Cliff Varnell Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 When the honesty and competence of all US Government employees is the given subtext of a study -- that study is inherently flawed. Pat Speer assumes the infallible competence of those who covered up JFK's murder. How can such assumptions be taken seriously? Jesus, Cliff, you couldn't be more wrong. I could say "as usual" but the reality is I agree with you on an awful lot. I asked you before if you watched my video "The Single Bullet Theory, Voodoo Science and Zombie Lies." In that presentation I make the case for a massive cover-up of the medical evidence/back wound location, using "official" evidence. It's conclusive, IMO. Using the "official evidence" doesn't make it conclusive. Isn't the circular logic obvious? Just because you can draw a conclusion of conspiracy from the official evidence doesn't make it authentic. You can't assume there wasn't a degree of panic within the cover-up. The efforts appear ad hoc and not carefully calculated. Which is why you won't find people like McAdams or DVP challenging any of it. Or people like Burt Griffin, Howard Willens, and Robert Blakey commenting on it. (Griffin ran out of the room about half way through. I shared much of the info with Willens and Blakey via email but they refused to comment.) No one can challenge a wound at T3 and we don't need any experts to guide us to the obvious conclusion. So why do you insist there was a wound at T1? One of your problems, IMO, is that you rely in part on the HSCA FPP's negative view of the original autopsy, without realizing they had an agenda: 1) sell the importance and value of civilian forensic pathologists to the nation; 2) attack the competence of Humes, Finck, and Boswell so the public will buy that these guys misplaced the head wound entrance, and were off by four inches, and thereby salvage the reputation of their esteemed colleague Fisher, who moved the entrance wound to appease the justice department and sell the single-assassin conclusion. What does any of this have to do with you being wrong about the T3 back wound? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 Cliff, You asked me a question in a different thread that I didn't answer yet (because I couldn't find the thread). However, it is on topic for this thread, too. So I'll post the answer here. You asked where David Mantik believes the back entrance wound is located. Based on his taped telephone conversation with Ebersole, I think the answer is T-4. David asked Ebersole straight out if that wound was located at T-4 and Ebersole confirmed that location. (I am replying from memory, but I think that is the case). Great news. I owe Dr. Mantik an apology. I've read all of Mantik's articles. He says the back wound is at T-1, and that this location is at odds with the single-bullet theory and single-assassin conclusion. I remember this because it's one of the key points upon which we agree. Why would an entrance wound at T1 be at odds with the SBT? Just two posts back, you basically line up the entrance wound at T1 and the throat wound on a 21° downward angle. What is your game, anyways? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 Cliff, You asked me a question in a different thread that I didn't answer yet (because I couldn't find the thread). However, it is on topic for this thread, too. So I'll post the answer here. You asked where David Mantik believes the back entrance wound is located. Based on his taped telephone conversation with Ebersole, I think the answer is T-4. David asked Ebersole straight out if that wound was located at T-4 and Ebersole confirmed that location. (I am replying from memory, but I think that is the case). Great news. I owe Dr. Mantik an apology. I've read all of Mantik's articles. He says the back wound is at T-1, and that this location is at odds with the single-bullet theory and single-assassin conclusion. I remember this because it's one of the key points upon which we agree. Then both of you are guilty of ignoring the physical evidence in the case. You've made no argument for T1 other than you can't imagine the conspirators faking evidence. That's it. You can't imagine it, so it cannot be. Wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 Cliff, You asked me a question in a different thread that I didn't answer yet (because I couldn't find the thread). However, it is on topic for this thread, too. So I'll post the answer here. You asked where David Mantik believes the back entrance wound is located. Based on his taped telephone conversation with Ebersole, I think the answer is T-4. David asked Ebersole straight out if that wound was located at T-4 and Ebersole confirmed that location. (I am replying from memory, but I think that is the case). Great news. I owe Dr. Mantik an apology. Pat assures us Dr. Mantik puts the wound at T1. All the witnesses got it wrong, the properly prepared medical documents are trumped by material featuring multiple violations of autopsy protocol, and a 4+ inch wad of