Jump to content
The Education Forum
Vince Palamara

NEW JFK autopsy photo--!

Recommended Posts

ii will surely take ya'lls word for it since you stick to your guns - i defer to your experience happily.

so,... WTF is with this "CTer" Groden? a "reverse" agenda...? is he without outward affirmation and in need of attention at any cost?

he pulls crap like this and he was asked to testify in OJSimpson???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good point, Glenn.

I remember when Groden became angered by Lifton's refusal to believe the Roscoe/ Ricky White story, saying the publicity over the tale was "good for the movement." Methinks this is his modus operandi- it is all "for the good" to push the pro-conspiracy angle. The OJ civil trial Bruno Magli shoe debacle, making 50 grand from selling the autopsy photos to Globe, and this photo chicanery makes me sad- Bob is a good man, a great speaker, and has done a lot of good. Why taint the waters- and your message- by mixing in spurious items?

Edited by Vince Palamara

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm reading the Boswell ARRB testimony at the moment (literally) and i'm wondering why more attention isn't given to this...

"In the previous one [photograph], it [the scalp flap] was permitted just to drop. In this one, it's pulled forward up over the forehead, toward the forehead."

and i'm sure it's the image we're all used to with the thumb holding this flap in place with the visible bullet hole and a small piece of white something down low on the hairline, which is mentioned in the next couple of questions - not necessarily THIS pictured wound, but at any case this testimony clearly describes 1) an exit hole in the back of his head that resulted in a skin-connected flap that could cover it up, and 2) another photo from the exact same angle in which this flap is allowed to fall and expose the large/exit wound.

how hard is this to understand? (except someone so committed to his own preconceptions that nothing to the contrary can possibly be true...?)

i know you all have read this stuff. it's pretty engrossing. convincing. for most people...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm reading the Boswell ARRB testimony at the moment (literally) and i'm wondering why more attention isn't given to this...

"In the previous one [photograph], it [the scalp flap] was permitted just to drop. In this one, it's pulled forward up over the forehead, toward the forehead."

and i'm sure it's the image we're all used to with the thumb holding this flap in place with the visible bullet hole and a small piece of white something down low on the hairline, which is mentioned in the next couple of questions - not necessarily THIS pictured wound, but at any case this testimony clearly describes 1) an exit hole in the back of his head that resulted in a skin-connected flap that could cover it up, and 2) another photo from the exact same angle in which this flap is allowed to fall and expose the large/exit wound.

how hard is this to understand? (except someone so committed to his own preconceptions that nothing to the contrary can possibly be true...?)

i know you all have read this stuff. it's pretty engrossing. convincing. for most people...

Boswell never claimed there was a blow out on the back of the head, if that's what you're trying to say.

There is much confusion over the doctors' description of a defect (hole and fractured skull) that extended onto the back of the head. Such a wound is confirmed by the x-rays. But there's no record of them ever saying there was hole of bone and scalp on the far back of the head, as depicted in the so-called McClelland drawing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I noticed this interesting "re-creation" photo today, and I'm wondering what this pic was taken for? It's certainly not something that was done to replicate the assassination in any kind of detail, because it's obviously not taken in Dealey Plaza. Looks like a forest in the background. ~shrug~

And they seem to have forgotten that the Connallys were in the car at all. I don't see hide nor hair of either Nellie or John Connally (but maybe they're both hidden by the side window).

And if I were a rabid conspiracy buff, I would swear that was Jack Ruby in the front seat next to the driver. :)

If anybody knows who took this picture or where it was taken or the reason it was taken, please chime in. I'd like to know.

Click to enlarge....

Assassination-Recreation.jpg

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David, I vaguely remembered seeing the image before, but couldn't remember where, so I did a Google reverse image search and it appears it's a still from the movie Executive Action. This is odd because I remember Executive Action appearing as if it were filmed in Dealey Plaza, or at least somewhere that closely resembled it. Maybe this is supposed to be after they passed the triple underpass and the Connallys are ducking (?). In any event, I don't remember it from the film.

It's interesting that some newer movies and depictions of the assassination (there have been some music videos based around it), like Killing Kennedy don't even really resemble Dealey Plaza during the shooting scene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info, Brian.

I wonder why the picture is in black-and-white if it's from "Executive Action" (a 1973 color film)? ~shrug time~

I have that movie on DVD. And I think it's available at YouTube too. I'll have to check out the re-creation scene of the shooting and see if the forest on the south side of Dealey Plaza is in the film too. :)

And that still picture can't be meant to represent the car after it passed under the triple underpass. If that had been the case, JFK would be out of sight and Clint Hill would be hovering over the back seat.

~shrug time again~

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again, Brian.

I think I feel an "LOL" coming on after looking at the last link you supplied. Why would anybody spend money on a framed picture of a re-created scene showing JFK being killed (with a forest in the background yet)? Hilarious. That's certainly something I'd want to hang on my living room wall to look at every day of my life. (Not.) :) Might as well hang up a framed picture of JFK's head exploding at Z313.

As I recall, there is a scene in the "Executive Action" film where the conspirators/assassins are practicing their "triangulation of crossfire" in a wooded area with a lot of trees around them. Perhaps that's where the photo was taken. But Burt Lancaster's evil group of henchmen weren't shooting at real people (with a Jackie look-alike in the car, decked out in her pink suit). I think the assassins were firing at dummies or sandbags.

But, perhaps it was being presented as a "What if I were really shooting at Kennedy now, out here in the woods?" type of thing, with the evil henchmen only envisioning in their own minds what it would be like to be shooting at JFK out there in the forest. (Of course, how the henchmen would have been able to predict that Jackie would be wearing a pink wool suit with a pink pillbox hat is another discussion altogether. Maybe they could see into the future too.) :)

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good find, DVP :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm reading the Boswell ARRB testimony at the moment (literally) and i'm wondering why more attention isn't given to this...

"In the previous one [photograph], it [the scalp flap] was permitted just to drop. In this one, it's pulled forward up over the forehead, toward the forehead."

and i'm sure it's the image we're all used to with the thumb holding this flap in place with the visible bullet hole and a small piece of white something down low on the hairline, which is mentioned in the next couple of questions - not necessarily THIS pictured wound, but at any case this testimony clearly describes 1) an exit hole in the back of his head that resulted in a skin-connected flap that could cover it up, and 2) another photo from the exact same angle in which this flap is allowed to fall and expose the large/exit wound.

how hard is this to understand? (except someone so committed to his own preconceptions that nothing to the contrary can possibly be true...?)

i know you all have read this stuff. it's pretty engrossing. convincing. for most people...

Boswell never claimed there was a blow out on the back of the head, if that's what you're trying to say.

There is much confusion over the doctors' description of a defect (hole and fractured skull) that extended onto the back of the head. Such a wound is confirmed by the x-rays. But there's no record of them ever saying there was hole of bone and scalp on the far back of the head, as depicted in the so-called McClelland drawing.

I'm not saying that he said 'blowout' - just that he said what is transcribed that he said - that in one photograph there's a flap of scalp being held in place and which covers a wound that is not the bullet entrance wound.

Just that the picture, if it's the one that i have in mind (this one or the other one with the small entrance wound visible) looks like what he's described and what I've always thought, that the hand is holding a flap in place that's covering something else, like a different wound. I feel it's this pic because they mention the small "white" thing at the hairline that he says he's wondered (i think he says "worried") about for years, and the Questioner is more than a little curious about it, too. To me it seems quite clear that there was a lot more going on with the back there than is "presented" to us in the photographs.

entrance.jpg

Edited by Glenn Nall

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...