the head or there could have been a second wound of the head. There was not time to determine this at the particular instant."

So, let’s see. Perry seems to think the wound was toward the top of the skull, as it “defies the ability to describe whether it went through it from either side.” If it was an obvious exit wound on the far back of the skull, as so many have come to believe, it would have suggested a shot from the front.

Well, then, what about Dr. Clark?

Dr. William Kemp Clark, who had examined the President's head wound and pronounced him dead: "I was called by Dr. Perry because the President... had sustained a brain wound…It was apparent that the President had sustained a lethal wound. A missile had gone in or out of the back of his head, causing extensive lacerations and loss of brain tissue." (When asked to describe the course of the bullet through the head) "We were too busy to be absolutely sure of the track, but the back of his head...Principally on his right side, towards the right side...The head wound could have been either the exit wound from the neck or it could have been a tangential wound, as it was simply a large, gaping loss of tissue."

Okay. Clark seems to think the wound was toward the back of the head, on the right side.

At 3:30 PM CST, Dr.s Perry and Kemp once again spoke to the press, this time on the phone to local reporters unable to attend the official press conference. Connie Kritzberg of The Dallas Times-Herald was one of these reporters. Her article on the President's wounds was published on 11-23. She wrote: “Wounds in the lower front portion of the neck and the right rear side of the head ended the life of President John F. Kennedy, say doctors at Parkland Hospital. Whether there were one or two wounds was not decided. The front neck hole was described as an entrance wound. The wound at the back of the head, while the principal one, was either an exit or tangential entrance wound. A doctor admitted that it was possible there was only one wound. Kemp Clark, 38, chief of neurosurgery, and Dr. Malcolm Perry, 34, described the President's wounds. Dr. Clark, asked how long the President lived in the hospital, replied, "I would guess 40 minutes but I was too busy to look at my watch." Dr. Clark said the President's principal wound was on the right rear side of his head…The doctors were asked whether one bullet could have made both wounds or whether there were two bullets. Dr. Clark replied. "The head wound could have been either an exit or a tangential entrance wound." The neurosurgeon described the back of the head wound as: "A large gaping wound with considerable loss of tissue." Dr. Perry added, "It is conceivable it was one wound, but there was no way for me to tell. It did however appear to be the entrance wound at the front of the throat."

Dr. Clark later wrote a report. He signed this at 4:15. Note that this is now three hours after he’d last seen the President. He wrote: “I arrived at the EOR at 1220 - 1225 and The President was bleeding profusely from the back of the head. There was a large (3 x 3cm) amount of cerebral tissue present on the cart. There was a smaller amount of cerebellar tissue present also. There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region. Much of the skull appeared gone at brief examination. The previously described lacerated brain was present.” (A 12-1-63 article on the assassination in the Philadelphia Bulletin would make the surprising claim that the bullet striking Kennedy on the back of his head hit at a shallow angle, ripping off a piece of skull 'perhaps the diameter of a teacup,' said Dr. William Kemp Clark, a neurosurgeon." This supported that the wound in Clark’s impression was at the top of the back of the head and that Clark was indeed comfortable with his original claim the wound was a tangential wound of both entrance and exit, even if fired from behind. This probability is borne out, moreover, by the fact Clark would later tell the Warren Commission he accepted that the fatal shot was fired from behind, and would only break his public silence on these matters to complain about conspiracy theorists trying to get him to say the shot came from the front.)

Dr. James Carrico, the first doctor on the scene, completed a similar report at 4:20. He wrote: “Two external wounds were noted. One small penetrating wound of ant. neck in lower 1/3. The other wound had avulsed the calvarium and shredded brain tissue present with profuse oozing.After describing some medical procedures, he noted furtherattempt to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue via packs instituted. “ (Carrico had thereby indicated that he’d thought the wound was on the back of the head. He would later defer to the accuracy of the autopsy photos and insist he’d been mistaken about seeing cerebellum.)

At 4:30, Dr. Perry created his own report. He wrote: “A large wound of the right posterior cranium was noted, exposing severely lacerated brain. Brain tissue was noted in the blood at the head of the carriage.” A few days later, journalist Jimmy Breslin would interview Dr. Perry and quote him as follows: "The occipito-parietal, which is a part of the back of the head, had a huge flap." Well, this is interesting. This flap can be seen in the autopsy photos, only a few inches forward of this location. (Perry would later defer to the accuracy of the autopsy photos.)

At 4:30 anesthesiologist Marion Jenkins completed his report. “These described resuscitative activities were indicated as of first importance, and after they were carried out attention was turned to all other evidences of injury. There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound. There were also fragmented sections of brain on the drapes of the emergency room cart. With the institution of adequate cardiac compression, there was a great flow of blood from the cranial cavity, indicating that there was much vascular damage as well as brain tissue damage.” Hmmm. Jenkins had thereby suggested that the wound was on the right back of the head, roughly behind the ear. (Jenkins would later defer to the accuracy of the autopsy photos, and insist he’d been mistaken about seeing cerebellum.)

Dr. Charles Baxter also submitted a detailed report on Kennedy’s wounds. He wrote: “On first observation of the remaining wounds the rt temporal and occipital bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table, with extensive lacerations and contusions.” He later concluded:Due to the excessive and irreparable brain damage which was lethal, no further attempt to resuscitate the heart was made.” Although Dr. Baxter’s report supported Dr. Jenkins’ report, it seems likely Dr. Baxter soon realized he’d been mistaken as to the location of the head wound. On 3-24-64, long before anyone was talking about the difference in the wound descriptions of those viewing Kennedy in Parkland and Bethesda, Dr. Baxter testified that he observed a "temporal parietal plate of bone laid outward to the side," and that "the right side of his head had been blown off." Well, heck, this was more consistent with the statements of the Newmans and Zapruder than with his fellow physicians. Dr. Baxter was also asked to read his earlier report into the record. While doing so, however, he read the line "the rt temporal and occipital bones were missing" as the "temporal and parietal bones were missing." It seems clear then he’d decided the wound was too high (and possibly too forward) on the head to involve occipital bone. (Dr. Baxter, no surprise, would later defer to the accuracy of the autopsy photos.)