clothing bunched up entirely above the wound just below the base of the neck without pushing up on the jacket collar at the base of his neck. Job #1 of the cover-up is suppression of the physical evidence, the obfuscation of the T3 back wound. Looks like when it comes to the JFK assassination Dr. Mantik is a quack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 (edited) Take a closer look, Ron. Here are the witnesses people like Groden claim point out a wound low on the back of the head, consistent with the McClelland drawing's being accurate and the Harper fragment's being occipital bone. Most of them point to a location above the ear, and thus above the cerebellum. Virtually all of them point to a location on the right side of the head, which is at odds with both the McClelland drawing and the Harper fragment's being occipital bone. There is very little overlap, moreover, between what most of these people remember and the wound depicted on the McClelland drawing. And these are the guys supposedly supporting the accuracy of the McClelland drawing! When one takes into account witnesses like the Newmans, Zapruder, Burkley, etc, who pointed out wounds on the top right side of the head in front of the ear, then, the average placement for the wound is as I've claimed, and your claim my claim is the "opposite of the truth" is exposed as wishful thinking. P.S. The videos in which O'Connor and Custer pointed out the wound location showed them pointing out the entire right side of the head from front to back, the condition of the skull after the scalp was peeled back. As a result, one can not rely on Groden's cherry-pick of one frame as an accurate reflection of their recollections. On these photos, you say that "Virtually all of them point to a location on the right side of the head." I guess I must suffer from the same visual discombobulation that you say eyewitnesses suffered from at Parkland and Bethesda. In my discombobulated view every one of those people except one is indicating a wound in the right rear of the head. The only one indicating a wound in the side of the head is the guy whose name I can't read in the bottom row (second from the left). As for O'Connor and Custer, the extensive wound they observed at Bethesda included the open flap on the side of the head (seen by Newman and others) that had apparently been closed by Jackie and thus unobserved at Parkland, in addition to apparent butchery of the head (called "surgery" by Humes) by someone before the autopsy. I think your description of my view as "wishful thinking" is a boomerang. Edited August 13, 2015 by Ron Ecker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted August 13, 2015 Author Share Posted August 13, 2015 (edited) Take a closer look, Ron. Here are the witnesses people like Groden claim point out a wound low on the back of the head, consistent with the McClelland drawing's being accurate and the Harper fragment's being occipital bone. Most of them point to a location above the ear, and thus above the cerebellum. Virtually all of them point to a location on the right side of the head, which is at odds with both the McClelland drawing and the Harper fragment's being occipital bone. There is very little overlap, moreover, between what most of these people remember and the wound depicted on the McClelland drawing. And these are the guys supposedly supporting the accuracy of the McClelland drawing! When one takes into account witnesses like the Newmans, Zapruder, Burkley, etc, who pointed out wounds on the top right side of the head in front of the ear, then, the average placement for the wound is as I've claimed, and your claim my claim is the "opposite of the truth" is exposed as wishful thinking. P.S. The videos in which O'Connor and Custer pointed out the wound location showed them pointing out the entire right side of the head from front to back, the condition of the skull after the scalp was peeled back. As a result, one can not rely on Groden's cherry-pick of one frame as an accurate reflection of their recollections. On these photos, you say that "Virtually all of them point to a location on the right side of the head." I guess I must suffer from the same visual discombobulation that you say eyewitnesses suffered from at Parkland and Bethesda. In my discombobulated view every one of those people except one is indicating a wound in the right rear of the head. The only one indicating a wound in the side of the head is the guy whose name I can't read in the bottom row (second from the left). As for O'Connor and Custer, the extensive wound they observed at Bethesda included the open flap on the side of the head (seen by Newman and others) that had apparently been closed by Jackie and thus unobserved at Parkland, in addition to apparent butchery of the head (called "surgery" by Humes) by someone before the autopsy. I think your description of my view as "wishful thinking" is a boomerang. Not at all. The Jackie closed the flap argument was made up out of whole cloth so people could continue