Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Recommended Posts

Since we are on the head wounds here, I wanted to put this up. I have always thought this was a decent illustration of two photos combined, not because I made it, but because the so-called "mystery" photo - who Baden couldn't even orient in 1978 (and BTW, every time I see that guy advertised on a TV show I never watch his xxxx) - HAS to be oriented some how.  Meaning, if we are to believe that that photo is genuine (and I think it is) then it has to somehow be reconciled with the other autopsy photos that are available.

So this illustration below is that reconciliation.  PS - this is a large animated GIF so let it load as it may take a moment if you're on a slow connection speed:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-Cxdm9ZalJTSWU3cms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/13/2017 at 11:02 PM, Michael Walton said:

Since we are on the head wounds here, I wanted to put this up. I have always thought this was a decent illustration of two photos combined, not because I made it, but because the so-called "mystery" photo - who Baden couldn't even orient in 1978 (and BTW, every time I see that guy advertised on a TV show I never watch his xxxx) - HAS to be oriented some how.  Meaning, if we are to believe that that photo is genuine (and I think it is) then it has to somehow be reconciled with the other autopsy photos that are available.

So this illustration below is that reconciliation.  PS - this is a large animated GIF so let it load as it may take a moment if you're on a slow connection speed:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-Cxdm9ZalJTSWU3cms

The open-cranium photographs might show subcutaneous fat from the torso Y-incision, and even a nipple.  

This would be the upper left corner of this rotation:

BE7_HI.JPG

(Lower left corner in this rotation): http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/lg54d81a9d.png

From radiation oncologist David Mantik: 

Quote

It is strange that Thomas should be so certain that this is not a posterior view, despite never viewing this photo at NARA. I have not only done so, but have viewed it repeatedly in stereo. The upper left hand corner cannot be appreciated in reproductions, but it is highly relevant. In that corner, part of the abdomen is visible: the subcutaneous fat is seen folded out (as it was during the autopsy) and even a nipple is visible. Until the recent review by the ARRB, I was the only observer to note these features. Now, however, I am not alone: one of the ARRB experts, Robert Kirschner (a forensic pathologist, no less), saw the same anatomy in this corner of the photo. (See my Dallas lecture, slide 58.) Those specific anatomic landmarks in that corner can mean only one thing: this is a posterior view of the skull.

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/thomas-donald-byron-hear-no-evil-social-constructivism-and-the-forensic-evidence-in-the-kennedy-assassination-two-reviews-2-part-1" 

David Mantik's 11/21/2009 presentation slides: http://assassinationscience.com/JFK_Skull_X-rays.htm

ARRB staff report of observations and opinions of forensic pathologist Dr. Robert H. Kirschner: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=145280#relPageId=230tab=page

Quote

(7) Photographs of ARRB "View 7," (#s 17, 18, 44, and 45) could not be oriented or identified with any precision. Dr. Kirschner did say that he could not visualize this photograph as being the rear of the head, and that the curvature of the exterior surface of the skull in the photo could represent frontal bone, but that he could not be sure. The "ripples" inside the cranial cavity were interpreted as probably being the base of the skull. The notch in the photograph was opined to be too large to be an entrance wound; it was further observed to exhibit external beveling. However, because of the lack of clearly identifiable anatomic landmarks, this photograph ultimately could not be definitely oriented.  The "yellow spot" in the color photos near the skull was thought to be muscle and fat which had possibly been exposed by the reflection of skin pulled back as a result of the Y-incision during the autopsy. The artifact in the photograph which appears to be made of glass was tentatively identified by Dr. Kirschner as a formaldehyde bottle.

 

 

Edited by Micah Mileto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhh, no, Micah.  You're reading way too much into this with way too many so-called "experts" saying it's this or that or something else.

It's his head, Micah.  The back of his head. That round shape is the blowout from the bullet hole.

Look at my illustration above.  It's not hard to figure out.

That's a flap, Micah, with the bone underneath.

Pat Speer wrote about this too.  Look it up on his website.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not so sure about that Davey. Consider the following quote from Speer's online book:

"Dr. Fisher admitted, in a March 4, 1970 letter to Harold Weisberg, that they'd actually "drafted" their report on February 27, and that the rest was just editing, and re-editing, and then mailing the report around and about to get signed. They never met, after February 27, to work on the report together.

Well, this suggests that they really studied the evidence ONCE, and only once, on February 26, without studying anything beyond the original autopsy protocol, and that February 27 was mostly taken up with the drafting of their report."

If this is correct, and I suspect it is, then it suggests two things:

1.  There were no interviews.  In other words, they did not talk to the pathologists, radiologist, photographer.  Or their assistants.

2. If both of those cases I outline above are correct, then it strongly indicates that Fischer knew what he was going to do from the get go.  And no one was going to divert him from that agenda.  