Still, yes, this is strange. Although Dr. Baxter apparently changed his mind over the next few months, the initial reports of these five Parkland doctors suggested the wound was at or behind Kennedy’s right ear. Dr. Clark had suggested it was towards the top of the back of the head, where the occipital and parietal bones converge, and Dr.s Jenkins and Baxter suggested it was a bit lower and more to the side, where the occipital and temporal bones converge. Dr.s Carrico and Perry were more vague.

Should one think the statements of the Parkland doctors on 11-22-63 all suggested the wound was on the back of the head behind the ear, however, one would be wrong.

Dr. Robert McClelland’s report was signed at 4:45. He asserted: “When I arrived President Kennedy was being attended by Drs Malcolm Perry, Charles Baxter, James Carrico, and Ronald Jones. The President was at the time comatose from a massive gunshot wound of the head with a fragment wound of the trachea…The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple.

So yeah, that’s right, Dr. McClelland, who has since become a star “back of the head witness” for those believing the large head wound was low on the back of the head behind the ear, originally claimed the wound was a massive wound…of the left temple. Well, this suggests that he, as James Altgens before him, got his left confused with the President’s left.

And that’s not the only indication McClelland failed to see a “blow-out” wound on the back of Kennedy’s head, as claimed by so many. McClelland was the prime source for the 12-18-63 article by Richard Dudman published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, in which the Secret Service's visit to the Parkland doctors, and its attempt to get them to agree Kennedy's throat wound was an exit, was first revealed. There, McClelland told Dudman that after being told of the wound on Kennedy's back "he and Dr. Perry fully accept the Navy Hospital’s explanation of the course of the bullets." There, he told Dudman "I am fully satisfied that the two bullets that hit him were from behind." There, he told Dudman "As far as I am concerned, there is no reason to suspect that any shots came from the front."

And, should one refuse to believe McClelland would change his impressions at a later date, to fit what the other doctors were saying, there’s this… The January 1964 issue of the Texas State Journal of Medicine featured an article entitled Three Patients at Parkland. It was based upon the Parkland doctors' 11-22 reports, and repeated their descriptions of Kennedy's wounds and treatment word for word. Well, almost. In one of its few deviations, it changed Dr. McClelland's initial claim Kennedy was pronounced dead "at 12:55" to his being "pronounced dead at 1:00." This was an obvious correction of an innocent mistake. In what one can only assume was another correction of an innocent mistake, moreover, it re-routed Dr. McClelland's initial claim "The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple" to the more acceptable "The cause of death, according to Dr. McClelland was the massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the right side of the head."

It’s highly unlikely such a change would have been made without McClelland’s permission. It seems likely then that McClelland first wrote that the wound was of the left temple, and then realized he’d got it backwards, and began telling people it was on the right side, and then only over time began swearing it was on the far back of the head.

So what of the other witnesses to describe the President’s head wound on 11-22?

Secret Service agent Glen Bennett, who’d been riding in the back seat of the follow-up car just behind Kennedy, jotted down some notes on the flight back from Dallas. He noted in this report that the fatal bullet "hit the right rear high of the President’s head."

Secret Service agent George Hickey, who’d been riding next to Bennett, wrote a more detailed report on what transpired in Dallas. In the first of two reports, dated 11-22-63, he noted: "it seemed as if the right side of his head was hit and his hair flew forward." He wrote a second report on 11-30-63. There, he observed that after the first shot, Kennedy was slumped forward and to his left, and was straightening up to an almost erect sitting position as I turned and looked. At the moment he was almost sitting erect I heard two reports which I thought were shots and that appeared to me completely different in sound from the first report and were in such rapid succession that there seemed to be practically no time element between them. It looked to me as if the president was struck in the right upper rear of the head. The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed because the hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn’t seem to be any impact against his head. The last shot seemed to hit his head and cause a noise at the point of impact which made him fall forward and to his left again.”

Secret Service agent Sam Kinney, the driver of the follow-up car, also wrote a report on 11-22. He asserted: "At this time, the second shot was fired and I observed hair flying from the right side of his head.”

Well, these statements were a little vague. They do, however, make clear that a bullet did not explode from the left side or middle of the back of Kennedy’s head.

Well, then, who else?

Motorcycle officer James Chaney, who had been riding just a few yards off Kennedy's right shoulder, was interviewed by WFAA on the night of the shooting. He related: "We heard the first shot. I thought it was a motorcycle backfiring and uh I looked back over to my left and also President Kennedy looked back over his left shoulder. Then, the, uh, second shot came, well, then I looked back just in time to see the President struck in the face by the second bullet." Hmmm…Chaney was looking at the back of Kennedy’s head. His thinking Kennedy was struck in the face suggests the explosion he saw was in front of Kennedy’s ear, not behind.

Riding at Chaney’s right was Douglas Jackson. Jackson's notes, written on the night of the assassination and published in 1979, relate: "I looked back toward Mr. Kennedy and saw him hit in the head; he appeared to have been hit just above the right ear. The top of his head flew off away from me." Jackson then escorted the limousine to Parkland, where he saw the President’s body removed from the limo. He wrote: "I got off my motor, stepped over to the presidential limousine. An agent opened the car door and started to get Mrs. Kennedy out but Mrs. Kennedy said no. It's no need she said and raised up from over Mr. Kennedy. I could see the top of his head was gone, his left eye was bulged out of socket. The agent said "Oh no!" and started crying, pulled his coat off and placed it over Mr. Kennedy's head."