to pretend the Parkland doctors were not in conflict with those claiming to see a large opening on the right side of the head, where it is shown to be in the autopsy photos, x-rays, and Zapruder film. Those making this argument usually say there was a flap on the back of the head as well, that was opened at Parkland but closed in the autopsy photos. The problem is that the Parkland witnesses (chiefly Clark, whose observations had an obvious impact on others) claimed the wound they saw towards the back of the head--"upper right rear"and not in the "low occipital" where it needs to be to support the Harper fragment's being occipital bone--was a wound of both scalp and skull. So...hmmm...what a coinkydink! The Dealey Plaza witnesses saw a big gaping hole of scalp and skull on the top of the head by the ear. The Zapruder film, autopsy photos and x-rays show a big gaping hole of scalp and skull on the top of the head by the ear. And the Parkland witnesses saw a big gaping hole of scalp and skull towards the back of the head. Now, the logical approach, in my impression, is to assume the Parkland witnesses' recollections were off by a few inches. I have checked this with cognitive psychologists and they have said this could easily happen. But no, too many "researchers" have embraced the cherry-picked words of some of the Parkland witnesses, and have embraced this as the one truth. As a result, they: 1. Assume the Dealey Plaza witnesses all somehow missed seeing a giant blow-out wound on the back of the head. 2. Assume the Zapruder film was faked to hide a giant blow-out wound on the back of the head. 3. Assume the Parkland witnesses failed to see either a small entrance on the front of the head because it was covered by the hair, or the large wound on the top of the head observed by the Dealey Plaza witnesses because it closed up by Mrs. Kennedy, or both. 4. Assume the autopsy photos no one was ever supposed to see were faked to hide a blow-out wound on the back of the head, even though Specter and the Warren Commission engaged in a clear-cover up of the back wound location, and hid this location from the public, but did nothing to dissuade the Parkland witnesses from their recollections of the head wound. 5. Assume the x-rays no one was ever supposed to see were similarly faked. 6. Assume the Parkland witnesses later claiming they very well could have been mistaken about the wound location, including most of those most intimately involved in his treatment (Carrico, Perry, Jenkins, Baxter, and more recently Jones) were either cowards or liars or both. 7. Assume the Parkland witnesses who claimed at one time or another that they saw nothing to indicate a shot from the front (McClelland) were similarly lying. I just can't do that. I can't build my understanding of the case on all those assumptions, particularly in that they lead back to saying the very witnesses at the core of my understanding were cowards or liars or both. To me, the medical evidence and Zapruder film offer clear support for the proposition there was more than one shooter. They prove it, IMO. As a result, it makes no sense to me that this evidence would have been faked by someone trying to prove there was but one shooter. To me, it is far more insulting to say Carrico, Perry, Jenkins and Baxter were cowards and liars than to take them at their word and accept they could have been mistaken about seeing cerebellum, and the exact location of the wound. I mean, we know doctors make mistakes and engage in groupthink. If we've learned anything in this world, it is that. Now, that said, I came to all this after most of those making the assumptions I have listed. I read the statements of the Parkland witnesses, and the subsequent retractions of some of these witnesses, within a sort period of each other. As a result, the initial statements did not have time to sink in as the one clear "truth." Similarly, I viewed the autopsy photos, x-rays, and z-film in the same time period I was reading the statements of the witnesses. As a result, I had no preconceived notions of what the photos were supposed to show, and no bias against them upon my first viewing them. Now I believe this relatively blank slate approach to the evidence was an advantage. I have most certainly come across a ton of stuff missed or ignored by those whose primary efforts have been towards proving the medical evidence is fake. But I'll let the reader decide if my approach has been worthwhile, or just a waste of time. P.S. My statement "Virtually all of them point to a location on the right side of the head" is indeed an exaggeration. The point I was trying to make is that most of these witnesses pointed to a spot more to the side of the head than the wound in the "McClelland drawing". Let's go through them: Oliver: higher and more to the side. Willis (who never actually saw the wound): higher and more to the side Willis: higher and on the right side Hoffman: higher and on the right side Jones: higher and on the right side Carrico: higher and on the