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

[David Von Pein]

The 'entrance is the smaller' argument only applies when the bullet trajectories are tracked.

Oh, bull, Pat. In THIS (JFK) case, there can be no doubt whatsoever which of Kennedy's head wounds was the entry wound--with or without "tracking" of the bullet wounds. Am I supposed to think THIS wound in the photo below is an EXIT wound and that huge hole in the right/front/top portion of the President's head is an ENTRY wound? (Talk about topsy-turvy. This takes the cake.)

So, get off your high horse, will ya? You would like the readers to believe you've got all the facts on your side, and science on your side, when your whole 'Oswald did it all by his lonesome' argument rests on your unfounded BELIEF that either 1) the autopsy doctors were incredibly inept and that the bullet actually entered 4 inches higher than they claimed in a location nobody noticed, or 2) the autopsy doctors were correct and all the subsequent panels claiming the bullet trajectory they'd proposed makes no sense were inept. In either case, you've gotta go against experts.

I'm not denying that there is controversy among the "experts" and the autopsy surgeons regarding JFK's head wounds. I've never denied or ducked that controversy. I've merely attempted to explain it in what I feel is a reasonable and sensible way (based mainly on what I consider to be the best evidence associated with the President's wounds--the autopsy pictures and X-rays).

But most of the conspiracy theorists disagree quite strongly with EVERY single expert who has ever officially investigated John F. Kennedy's murder and looked at the original autopsy photographs and X-rays. A CTer who is absolutely positive that JFK was shot from the front and had a massive hole in the BACK of his head has no choice but to totally disregard every single item listed below (which is just plain ridiculous):

1.) The autopsy report.

2.) The autopsy photographs.

3.) The autopsy X-rays.

4.) The testimony and subsequent statements of all three autopsy physicians.

5.) The conclusion of the Warren Commission in 1964.

6.) The conclusion of the Clark Panel in 1968.

7.) The conclusion of the Rockefeller Commission in 1975.

8.) The conclusion of the HSCA in 1978.

9.) The Zapruder Film.

See how silly it gets once you get beyond a HALF-DOZEN different things/committees that the conspiracy theorists believe are totally wrong or phony? But the CTers don't care that they have to spit on ALL NINE of the above things. They'll do it anyway. But please don't ask me to disregard the above batch of evidence. Because in order to do that, I'd have to park my common sense at the front door. And I'll never do that.

So, you see Pat, the horse I'm riding isn't perched so high. But CTers don't even have a horse to ride in this race, as far as I can see. They ride a different animal -- BULL.

Edited March 4, 2014 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

My response in bold.

The 'entrance is the smaller' argument only applies when the bullet trajectories are tracked.

Oh, bull, Pat. In THIS (JFK) case, there can be no doubt whatsoever which of Kennedy's head wounds was the entry wound--with or without "tracking" of the bullet wounds. Am I supposed to think THIS wound in the photo below is an EXIT wound and that huge hole in the right/front/top portion of the President's head is an ENTRY wound? (Talk about topsy-turvy. This takes the cake.)

You missed it. I acknowledged that when there are two CONNECTED wounds the larger one is usually the exit. But in this case, NO ONE ever connected the wounds. In the "official" story there was a small wound low on the back of the head and a large wound high on the head. That's it. In defiance of EVERY written and unwritten guideline for conducting a forensic autopsy, the wounds were never connected. It's even worse than that. Supposedly they weren't even probed. No, even worse that that. The ONLY witnesses claiming the small entrance wound on the back of the head was probed (Lipsey, Robinson) claimed the probe exited--get this--the throat wound. Now, ain't that a humdinger?

So, get off your high horse, will ya? You would like the readers to believe you've got all the facts on your side, and science on your side, when your whole 'Oswald did it all by his lonesome' argument rests on your unfounded BELIEF that either 1) the autopsy doctors were incredibly inept and that the bullet actually entered 4 inches higher than they claimed in a location nobody noticed, or 2) the autopsy doctors were correct and all the subsequent panels claiming the bullet trajectory they'd proposed makes no sense were inept. In either case, you've gotta go against experts.