Two days later, on November 24, Bobby Hargis, the motorcycle cop riding off Mrs. Kennedy's left shoulder, published an eyewitness account in the New York Sunday News. He wrote: "As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned toward him, and that was when he got hit in the side of the head, spinning it around. I was splattered by blood.”

Over the next week, a number of other reports were written.

On 11-27-63, Secret Service agent Paul Landis wrote the first of two reports on the assassination. He noted: "I heard a second report and saw the President’s head split open and pieces of flesh and blood flying through the air." His 11-30 report concurred:It was at this moment that I heard a second report and it appeared that the President's head split open with a muffled exploding sound.” Well, this is an interesting use of words. Split open. One might gather from this that this split involved the back of the head. But, if so, one would have to assume it involved the top of the back of the head.

Hurchel Jacks, the driver of Vice-President Johnson's car in the motorcade, arrived at the hospital just moments after the limousine and the follow-up car, and witnessed the removal of the President's body from the limo. On 11-28-63, less than a week after the assassination, he filed a report (18H801) and noted: "Before the President's body was covered it appeared that the bullet had struck him above the right ear or near the temple.”

Sitting directly behind Kennedy at the time of the shooting was Secret Service agent Emory Roberts. If a bullet hit Kennedy on the back of the head, or erupted from the back of his head, he would have been the one to notice. Instead, in an 11-29-63 report, he wrote "I saw what appeared to be a small explosion on the right side of the President’s head, saw blood, at which time the President fell further to his left."

An even more important witness broke her silence on 11-29-63. On this day, Mrs. Jacqueline Kennedy granted an interview to Presidential historian Theodore White, and briefly discussed her husband’s wounds. (White’s notes on this interview were released on 5-26-95, and subsequently published in the September 1995 Kennedy Assassination Chronicles) Mrs. Kennedy related: “his last expression was so neat; he had his hand out, I could see a piece of his skull coming off; it was flesh colored not white—he was holding out his hand—and I can see this perfectly clean piece detaching itself from his head; then he slumped in my lap.” She later described the immediate aftermath of the shots: "All the ride to the hospital, I kept bending over him saying, "Jack, Jack, can you hear me, I love you, Jack." I kept holding the top of his head down trying to keep the..." She later described the condition of Kennedy’s head upon arrival at the hospital. White’s notes relate: "From here down"--and here she made a gesture indicating her husband's forehead--"his head was so beautiful. I'd tried to hold the top of his head down, maybe I could keep it in...I knew he was dead."

Okay, so there are now 5 witnesses—Burkley, McClelland, Jackson, Jacks, and Mrs. Kennedy--who claimed to see a wound on the front or top of Kennedy’s head at Parkland Hospital. Amazingly, that’s the same number as have claimed to see a wound on the back of his head.

The next day, 11-30, yet another important witness chimed in. Secret Service agent Clint Hill, who’d climbed up on the back of the limo as the shots rang out, related: "As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lieing in the seat." Hill’s report returned to this later. When describing the aftermath to Kennedy's autopsy in his report, he related "At approximately 2:45 A.M., November 23, I was requested by ASAIC to come to the morgue to once again view the body. When I arrived the autopsy had been completed and ASAIC Kellerman, SA Greer, General McHugh and I viewed the wounds. I observed a wound about six inches down from the neckline on the back just to the right of the spinal column. I observed another wound on the right rear portion of the skull." (Many years later, in numerous interviews and television appearances, Hill would clarify just what he meant by the “right rear portion” and would point to a location above his right ear.)

So, that’s it. While many people studying the Kennedy assassination have convinced themselves there was a “blow-out” wound involving chiefly occipital bone low on the back of Kennedy’s head, there is virtually nothing to support this in the earliest statements regarding Kennedy’s wounds…

IT IS A MYTH.

Pat Speer's post is nonsense.

By tossihg a lot of data at the reader, he seems to be implying that so much data exists that is is impossible to understand what it all means.

So the result is that its an inchoate unfocused mish-mash.

But that's ridiculous.

The Dallas doctors are quite clear in their original medical reports and testimony, and in their early reports to the press--there was a blowout at the right rear of the head. One or two even proposed their own theory (in newspaper interviews) about how Kennedy had turned around, and faced the TSBD, to explain the injuries he sustained.

Not only are the medical reports (and testimony) clear, I personally interviewed these doctors (and nurses) in December, 1982/January 1983 when I first obtained a set of the autopsy photographs. I was accompanied by Pat Valentino (for the January, 1983 interviews). One after another of those interviewed made clear where the wound was located, and that the autopsy photographs contrasted sharply with what they recalled--and in some cases wrote--in their reports. All of this is laid out for anyone who wishes to read about it in the Epilogue to the 1988 Carrol and Graf edition of Best Evidence, and again in the 1993 (Signet) edition.

The notion that there is no difference between Dallas and Bethesda version of the wounds is what is a myth--and Pat Speer ought to know better.

As for Admiral Burkley--and his 1978 affidavit: Burkley was called in to write that document after I spoke with HSCA General Counsel Blakey for well over an hour, in October, 1978, explaining the sharp divergence in the anatomic descriptions between Parkland and Bethesda; explained to him my basic thesis (then unpublished) that the body was altered, and urged him to do something about it--and he assured me he would. So what did Blakey do? He arranged for Admiral Burkley to write an affidavit attesting to the statement there was no difference, which is pure nonsense.

One other matter: In January 1994, a young man named David Naro (of Memphis) telephoned Dr. Kemp Clark, told him he was a serious student of history, and asked Clark if he could come to Dallas and meet with him. Clark responded as follows: First, Clark asked him if he was a lawyer--Naro said no. Then he asked him if he was a writer. Again, the answer was no. All very well, responded Dr. Clark, you can come to my office and we'll visit.

Shortly thereafter, Naro--who had a serious physical disability--was driven to Dallas by two friends and the three of them visited with Clark for about an hour. Naro's meeting with Clark took place on January 28, 1994. He subsequently wrote a short paper about it, which was presented at a COPA gathering, and I spoke with him about it, in detail, in 2013.