right side Dulaney: higher and on the top Peters: higher Salyer: higher and on the right side McClelland: higher and more to the side Crenshaw (who was never asked about the wound prior to his being shown the McClelland drawing): pretty much spot on with the drawing Bell (who, IMO, probably never even saw the wound): pretty much spot on with the drawing Ward: on the right side Rike: higher and more to the side O'Connor: invalid as it's not an accurate depiction of his recollections Riebe (who would subsequently authenticate the autopsy photos): higher Custer: invalid as it's not an accurate depiction of his recollections O'Neill (who said he saw an entrance wound low in the skull in the location of the wound in the McClelland drawing): higher and more to the side Edited August 13, 2015 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 Now, the logical approach, in my impression, is to assume the Parkland witnesses' recollections were off by a few inches. I have checked this with cognitive psychologists and they have said this could easily happen. But no, too many "researchers" have embraced the cherry-picked words of some of the Parkland witnesses, and have embraced this as the one truth. Why do you completely ignore the 26 Bethesda witnesses who corroborated the Parkland witnesses? Talk about cherry-picking! You can have your cognitive psychologists. I simply cannot dismiss that many competent eyewitnesses as being cognitively impaired on that day. And I will leave it at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted August 13, 2015 Author Share Posted August 13, 2015 Cliff, You asked me a question in a different thread that I didn't answer yet (because I couldn't find the thread). However, it is on topic for this thread, too. So I'll post the answer here. You asked where David Mantik believes the back entrance wound is located. Based on his taped telephone conversation with Ebersole, I think the answer is T-4. David asked Ebersole straight out if that wound was located at T-4 and Ebersole confirmed that location. (I am replying from memory, but I think that is the case). Great news. I owe Dr. Mantik an apology. I've read all of Mantik's articles. He says the back wound is at T-1, and that this location is at odds with the single-bullet theory and single-assassin conclusion. I remember this because it's one of the key points upon which we agree. Why would an entrance wound at T1 be at odds with the SBT? Just two posts back, you basically line up the entrance wound at T1 and the throat wound on a 21° downward angle. What is your game, anyways? Apparently you failed to read the slides I posted in which a bullet entering at "T-1" exits the throat wound on a steep descent. Those images were created by Dr. Robert Artwohl and Dr. Chad Zimmerman. They were touted as accurate by McAdams on his website, and Bugliosi in his book. On those slides I proved them to be a hoax, as the back wound on those slides is really about C-5, not T-1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted August 13, 2015 Author Share Posted August 13, 2015 Now, the logical approach, in my impression, is to assume the Parkland witnesses' recollections were off by a few inches. I have checked this with cognitive psychologists and they have said this could easily happen. But no, too many "researchers" have embraced the cherry-picked words of some of the Parkland witnesses, and have embraced this as the one truth. Why do you completely ignore the 26 Bethesda witnesses who corroborated the Parkland witnesses? Talk about cherry-picking! You can have your cognitive psychologists. I simply cannot dismiss that many competent eyewitnesses as being cognitively impaired on that day. And I will leave it at that. I just lost a long answer to this so pardon me for being brief. I don't ignore those witnesses. I assumed you were in the Lifton/Horne camp. Lifton/Horne believe the bulk of those witnesses saw the skull after the scalp was peeled back and skull fell to the table. Horne, however, holds Tom Robinson up as someone who saw the orange-sized wound on the back of the head observed at Parkland...at Bethesda. He then conjures up a scenario in which Robinson saw a pre-autopsy in which the small wound was expanded into being the big wound observed by others. There's a huge problem with this, however. Robinson attended the autopsy with a fellow mortician, who also saw an orange-sized hole at the back of the head, but said this was at the end of the autopsy, after their fellow mortician (never interviewed) performed his reconstruction, and made the President's head acceptable for viewing. Well, gee whiz, Batman, maybe Robinson was thinking of the appearance of the head at the end of the autopsy... Nah...couldn't be... In any event, I agree with Lifton, Horne, and even Fetzer in that the statements of the bulk of the Bethesda witnesses suggest they were describing the appearance of the wound after the scalp was peeled back and skull fell to the table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 (edited) Cliff, You asked me a question in a different thread that I didn't answer yet (because I couldn't find the thread). However, it is on topic for this thread, too. So I'll post the answer here. You asked where David Mantik believes the back entrance wound is located. Based on his taped telephone conversation with Ebersole, I think the answer is T-4. David asked Ebersole straight out if that wound was located at T-4 and Ebersole confirmed that location. (I am replying from memory, but I think that is the case). Great news. I owe Dr. Mantik an apology. I've read all of Mantik's articles. He says the back wound is at T-1, and that this location is at odds with the single-bullet theory and single-assassin conclusion. I remember this because it's one of the key points upon which we agree. Why would an entrance wound at T1 be at odds with the SBT? Just two posts back, you basically line up the entrance wound at T1 and the throat wound on a 21° downward angle. What is your game, anyways? Apparently you failed to read the slides I posted in which a bullet entering at "T-1" exits the throat wound on a steep descent. Those images were created by Dr. Robert Artwohl and Dr. Chad Zimmerman. They were touted as accurate by McAdams on his website, and Bugliosi in his book. On those slides I proved them to be a hoax, as the back wound on those slides is really about C-5, not T-1. C5, T1, and...a third location was offered in the autopsy report: Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula there is a 7 x 4 millimeter oval wound. "Just above the upper margin of the scapula" -- that location is consistent with T2. C5, T1, T2...take your pick, they're all phoney. Edited August 15, 2015 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 (edited) Apparently you failed to read the slides I posted in which a bullet entering at "T-1" exits the throat wound on a steep descent. Those images were created by Dr. Robert Artwohl and Dr. Chad Zimmerman. They were touted as accurate by McAdams on his website, and Bugliosi in his book. On those slides I proved them to be a hoax, as the back wound on those slides is really about C-5, not T-1. C5, T1, and...a third location was offered in the autopsy report: Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula there is a 7 x 4 millimeter oval wound. "Just above the upper margin of the scapula" -- that location is consistent with T2. C5, T1, T2...take your pick, they're all phoney. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi Cliff As I said earlier, if you look closely at this photo two things can be observed. The angle this photo is taken from tends to fore shorten JFK's back, making it appear the back wound is higher than it actually is. JFK's head being tilted back also contributes to this effect. The outline of the inside margin of JFK's right scapula (shoulder blade) is visible beneath the skin of his back. As your anatomical diagram clearly shows that thoracic vertebrae T2 and T1, plus the cervical vertebrae, are ABOVE the upper margin of the scapula, and this photo shows the entrance wound to be beside the scapula, the only logical conclusion to be drawn from this is that the entrance wound was at the level of T3, or possibly slightly lower. Edited August 15, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 I think the first sentence in your "Reason to Believe" block, concerning where "eyewitnesses, taken as a whole," locate the large head wound is the exact opposite of the truth. Which gives me "No Reason to Read Any Further." Take a closer look, Ron. Here are the witnesses people like Groden claim point out a wound low on the back of the head, consistent with the McClelland drawing's being accurate and the Harper fragment's being occipital bone. Most of them point to a location above the ear, and thus above the cerebellum. Virtually all of them point to a location on the right side of the head, which is at odds with both the McClelland drawing and the Harper fragment's being occipital bone. There is very little overlap, moreover, between what most of these people remember and the wound depicted on the McClelland drawing. And these are the guys supposedly supporting the accuracy of the McClelland drawing! When one takes into account witnesses like the Newmans, Zapruder, Burkley, etc, who pointed out wounds on the top right side of the head in front of the ear, then, the average placement for the wound is as I've claimed, and your claim my claim is the "opposite of the truth" is exposed as wishful thinking. P.S. The videos in which O'Connor and Custer pointed out the wound location showed them pointing out the entire right side of the head from front to back, the condition of the skull after the scalp was peeled back. As a result, one can not rely on Groden's cherry-pick of one frame as an accurate reflection of their recollections. There are 18 persons shown here, 17 of them are pointing to the right rear of he head, one is pointing to the right side behind he ear. Are these the ones that are