With all the other evidence that Pat, and Gary Aguilar, bring in on this, it seems to me that the Clark panel was largely a face saving exercise. It would have never held up in court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/14/2017 at 0:57 PM, Michael Walton said:

Uhh, no, Micah.  You're reading way too much into this with way too many so-called "experts" saying it's this or that or something else.

It's his head, Micah.  The back of his head. That round shape is the blowout from the bullet hole.

Look at my illustration above.  It's not hard to figure out.

That's a flap, Micah, with the bone underneath.

Pat Speer wrote about this too.  Look it up on his website.

Michael, the open-cranium photographs can not be used as evidence for how the original wound looked like. Those were taken after the brain had already been removed. The skull cavity had to be enlarged to facilitate removal of the brain.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/14/2017 at 10:57 AM, Michael Walton said:

Look at my illustration above.  It's not hard to figure out.


Mike,

If it's easy to figure out, then how is it Dr. Mantik got it wrong (according to your interpretation)?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Micah and Sandy - so what is your own personal interpretation of the photo?

Micah - please don't post endless testimony and clips of text.  Just what do you personally think the photo shows in your own words?

And Sandy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Micah and Sandy - so what is your own personal interpretation of the photo?

Micah - please don't post endless testimony and clips of text.  Just what do you personally think the photo shows in your own words?

And Sandy?

If it shows the back of the head, then it must be the top-back part of the head, since there is no neck visible. That body position would also probably require the chin to be resting on the chest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Micah and Sandy - so what is your own personal interpretation of the photo?


Mike,

I haven't devised my own interpretation of the photo. I'm lacking the necessary anatomical knowledge to make that judgement.

Given that Dr. Mantik is a medical doctor with extensive experience with x-ray radiation and the physics thereof, I have adopted his interpretation. (n addition, I admire Dr. Mantik for his willingness to keep an open mind. Indeed, he has changed his position on certain topics as a result of others disagreeing with him.)

Dr. Mantik says that the Mystery Photo was taken from the back of Kennedy's head. But when I read Dr. Mantik's description of its features, it seems to me that the camera was (in Mantik's view) really aimed approximately at the cowlick area.) So not a true posterior view.

Lucky for me, Dr. Mantik's interpretation fits in well with my beliefs regarding the Harper fragment and a back-of-head blowout wound. I had formed my opinion prior to reading Dr. Mantik's views, and his views support mine.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

If it shows the back of the head, then it must be the top-back part of the head, since there is no neck visible. That body position would also probably require the chin to be resting on the chest.


What Micah says here corroborates what I just said, which was:

Quote

Sandy Larsen:
"But when I read Dr. Mantik's description of its features, it seems to me that the camera was (in Mantik's view) really aimed approximately at the cowlick area.) So not a true posterior view."


And I believe Micah is right about the chin necessarily resting on the chest. Because it would have to for the photo to show both the nipple and some of the posterior head. (I hadn't considered Micah's reasoning when I concluded that... that the photo doesn't show the neck.)

(For the record, I wrote what I did prior to reading what Micah wrote.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just my IMO but I think you both have valid points.  The photo may have been taken a little higher up than my illustration:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7Hr9Lrku-Cxdm9ZalJTSWU3cms/view

One thing that sways me in my illustration is the leathery lined section in the open head photo.  I believe that looks like the back of his neck and you can also see those lines in the photo that shows the back of the head with his matted hair laying over the wound (the same photo I used in the illustration).

I also happen to believe that there was a tangential wound from the front that hit in the temple area and slice through his head and came out the back, hence, that rounded beveled hole you see in the illustration above. If it did happen that way, it'd be amazing to find just where in the hell that bullet went when it came out.

I know this is all speculation from all of us of course, but as you may have seen in that video i posted where it shows a guy's head flying backward from a frontal shot, somewhere along the way a shot hit JFK from the front pushing his head backward like in the Z film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Just my IMO but I think you both have valid points.  The photo may have been taken a little higher up than my illustration:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7Hr9Lrku-Cxdm9ZalJTSWU3cms/view

One thing that sways me in my illustration is the leathery lined section in the open head photo.  I believe that looks like the back of his neck and you can also see those lines in the photo that shows the back of the head with his matted hair laying over the wound (the same photo I used in the illustration).

I also happen to believe that there was a tangential wound from the front that hit in the temple area and slice through his head and came out the back, hence, that rounded beveled hole you see in the illustration above. If it did happen that way, it'd be amazing to find just where in the hell that bullet went when it came out.

I know this is all speculation from all of us of course, but as you may have seen in that video i posted where it shows a guy's head flying backward from a frontal shot, somewhere along the way a shot hit JFK from the front pushing his head backward like in the Z film.

Speer's page has brightened versions of the open-cranium photographs showing that what some thought might be the neck is actually a table, with a formalin bottle sitting on it. 

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

×