Bottom line: Clark told Naro that the President's "large" head wound was located at the back of the head--and that, as far as he (Clark) knew, the wound at the front of the throat was an entrance wound.

Elaborating on the head wound, Clark said that there was cerebral and cerebellar tissue in the wound--in other words, thirteen years after the publication of Best Evidence, which made a major point of the fact that the cerebellum is located at the bottom of the back of the brain, and that its visibility, in the head wound, is clear evidence of the head wound's location, repeated this crucial fact to Naro and his two companions.

I have to wonder when the day is going to be reached (if ever) when Pat Speer, who has spent a lot of time studying this case, and who--as I said--should know better--is going to stop making these absurd statements that there was no difference in the wounds between Dallas and Bethesda, and face the very clear fact that the wounds were altered between the time Dr. Clark saw the body--at Parkland Hospital--and the time the official autopsy commenced in the morgue of the U.S .Navy Medical School, at Bethesdsa at 8 p.m EST.

Does Pat Speer really believe that history is served by these kinds of disingenous arguments?

Does he believe that by writing hundreds and hundreds of words in these Internet posts, he is going to change the basic facts of history?

Anyone with any common sense who wants to know where Kennedy's head wound was located need only look at Figure 23 (of Chapter 13) of Best Evidence, which is captioned: "Relationship of Cerebellum to Skull." There any reader can see--plainly illustrated--that the cerebellum is an ovoid structure tucked underneath the bottom of the back of the brain. Then go and read what Dr. Marion Jenkins, the anesthesiologist , wrote in his report that afternoon: "The cerebellum protruded from the [head] wound," wrote Dr. Jenkins, in his report drafted at 4:30 p.m. on the day Kennedy died. (WCE 392; or WCR, p. 530).

Or read what the late Dr. Peters told me when we spoke, at length, on November 12, 1966--which is all laid out clearly in Chapter 13 (on the page just prior to the one containing Figure 23). "I'd be willing to swear that the wound was in the occiput, you know. I could see the occiptial lobes clearly, and so I know it was that far back ,on the skull. I could look inside the skull, and I thought it looked like the cerebellum was injured, or missing, becuase the occipital lobes seemed to rest almost on the foramen magnum. [the hole in the base of the skull, through which the spinal cord enters]. [but it] looked like the occipital lobes were resting on the foramen magnum. It was as if something underneath them, that usually kept them up from that a little ways, namely, the cerebellum and brainstem, might have been injured, or missing."

Now who should a reader believe--that kind of data attested to by Dallas doctors who were right there, in the Emergency Room? Who were qualified observors; and who wrote reports --some immediately--about what they saw?

Or the deceptive and propogandistic effort of Pat Speer who, for whatever reason, attempts to misrepresent this entire situation.

As I said in my address at Bismarck State College this past November (Google "David Lifton" plus "Bismarck" to watch it), the Bethesda autopsy was a fraud. And it was a fraud for more than one reason:

First of all, the body was covertly intercepted, and the wounds altered.

Second: The chief autopsy doctor--[then] Commander James Humes--knew it had been altered, and said so, in front of two FBI agents (Sibert and O'Neill), which brings us to point number three. . . :

Third: That is why the two FBI agents, Sibert and O'Neill, who wrote a report based on what Humes stated aloud [see Chapter 12 of Best Evidence] that when the body was placed on the table, it was "apparent" that there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull." (CD 7, pp. 380 and following).

As I said in Bismarck: this autopsy was a fraud. It is (i.e., was) the medical equivalent of a financial transation in which the key document(s) are forgeries. Yet this document--with its conclusion that JFK was struck "twice from behind" (my quotes) is the legal foundation for the "Oswald did it" which is the essence of the narrative set forth in the Warren Report.

Stepping back and taking a larger view: the Kennedy assassination cannot be properly analyzed unless it is understood that that this was a body-centric plot--i.e., it was planned in advance to (a) shoot the president and then (b ) change the story of how he died by altering what lawyers call the "medical facts."

Pat Speer--and others like him--will waste their time attempting to confuse the situation, but whatever one's opinion is on the larger question of the Kennedy assassination, nothing will change the basic fact that Kennedy's wounds were altered, prior to autopsy.

What Pat Speer is propounding is a myth.

So. . . reader beware.

DSL

2/27/14, 2:55 AM PST

Los Angeles, California

Edited by David Lifton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might have added, a good reference to the earliest reports of Kennedy's wounding would be Best Evidence itself. And that includes the interviews like that of Dr. Peters referenced above in David Lifton's post. Another example: DAvid was the first to get Perry to give a size of the trach incision: 2-3 cm. Shameful attempts to avoid the implications of this sizing have been made, but the truth is the truth, and it is to David's great credit that he took the initiative to get to Perry before he himself understood the implications of his recollections. Which leads me to a final thought: It has been claimed by James DiEugenio (The Assassinations) and Vince Palamara (2005 review of Best Evidence on Amazon) that Lifton has been debunked (to use Palamara's term). Oh really? By whom and when? For Palamara it was Harrison Livingston, of all people. Even DiEugenio jumps on the Livingston bandwagon in his review of Kaleidoscope exactly where corroborating evidence of the early entrance of Kennedy's body at Bethesda comes in the form of the Boyajian report. Can't trust that report, says Livingston, with Dieugenio cheering, as if his nemesis, David Lifton, has finally been banished from the realm. The arguments Livingston makes, with DiEugnio's applause, are on par with later attempts to deny Perry really made a "2-3 cm" trach incision. When the historical record jars one's viewpoint, best to jettison the historical record-- at least that seems to be standard operating procedure in these cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent post, Mr. Lifton. Ought to slow Pat Speer down for at least a minute. {sarcasm off}

Seriously, though, what do you think of the hypothetical possibility that the shot from the front, into JFK's head, was not meant to occur, and only happened because shooters from the rear had missed, and JFK was about to escape the trap? It seems to me it would have been so much easier to frame a shooter on the 6th floor of the TSBD with a fatal head shot originating from the rear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The notion that there is no difference between Dallas and Bethesda version of the wounds is what is a myth--and Pat Speer ought to know better.