supposed to be pointing to the right side above the ear? I don't see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted August 16, 2015 Author Share Posted August 16, 2015 (edited) I think the first sentence in your "Reason to Believe" block, concerning where "eyewitnesses, taken as a whole," locate the large head wound is the exact opposite of the truth. Which gives me "No Reason to Read Any Further." Take a closer look, Ron. Here are the witnesses people like Groden claim point out a wound low on the back of the head, consistent with the McClelland drawing's being accurate and the Harper fragment's being occipital bone. Most of them point to a location above the ear, and thus above the cerebellum. Virtually all of them point to a location on the right side of the head, which is at odds with both the McClelland drawing and the Harper fragment's being occipital bone. There is very little overlap, moreover, between what most of these people remember and the wound depicted on the McClelland drawing. And these are the guys supposedly supporting the accuracy of the McClelland drawing! When one takes into account witnesses like the Newmans, Zapruder, Burkley, etc, who pointed out wounds on the top right side of the head in front of the ear, then, the average placement for the wound is as I've claimed, and your claim my claim is the "opposite of the truth" is exposed as wishful thinking. P.S. The videos in which O'Connor and Custer pointed out the wound location showed them pointing out the entire right side of the head from front to back, the condition of the skull after the scalp was peeled back. As a result, one can not rely on Groden's cherry-pick of one frame as an accurate reflection of their recollections. There are 18 persons shown here, 17 of them are pointing to the right rear of he head, one is pointing to the right side behind he ear. Are these the ones that are supposed to be pointing to the right side above the ear? I don't see it. There's two different issues. The first issue is whether the witnesses in Groden's photos are pointing out the location of the wound in the autopsy photos. No, they do not. No one disputes that. The problem is that neither do most of these witnesses point out the location pushed by Groden and most CTs, a location behind the right ear on the far back of the head. Now, since I first started pointing this out to people 8 or 9 years ago, I have come under attack, both on this forum, and in private emails. Some people insist that the only thing that's important is that these people's impression was that the wound was not where the autopsy photos showed it to be, and that once that's established, it's okay to say the wound was behind the ear, or wherever one wants to say the wound was located. Well, that's cherry-picking. You can't say someone's credible when they say they saw a wound further back than as shown in the autopsy photos, but then say they are not credible when they specify that this wound was at the top of the back of the head, inches away from the cerebellum, and that, besides, they only saw the wound for a second and could be mistaken. And yet that's what many if not most CTs believe. The second issue is the Dealey Plaza witnesses. Those pushing that the Parkland witnesses saw a wound on the far back of the head routinely act as though the Dealey Plaza witnesses do not matter, because they were not doctors, or because they only saw the wound for a second, etc. Those accusing me of witness-bashing bash these witnesses with impunity. Well, this ignores that studies have shown that experts in a field are MORE likely, not less likely, to make mistakes regarding the precise location of wounds etc, because the incorrect location will feel more familiar to them than it would to a non-expert. And this also ignores that only a handful of the Parkland witnesses wrote anything down on the day of the assassination, and many if not most of them were clearly following the lead of Dr. WIlliam Kemp Clark, who discussed the head wound as being on the back of the head within two hours of Kennedy's death. And this also avoids that not one but three witnesses to the head shot spoke on TV before Dr. Clark ever spoke on the location of Kennedy's head wound, and that all three of these witnesses pointed to the location shown in the Zapruder film and autopsy photos. These witnesses are shown on the slide below. Edited August 16, 2015 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 Walks like an LN, talks like an LN......