I'm not denying that there is controversy among the "experts" and the autopsy surgeons regarding JFK's head wounds. I've never denied or ducked that controversy. I've merely attempted to explain it in what I feel is a reasonable and sensible way (based mainly on what I consider to be the best evidence associated with the President's wounds--the autopsy pictures and X-rays).

But most of the conspiracy theorists disagree quite strongly with EVERY single expert who has ever officially investigated John F. Kennedy's murder and looked at the original autopsy photographs and X-rays. A CTer who is absolutely positive that JFK was shot from the front and had a massive hole in the BACK of his head has no choice but to totally disregard every single item listed below (which is just plain ridiculous):

1.) The autopsy report.
2.) The autopsy photographs.
3.) The autopsy X-rays.
4.) The testimony and subsequent statements of all three autopsy physicians.
5.) The conclusion of the Warren Commission in 1964.
6.) The conclusion of the Clark Panel in 1968.
7.) The conclusion of the Rockefeller Commission in 1975.
8.) The conclusion of the HSCA in 1978.
9.) The Zapruder Film.

See how silly it gets once you get beyond a HALF-DOZEN different things/committees that the conspiracy theorists believe are totally wrong or phony? But the CTers don't care that they have to spit on ALL NINE of the above things. They'll do it anyway. But please don't ask me to disregard the above batch of evidence. Because in order to do that, I'd have to park my common sense at the front door. And I'll never do that.

So, you see Pat, the horse I'm riding isn't perched so high. But CTers don't even have a horse to ride in this race, as far as I can see. They ride a different animal -- BULL.

Wrong. Why do you insist on using the term "CTers" to describe those believing the autopsy photos or the body itself were altered? While those believing such things--alterationists--quite possibly constitute a slight majority of CTs on the internet, they are a small minority of the CTs in the general population, many of whom believe Oswald fired shots but had help.

There's also this. While I am not an alterationist, I nevertheless believe your list above is nonsense. If the autopsy photos had been faked, then the conclusions of the Clark, Rockefeller, and HSCA Panels, are meaningless.

[David Von Pein]

I acknowledged that when there are two CONNECTED wounds, the larger one is usually the exit. But in this case, NO ONE ever connected the wounds. In the "official" story, there was a small wound low on the back of the head and a large wound high on the head. That's it.

Given the fact that there was this HUGE hole in the right/top/front part of the President's head....and this small "entry"-like hole in the back of his head, how difficult is the math here? Should we consult Einstein to get this figured out? Or should a cat by the name of Felix be able to solve this puzzle? (I vote for the latter.)

(Can this get any sillier? Answer--Yes, it can. See Pat Speer's next comment for proof....)

In defiance of EVERY written and unwritten guideline for conducting a forensic autopsy, the wounds were never connected. It's even worse than that. Supposedly they weren't even probed. No, even worse that that. The ONLY witnesses claiming the small entrance wound on the back of the head was probed (Lipsey, Robinson) claimed the probe exited--get this--the throat wound. Now, ain't that a humdinger?

A humdinger of a dumb and preposterous theory, yes.

There's also this. While I am not an alterationist, I nevertheless believe your list above is nonsense. If the autopsy photos had been faked, then the conclusions of the Clark, Rockefeller, and HSCA Panels are meaningless.

So, you think the ONLY thing the HSCA relied on were the photos & X-rays, eh? That's interesting (and very wrong). There's also the testimony of the autopsists. Or is their 1978 testimony "meaningless" too (as it relates to their ability to answer the fundamental question of: "WAS JFK STRUCK BY ANY BULLETS COMING FROM THE FRONT?")?

Anyway, the autopsy photos cannot possibly be fake, unless there's a way to fake pictures in stereo pairs (which every expert has said is impossible).

So, you're cooked again, Mr. Speer. Sorry. :-)

Edited March 4, 2014 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

My response in bold.

I acknowledged that when there are two CONNECTED wounds, the larger one is usually the exit. But in this case, NO ONE ever connected the wounds. In the "official" story, there was a small wound low on the back of the head and a large wound high on the head. That's it.