David... thank you. (you as well Daniel...)

While what occurred at Bethesda between 6:40 and 8pm is, in my mind, the essence of the historical fraud... the bigger question remains....

How were 3 Rear Admirals and a 4 star general placed on that path?

Was this part of the plan or a phone call like the one that went to AF-1: No conspiracy, Oswald alone... which is then communicated from Sit Room/White House to these military players - "Make it look like on shot from behind and CYA"

If one was to look a little more deeply into the relationships JFK had with the key Naval players... and his run-ins with LeMay... the hatred was apparent. ONI, DIA and INS are key players who have offered us very little in the way of evidece. Even if they despised the man, overseeing the wholesale destruction of evidence in favor of a smooth coup flies directly into the face of these fiercely patriotic men....

and if they would cover this up... can you just imagine what else was changed and left to history?

Again... thanks David. Your work remains thoroughly inspirational...

A question if you don't mind: What if anything do you make of Ebersole's gobbledegook claim of the neck wound being sutured when he first sees him....

Upon removing the body from the coffin, the anterior aspect, the only things noticeable were a small irregular ecumonic area above the super ecolobular ridge and a neatly sutured transverse surgical wound across the low neck.

Edited by David Josephs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My response in bold.

Pat Speer's post is nonsense.

By tossihg a lot of data at the reader, he seems to be implying that so much data exists that is is impossible to understand what it all means.

Not at all. I was trying to show that, when one includes the witnesses who were not employed by Parkland Hospital into the mix, the Dallas witnesses are not remotely consistent regarding the location of the large head wound, the only wound observed. A subsequent post was more to the point, and showed that when one excludes the Parkland employees from the list, the witnesses are fairly consistent that the wound was on the top or side of the head, and not the back.

So the result is that its an inchoate unfocused mish-mash.

But that's ridiculous.

The Dallas doctors are quite clear in their original medical reports and testimony, and in their early reports to the press--there was a blowout at the right rear of the head. One or two even proposed their own theory (in newspaper interviews) about how Kennedy had turned around, and faced the TSBD, to explain the injuries he sustained.

I'd be interested in seeing those accounts, David. A link would be appreciated. My understanding of the Parkland witnesses was that they thought the large wound was either an exit for the bullet creating the throat wound, or a tangential wound of both entrance and exit. I don't recall any of them presuming there to have been an entrance somewhere else on the skull...that they'd missed.

Not only are the medical reports (and testimony) clear, I personally interviewed these doctors (and nurses) in December, 1982/January 1983 when I first obtained a set of the autopsy photographs. I was accompanied by Pat Valentino (for the January, 1983 interviews). One after another of those interviewed made clear where the wound was located, and that the autopsy photographs contrasted sharply with what they recalled--and in some cases wrote--in their reports. All of this is laid out for anyone who wishes to read about it in the Epilogue to the 1988 Carrol and Graf edition of Best Evidence, and again in the 1993 (Signet) edition.

The notion that there is no difference between Dallas and Bethesda version of the wounds is what is a myth--and Pat Speer ought to know better.

Let's be clear. I agree with you that the Parkland witnesses, taken as a whole, recalled the wound as being in a different location than where it is shown in the autopsy photos. I agree with you that the descriptions of those in Parkland and Bethesda differ, and that those claiming they do not (Groden, Aguilar) are mistaken.

As for Admiral Burkley--and his 1978 affidavit: Burkley was called in to write that document after I spoke with HSCA General Counsel Blakey for well over an hour, in October, 1978, explaining the sharp divergence in the anatomic descriptions between Parkland and Bethesda; explained to him my basic thesis (then unpublished) that the body was altered, and urged him to do something about it--and he assured me he would. So what did Blakey do? He arranged for Admiral Burkley to write an affidavit attesting to the statement there was no difference, which is pure nonsense.

I think you both did the right thing. You pointed out a problem. He dealt with it. Now, did he ask Burkley to lie? Can you prove it?

One other matter: In January 1994, a young man named David Naro (of Memphis) telephoned Dr. Kemp Clark, told him he was a serious student of history, and asked Clark if he could come to Dallas and meet with him. Clark responded as follows: First, Clark asked him if he was a lawyer--Naro said no. Then he asked him if he was a writer. Again, the answer was no. All very well, responded Dr. Clark, you can come to my office and we'll visit.

Shortly thereafter, Naro--who had a serious physical disability--was driven to Dallas by two friends and the three of them visited with Clark for about an hour. Naro's meeting with Clark took place on January 28, 1994. He subsequently wrote a short paper about it, which was presented at a COPA gathering, and I spoke with him about it, in detail, in 2013.

Bottom line: Clark told Naro that the President's "large" head wound was located at the back of the head--and that, as far as he (Clark) knew, the wound at the front of the throat was an entrance wound.

Elaborating on the head wound, Clark said that there was cerebral and cerebellar tissue in the wound--in other words, thirteen years after the publication of Best Evidence, which made a major point of the fact that the cerebellum is located at the bottom of the back of the brain, and that its visibility, in the head wound, is clear evidence of the head wound's location, repeated this crucial fact to Naro and his two companions.