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 (edited) I think the first sentence in your "Reason to Believe" block, concerning where "eyewitnesses, taken as a whole," locate the large head wound is the exact opposite of the truth. Which gives me "No Reason to Read Any Further." Take a closer look, Ron. Here are the witnesses people like Groden claim point out a wound low on the back of the head, consistent with the McClelland drawing's being accurate and the Harper fragment's being occipital bone. Most of them point to a location above the ear, and thus above the cerebellum. Virtually all of them point to a location on the right side of the head, which is at odds with both the McClelland drawing and the Harper fragment's being occipital bone. There is very little overlap, moreover, between what most of these people remember and the wound depicted on the McClelland drawing. And these are the guys supposedly supporting the accuracy of the McClelland drawing! When one takes into account witnesses like the Newmans, Zapruder, Burkley, etc, who pointed out wounds on the top right side of the head in front of the ear, then, the average placement for the wound is as I've claimed, and your claim my claim is the "opposite of the truth" is exposed as wishful thinking. P.S. The videos in which O'Connor and Custer pointed out the wound location showed them pointing out the entire right side of the head from front to back, the condition of the skull after the scalp was peeled back. As a result, one can not rely on Groden's cherry-pick of one frame as an accurate reflection of their recollections. There are 18 persons shown here, 17 of them are pointing to the right rear of he head, one is pointing to the right side behind he ear. Are these the ones that are supposed to be pointing to the right side above the ear? I don't see it. There's two different issues. The first issue is whether the witnesses in Groden's photos are pointing out the location of the wound in the autopsy photos. No, they do not. No one disputes that. The problem is that neither do most of these witnesses point out the location pushed by Groden and most CTs, a location behind the right ear on the far back of the head. Now, since I first started pointing this out to people 8 or 9 years ago, I have come under attack, both on this forum, and in private emails. Some people insist that the only thing that's important is that these people's impression was that the wound was not where the autopsy photos showed it to be, and that once that's established, it's okay to say the wound was behind the ear, or wherever one wants to say the wound was located. Well, that's cherry-picking. You can't say someone's credible when they say they saw a wound further back than as shown in the autopsy photos, but then say they are not credible when they specify that this wound was at the top of the back of the head, inches away from the cerebellum, and that, besides, they only saw the wound for a second and could be mistaken. And yet that's what many if not most CTs believe. The second issue is the Dealey Plaza witnesses. Those pushing that the Parkland witnesses saw a wound on the far back of the head routinely act as though the Dealey Plaza witnesses do not matter, because they were not doctors, or because they only saw the wound for a second, etc. Those accusing me of witness-bashing bash these witnesses with impunity. Well, this ignores that studies have shown that experts in a field are MORE likely, not less likely, to make mistakes regarding the precise location of wounds etc, because the incorrect location will feel more familiar to them than it would to a non-expert. And this also ignores that only a handful of the Parkland witnesses wrote anything down on the day of the assassination, and many if not most of them were clearly following the lead of Dr. WIlliam Kemp Clark, who discussed the head wound as being on the back of the head within two hours of Kennedy's death. And this also avoids that not one but three witnesses to the head shot spoke on TV before Dr. Clark ever spoke on the location of Kennedy's head wound, and that all three of these witnesses pointed to the location shown in the Zapruder film and autopsy photos. These witnesses are shown on the slide below. I have no reason to not accept what you say as being your opinion based on what you've seen and heard. Saying that, I have not seen the wound other than in movies and photos. I can believe, from those movies and photos that there were severe injuries to his head. Some photos appear to show a hit from the front blowing out a large amount of skull and brain and creating a huge flap of scalp which could flop over the back of head, appearing as a huge wound. It is my belief that at least two bullets hit JFK in the head, one from the rear and one from the front/side. There is nothing published that would confirm or absolutely deny that because if someone claims it does, it seems as if it's only another opinion. One thing for sure, had the Warren Report members wanted the truth to be known, there would be a lot less confusion existing. But their specific goal was to hide the truth and they did an excellent job of that, but they also screwed up because they know that everyone knows that it was a coverup. Most photos and movies seem to show that the bullet that did the huge damage hit him in the right temple and blew out a huge area over his ear, driving that huge flap backward. Edited August 16, 2015 by Kenneth Drew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now