Given the fact that there was this HUGE hole in the right/top/front part of the President's head....and this small "entry"-like hole in the back of his head, how difficult is the math here? Should we consult Einstein to get this figured out? Or should a cat by the name of Felix be able to solve this puzzle? (I vote for the latter.)

Why are you celebrating your lack of insight on this issue? There is no "math" here. There's 2 and then there's 4. You ASSUME there's another 2 involved and that it's 2 plus 2 equals 4. But without that 2--a 2 for which there's no evidence--you have 6. And 6 equals two head wounds, and most probably two shooters.

(Can this get any sillier? Answer--Yes, it can. See Pat Speer's next comment for proof....)

In defiance of EVERY written and unwritten guideline for conducting a forensic autopsy, the wounds were never connected. It's even worse than that. Supposedly they weren't even probed. No, even worse that that. The ONLY witnesses claiming the small entrance wound on the back of the head was probed (Lipsey, Robinson) claimed the probe exited--get this--the throat wound. Now, ain't that a humdinger?

A humdinger of a dumb and preposterous theory, yes.

According to who? YOU? You simply recite stuff you find on websites or in books by other people who know nothing about the medical evidence, e.g. McAdams, Bugliosi. If you did a little reading you'd understand that the Clark Panel, Lattimer, and Sturdivan all claimed the neck x-ray demonstrated that a bullet came down the neck from above. If you did a little reading you'd understand that the HSCA FPP concluded--UNANIMOUSLY--that the back wound was anatomically BELOW the throat wound. If you did a little reading you'd understand that the HSCA FPP tried to dismiss the air in the tissues signifying a bullet path from above observed by the Clark Panel, Lattimer, and Sturdivan, by offering that Kennedy's tie somehow closed off the hole in his throat, and thereby forced the air leaking from his trachea back up his neck in a straight line leading towards the base of his skull. Now, do you believe that? Really? Can you cite one other instance where air in the tissues backed up within the neck because a tie closed off the exit? Of course not.

Because THAT'S a dumb and preposterous theory.

There's also this. While I am not an alterationist, I nevertheless believe your list above is nonsense. If the autopsy photos had been faked, then the conclusions of the Clark, Rockefeller, and HSCA Panels are meaningless.

So, you think the ONLY thing the HSCA relied on were the photos & X-rays, eh? That's interesting (and very wrong). There's also the testimony of the autopsists. Or is their 1978 testimony "meaningless" too (as it relates to their ability to answer the fundamental question of: "WAS JFK STRUCK BY ANY BULLETS COMING FROM THE FRONT?")?

The HSCA Panel's conclusions were drawn up in 1977, at a time when every person to see the entrance wound at the autopsy was saying it was low on the back of the head, by the EOP. The HSCA Panel nevertheless sided with their buddy Russell Fisher and decided the wound was at the top of the head. They didn't care what the doctors said. About anything. In fact, when one reads Dr. Baden's post HSCA comments it's easy to see that he consistently and deliberately painted the autopsy doctors as total incompetents at every opportunity.

Anyway, the autopsy photos cannot possibly be fake, unless there's a way to fake pictures in stereo pairs (which every expert has said is impossible).

So, you're cooked again, Mr. Speer. Sorry. :-)

I'm cooked? What are you talking about? I have claimed the photos are legit for more than a decade. But, to your point, OF COURSE you can fake photos in stereo pairs. Take photos of a different body. Or a dummy. In stereo pairs. TA-DA!

[Ray Mitcham]

Different body?

[David Von Pein]

OF COURSE you can fake photos 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." -- Vince Bugliosi; Pages 223-224 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History"

[Glenn Nall]

every time i come across DVP in these forums, he's arguing with someone. rather rudely, i might add.

[Ron Ecker]

every time i come across DVP in these forums, he's arguing with someone. rather rudely, i might add.

He's a lone nutter. And rudeness seems to be one of the things lone nutters employ apparently to compensate for the weaknesses of their position. Have you read Bugliosi? He thinks people who believe there was more than one shooter are idiots and he says so. I doubt that he knows most of the folks on this forum, but he knows we are idiots.

Edited May 31, 2015 by Ron Ecker