And yet, we only have Naro's word on this. A few years back I posted a few questions on Naro, and no one would vouch for him. No one knew anything about him. This made it hard to take his claims about Clark seriously. Even more problematic, for that matter, is what we do know about Clark. 1) He was pals with Dr. Lattimer, and assisted Lattimer in some of his Oswald did-it papers. 2) The only time he spoke to the press on the subject of Kennedy's death was to complain about the researchers hounding him and trying to get him to say something controversial, IOW, you. 3) When his colleague Dr. Grossman emerged from the shadows a decade or so ago, and described the wounds observed at Parkland as if they'd been observed at Bethesda, he uttered not a peep.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=860&dat=19831122&id=ioRUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=C48DAAAAIBAJ&pg=3896,4942461

I have to wonder when the day is going to be reached (if ever) when Pat Speer, who has spent a lot of time studying this case, and who--as I said--should know better--is going to stop making these absurd statements that there was no difference in the wounds between Dallas and Bethesda, and face the very clear fact that the wounds were altered between the time Dr. Clark saw the body--at Parkland Hospital--and the time the official autopsy commenced in the morgue of the U.S .Navy Medical School, at Bethesdsa at 8 p.m EST.

Wait, Is this news? You used to state that the body was altered before it reached Bethesda. Has Horne won you over?

Does Pat Speer really believe that history is served by these kinds of disingenous arguments?

Does he believe that by writing hundreds and hundreds of words in these Internet posts, he is going to change the basic facts of history?

I'm sorry, David, but how is listing what people ACTUALLY SAID, disingenuous, and changing the facts of history?

Anyone with any common sense who wants to know where Kennedy's head wound was located need only look at Figure 23 (of Chapter 13) of Best Evidence, which is captioned: "Relationship of Cerebellum to Skull." There any reader can see--plainly illustrated--that the cerebellum is an ovoid structure tucked underneath the bottom of the back of the brain. Then go and read what Dr. Marion Jenkins, the anesthesiologist , wrote in his report that afternoon: "The cerebellum protruded from the [head] wound," wrote Dr. Jenkins, in his report drafted at 4:30 p.m. on the day Kennedy died. (WCE 392; or WCR, p. 530).

And yet, when asked to show where the wound was on the skull, only a handful of the Parkland witnesses--and NONE of the key witnesses--pointed to a location consistent with damage to the cerebellum.

Or read what the late Dr. Peters told me when we spoke, at length, on November 12, 1966--which is all laid out clearly in Chapter 13 (on the page just prior to the one containing Figure 23). "I'd be willing to swear that the wound was in the occiput, you know. I could see the occiptial lobes clearly, and so I know it was that far back ,on the skull. I could look inside the skull, and I thought it looked like the cerebellum was injured, or missing, becuase the occipital lobes seemed to rest almost on the foramen magnum. [the hole in the base of the skull, through which the spinal cord enters]. [but it] looked like the occipital lobes were resting on the foramen magnum. It was as if something underneath them, that usually kept them up from that a little ways, namely, the cerebellum and brainstem, might have been injured, or missing."

And yet, Peters repeatedly and consistently claimed he was LOOKING DOWN into the skull at that time, from a hole ABOVE the cerebellum,. He even pointed out the location of this hole on camera a number of times. Here, he is on the left, pointing out the location of this hole. Groden, however, wants us to believe he pointed to the location at right. Where do you stand on this issue? Was it okay for Groden to pretend Peters was pointing to a location lower on the back of the head than he was? Is it okay for researchers to claim people pointing to the top of their head are actually "back of the head" witnesses?

Thecaseforconspiracy.jpg

Now who should a reader believe--that kind of data attested to by Dallas doctors who were right there, in the Emergency Room? Who were qualified observors; and who wrote reports --some immediately--about what they saw?

None of the reports were written immediately. Look at the timeline. They were all written after the press conference, and after the doctors had time to discuss the matter and blur their recollections.

Or the deceptive and propogandistic effort of Pat Speer who, for whatever reason, attempts to misrepresent this entire situation.

Accurately presenting the situation is not misrepresenting the situation. You have told me in the past that you consider the statements of the Dealey Plaza witnesses immaterial and a distraction. I'm sorry but I just can't accept that.

As I said in my address at Bismarck State College this past November (Google "David Lifton" plus "Bismarck" to watch it), the Bethesda autopsy was a fraud. And it was a fraud for more than one reason:

First of all, the body was covertly intercepted, and the wounds altered.

Second: The chief autopsy doctor--[then] Commander James Humes--knew it had been altered, and said so, in front of two FBI agents (Sibert and O'Neill), which brings us to point number three. . . :

Making an observation is not the same as "knowing".

Third: That is why the two FBI agents, Sibert and O'Neill, who wrote a report based on what Humes stated aloud [see Chapter 12 of Best Evidence] that when the body was placed on the table, it was "apparent" that there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull." (CD 7, pp. 380 and following).

As I said in Bismarck: this autopsy was a fraud. It is (i.e., was) the medical equivalent of a financial transation in which the key document(s) are forgeries. Yet this document--with its conclusion that JFK was struck "twice from behind" (my quotes) is the legal foundation for the "Oswald did it" which is the essence of the narrative set forth in the Warren Report.

No argument here. I agree that the "twice from behind" conclusion was political.

Stepping back and taking a larger view: the Kennedy assassination cannot be properly analyzed unless it is understood that that this was a body-centric plot--i.e., it was planned in advance to (a) shoot the president and then (b ) change the story of how he died by altering what lawyers call the "medical facts."

Pat Speer--and others like him--will waste their time attempting to confuse the situation, but whatever one's opinion is on the larger question of the Kennedy assassination, nothing will change the basic fact that Kennedy's wounds were altered, prior to autopsy.

What Pat Speer is propounding is a myth.

In the words of Oliver Stone...a "counter-myth."

So. . . reader beware.

Yes, if they read my posts they might find out what people actually said and thought. GADZOOKS!

DSL

2/27/14, 2:55 AM PST

Los Angeles, California

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Pat Speer's last post makes a lot of sense -- except for two things....

Wait, Is this news? You [David S. Lifton] used to state that the body was altered before it reached Bethesda. Has Horne won you over?

Huh?

Pat, the remarks made by David Lifton [repeated below] that you are replying to in the above quote are not inconsistent in the slightest way with Mr. Lifton's longstanding beliefs put forth in his book. Lifton is saying here what he's always said (and it's still as far-fetched and unrealistic here in 2014 as it was back in 1966 when DSL's strange odyssey first began). He's saying the body of JFK was altered between Parkland and Bethesda. But the statement below does not imply that Lifton has embraced the additional Humes Altered The Wounds nonsense put forth by Doug Horne.

Emphasis added by DVP here:

I have to wonder when the day is going to be reached (if ever) when Pat Speer, who has spent a lot of time studying this case, and who--as I said--should know better--is going to stop making these absurd statements that there was no difference in the wounds between Dallas and Bethesda, and face the very clear fact that the wounds were altered between the time Dr. Clark saw the body--at Parkland Hospital--and the time the official autopsy commenced in the morgue of the U.S .Navy Medical School, at Bethesdsa at 8 p.m EST.

Number two -- I agree with Pat Speer up to a point about some of the "BOH" witnesses. But this composite chart made by Mr. Speer is probably a tad bit misleading (IMO), because the three witnesses pictured here ARE still indicating that there was SOME kind of wound or defect extending all the way into the VERY BACK part of JFK's head. Right, Pat? Otherwise, what do you think Peters and Custer and O'Connor are doing when they have their own hands placed over the REAR portions of their heads in the photos on the right side of your montage below? Are they just scratching their heads here, and a picture was taken to mislead people? Or what?....

Pat-Speer-Chart.jpg

JFK-Archives.blogspot.com / President Kennedy's Head Wounds

JFK-Archives.blogspot.com / Index -- BOH Articles

An excerpt from the above links:

"Of course, the CTers [Conspiracy Theorists] who think that Kennedy was shot in the head from the front can always go down "THE PHOTOS ARE ALL FAKES" path...even though the HSCA said that ALL of the autopsy pictures are "unaltered" in any way whatsoever. .... To stress my main point again (via the opinion that the [autopsy] pictures are GENUINE and are NOT FAKES, which, of course, IS the truth of the matter):

How would it be even remotely possible for a bullet to leave a huge hole in the FAR-RIGHT-REAR portion of President Kennedy's head and yet have the REAR SCALP of that same President Kennedy look like this (in the autopsy picture below) after such a shooting event? Was Kennedy's scalp made of bullet-proof cast iron or some other impossible-to-penetrate material? Lacking that type of crazy explanation, I cannot see how it would be possible for a bullet that caused the amount of damage to the RIGHT-REAR of JFK's skull that most CTers think it DID cause, to NOT have penetrated the RIGHT-REAR scalp of Kennedy's head and caused at least SOME visible damage to the outer scalp of the President. In a word -- impossible." -- DVP; April 2008

JFK_Autopsy_Photo_1.jpg

David-Von-Pein-Vs-David-Lifton-Logo.png

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Response to DVP.

1. My observation about Lifton's comment "the wounds were altered between the time Dr. Clark saw the body--at Parkland Hospital--and the time the official autopsy commenced in the morgue of the U.S .Navy Medical School, at Bethesdsa at 8 p.m EST" is accurate, IMO. My understanding is that Horne believes the body was altered at Bethesda BEFORE 8 p.m. It appears, then, that Lifton is now conceding that Horne might be on to something. I apologize to David Lifton if I'm misunderstanding his words.

2. Context is everything. The Case for Conspiracy slide to which you refer is Groden-specific. The images at right are what Groden publishes in his book The Killing of a President. These images are posted all over the internet. The clear implication is that these men are "back of the head" witnesses, and believed there was a blow out wound on the back of the head. The images at left come from Groden's video The Case for Conspiracy, and proves the deceptiveness of the images at right. The reality is that these three men were not "back of the head" witnesses, at least not as claimed by Groden. Peters pointed out a wound at the top of the back of the head, well above the ears. Custer and O'Connor said they saw a large wound encompassing the whole right side of the head, from front to back, and were clearly describing the condition of the skull after the scalp had been reflected and the brain removed.

P.S. In a previous discussion of this slide, a well-known teacher of critical thinking got all upset and claimed I was trying to make people think the Bethesda witnesses saw the same wound as the Parkland witnesses. I then pointed out to him that 1) the slide actually argues the opposite, and that Custer and O'Connor's recollections were not supportive of the recollections of the Parkland witnesses, and 2) that the most coherent argument that the wounds observed in Parkland and Bethesda were the same was published in a book HE'D compiled and edited.

Edited by Pat Speer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat,

What exactly do you think that Peters, Custer, and O'Connor, on the right side of the montage, are pointing to (or indicating with their fingers) on the back side of their head?

Since Peters' head is turned away from the camera more so than O'Connors', perhaps he's the best one to talk about here because his finger placement can be made out a little better.

Thank you,

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat,

What exactly do you think that Peters, Custer, and O'Connor, on the right side of the montage, are pointing to (or indicating with their fingers) on the back side of their head?

Thank you,

--Tommy :sun

I'm not sure about Peters. Perhaps he was telling Groden where the cerebellum was, or where others thought they saw a wound. Or maybe even he was showing Groden where he thought the wound was. But the fact remains that in Groden's own video (and other videos posted online) Peters points out the location at left.

As far as Custer and O'Connor, in Groden's own video they said they saw a wound from front to back. At left they are pointing out the forward-most part of this wound. At right they are pointing out the rearward-most part of this wound. The snapshots at left come from Groden's video. The Custer shot at right comes from this video as well. I'm not sure where the O'Connor shot at right came from.

Edited by Pat Speer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, Pat, for your last reply. But this comment you made still makes no sense to me:

My observation about Lifton's comment "the wounds were altered between the time Dr. Clark saw the body--at Parkland Hospital--and the time the official autopsy commenced in the morgue of the U.S .Navy Medical School, at Bethesdsa at 8 p.m EST" is accurate, IMO. My understanding is that Horne believes the body was altered at Bethesda BEFORE 8 p.m. It appears, then, that Lifton is now conceding that Horne might be on to something.

Well, Pat, since we all know the autopsy started at about 8:00 PM, it's fairly obvious that David Lifton DOES indeed believe the wounds were altered BEFORE 8:00. Right? So how is Lifton's previous remark out of sync with his theory that the body was altered by somebody at Walter Reed (or wherever) prior to the time Dr. Humes started the autopsy? What am I missing here? You surely don't think Lifton is of the opinion the alleged alterations to the President's body were performed AFTER the Bethesda autopsy commenced at 8 PM. Right?

Re: Groden....

I don't know if Robert Groden was being deliberately deceptive in his 1993 book or not, but this picture which I captured of Dr. Paul Peters (taken from the 1988 NOVA/PBS program) comes pretty close to matching Groden's photo of Peters, although it appears as if Peters' hand is a little lower on the back of his head in the montage posted earlier than it is in this 1988 hands-on demonstration:

Paul-Peters-1988.png

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My response in bold

Well, Pat, since we all know the autopsy started at about 8:00 PM, it's fairly obvious that David Lifton DOES indeed believe the wounds were altered BEFORE 8:00. Right? So how is Lifton's previous remark out of sync with his theory that the body was altered by somebody at Walter Reed (or wherever) prior to the time Dr. Humes started the autopsy?

It's not. Lifton used to come out and say the alteration was done before the body reached Humes. Now, it seems like he's tap-dancing. I took that as a concession that Humes may have performed the alteration. If so, that constitutes a significant change in his theory.

What am I missing here? You surely don't think Lifton is of the opinion the alleged alterations to the President's body were performed AFTER the Bethesda autopsy commenced at 8 PM. Right?

Horne and his followers, apparently including David Josephs, believe the autopsy really started well before 8:00 P.M.

Re: Groden....

I don't know if Robert Groden was being deliberately deceptive in his 1993 book or not, but this picture which I captured of Dr. Paul Peters (taken from the 1988 NOVA/PBS program) comes pretty close to matching Groden's photo of Peters, although it appears as if Peters' hand is a little lower on the back of his head in the montage posted earlier than it is in this 1988 hands-on demonstration:

Look again. The image at left on my slide comes from Groden's video and demonstrates where Peters thought he saw a wound. This location is on the top back part of the head, well above the ears, and is very close to the location you posted below. Now look at the photo of Peters in Groden's book, at right on my slide. There he is pointing to a location at and slightly above the level of the ears. It's about 3 inches away.

Paul-Peters-1988.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The image at left on my slide...demonstrates where Peters thought he saw a wound. This location is on the top back part of the head, well above the ears...Now look at the photo of Peters in Groden's book, at right on my slide. There he is pointing to a location at and slightly above the level of the ears. It's about 3 inches away.

Either way, Dr. Peters is still wrong, because there was no humongous hole in President Kennedy's head in either one of those "BOH" locations, as these photos clearly prove for all time:

JFK-Autopsy-Xray-And-Photograph-Side-By-

For a more accurate "hand on the head" demonstration of where the large wound in JFK's head was really located, we need to go to the witnesses who saw the assassination as it was occurring in Dealey Plaza. And the best possible witnesses among that group are Abraham Zapruder and William Newman:

WFAA-044.png

William-Newman-July-10-2003.png

And there's also Gayle Newman too, who provided a hands-on account of the location on JFK's head where she saw "blood gushing out". And it sure isn't in the occipital (or rear) portion of the head:

WFAA-017.png

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Newman interview is good, David.

This is part of what they said in the interview, (interviewers questions in italics)

Bill Newman

“ As the car got directly in front of us, uh, a gunshot, apparently from behind us hit the President in the side of the temple.

“Did you think the first gunshot came from behind you too?”

“I think it came from the same location, uh, apparently back up on the, uh, the mall, what ya call it.”

“Do you think the shot came from up on top of the viaduct towards the President? Is that correct?”

“Yes sir--Er no not on the viaduct itself, but up on top of the hill or the mound of ground at a garden”

“How far away would you say that is from where the President was ? A couple or three hundred yards, something like that?”

“Well I haven’t no idea ‘cos I didn’t see where the gunshots come from. We were looking directly at the President when he was hit, and he was more or less directly in front of us, and we didn’t realize what was happening until we seen the side of his head, whenever the bullet hit him in the head”

“snip”

To Gail Newman “Did you see anyone else hit besides the err...”

“Governor Connolly was kind of turned to his side and grabbed his stomach”

“snip”

To Bill Newman

Do you have you idea which direction the shots came from that hit the President and Mr Connolly. Did you see which if the shots came from one direction and one from another?”

”No, They both came directly from behind where we were standing…The President, it looked like though he was looking in that direction..I don’t know whether he was hit first, apparently he was . It looked like he jumped up in his seat, and when he jumped up, well he was shot directly in the head. And re I don’t know what you call it the mall behind us ,but, apparently that’s where he was ”

Edited by Ray Mitcham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, Ray. And "directly behind" the Newmans at the moment of the fatal head shot is....where again? Certainly NOT the famous "picket fence" on the Knoll.

Bronson%2BSlide.jpg

More.....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/11/bill-and-gayle-newman.html

During a 2003 interview, Bill Newman goes into even more detail about his observations (at the 6:20 mark of the video below), when he says that his opinion about the direction from which the head shot came was derived more from the "visual impact that it had on me more so than the noise".

Newman saw the right side of JFK's head explode, and he immediately interpreted that VISUAL experience (incorrectly) as a bullet that struck the President in the right-front (temple) area of his head. And Newman explicitly says that very thing in this interview -- http://www.c-span.org/video/?287932-101/kennedy-assassination-bill-gayle-newman-part-2

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...