JFK X-RAY - Where is rear bullet entry point?

[Pat Speer]

Father Huber's mention of a wound over the left eye is not very credible, IMO.

From chapter 18d at patspeer.com:

The November 24th, 1963, Philadelphia Sunday Bulletin ran an article datelined Dallas, Nov. 23rd, 1963. Father Huber was interviewed for this article. It reported: “The President was lying on a rubber-tired table when I came in,” Father Huber said. He was standing at his head. Father Huber said the President was covered by a white sheet which hid his face, but not his feet. “His feet were bare,” said Father Huber... He said he wet his right thumb with holy oil and anointed a Cross over the President’s forehead, noticing as he did, a “terrible wound” over his left eye."

A "terrible" wound over his left eye! No such wound was noticed by the Parkland doctors. It seems possible then that Father Huber had confused Kennedy's left for his right, and that Huber had in fact noticed the wound depicted in the autopsy photos while at Parkland.

Or not. A few years later, while interviewing Father Huber for his movie Rush to Judgment, Mark Lane asked Father Huber about this wound. (The transcript to this interview was made available by the Wisconsin Historical Society.) Ironically, Huber told Lane "Well, his face was covered with blood and there was a blotch of blood on the left forehead, which I, at the time, thought possibly could be a bullet wound, but I learned later that it was not, that I was entirely mistaken, because he had been shot in the back of the head. I did not see really any wounds on him, because I only uncovered his face to the tip of his nose. I learned later that the bullet came out, perhaps at the jaw, I don't know."

And that wasn't the last time Father Huber spoke on the matter. In late 1966, Lawrence Schiller followed up with many of those who'd been interviewed by Lane. In his book The Scavengers and Critics of the Warren Report, Schiller quoted Huber as follows: "I saw the President lying on an emergency room table...I noticed that his extremities were extremely white, and the thought came to me: 'There's no blood in this man...' I removed the sheet down to the tip of his nose and anointed him with holy oils...And [then I] put the sheet back over his face. I did not know where he had been shot, where the bullets had struck him and I had no thought of looking for anything like that. His face was covered in blood, but I saw no wounds."

[Michael Walton]

32 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Father Huber's mention of a wound over the left eye is not very credible, IMO.

Pat - do you care to speculate on that black spot on the forehead? Chesser also mentions the possibility of it being a shot there, There was discussion of this on another thread. It certainly looks more than just wet balled up hair.  Also if you line up that spot with the rear beveled hole in my illustration it certainly could be an in and out.  My only concern has always been his head was tilted downward so the shot hitting at that spot would be quite a low angle.

[Micah Mileto]

2 hours ago, David Josephs said:

As I see it, the testimony of the Non-Military and low level military holds so much more credibility than the same from the "official" sources.  Flimsy or not...  I believe Robinson before I believe Humes, Boswell, Finck, Ebersol, etc....

Tom Robinson said there was a hole in the right temple. His information is vague. Edwin Stroble, the man who did most of the reconstruction to the President's head, died before he could be interviewed. 

2 hours ago, David Josephs said:

As for a shadow... I respectfully disagree...

What credibility do you give Father Huber and the the drastic injury over the left eye?

Why couldn't he just be talking about the red v-shape wound in the autopsy photos?

[David Josephs]

Seems to me the xrays show a pretty significant injury over the left eye and temple

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Michael Walton said:

Pat - do you care to speculate on that black spot on the forehead? Chesser also mentions the possibility of it being a shot there, There was discussion of this on another thread. It certainly looks more than just wet balled up hair.  Also if you line up that spot with the rear beveled hole in my illustration it certainly could be an in and out.  My only concern has always been his head was tilted downward so the shot hitting at that spot would be quite a low angle.

I find the black spot interesting, but really doubt it was a bullet hole. If it was, it seems certain someone at Parkland and Bethesda would have noticed it, IMO. Could it be torn scalp related to the large head wound? Could it be a small wound created by the break-up of the bullet at the supposed exit?

[Michael Walton]

26 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

I find the black spot interesting, but really doubt it was a bullet hole. If it was, it seems certain someone at Parkland and Bethesda would have noticed it, IMO. Could it be torn scalp related to the large head wound? Could it be a small wound created by the break-up of the bullet at the supposed exit?

That also bothers me a lot as well - the fact that no one ever mentioned it in either TX or DC. Thanks.

[James DiEugenio]

Dave's second and last reply.

Speer’s Semantik Swamp—a Second Response by David W Mantik

January 17, 2018

 “Smear [aka Speer] campaigns, if you can survive them, help enormously…. There is a visible selection bias: why did he attack you instead of someone else…?

“My son, I am very disappointed in you. I never hear anything wrong said about you. You have proven yourself incapable of generating envy.”

            --Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Antifragile (2014)

This is a further response to Speer’s Education Forum post of Wednesday (edited at 02:20 PM, probably on January 2, 2018). Most of the following issues were lifted from

“The (JFK) Windmills of Pat Speer: A Sorrowful Knight Errant in the Land of ‘Education’ ”

                  at http://assassinationofjfk.net/jfk-win dmills-pat-speer/

1.    Does Speer acknowledge that the skull defect extended into the frontal bone, all the way to the hairline—as both Mantik and Fitzpatrick have reported? 

2.    Neurosurgeon Kemp Clark reported that the skull defect extended posteriorly to just above the EOP—where he saw cerebellum, as did a total of nine Parkland physicians. Does Quixote truly doubt all nine of these physicians?

3.    What does Speer make of Stringer’s statements—about not taking the brain photos? If not Stringer, then who did take those brain photos?

4.    What the Parkland MDs said was something like this: If the scalp had been pulled down to cover the hole then, sure, the photos were legitimate. Short of that though, why did so many Parkland MDs initially fail to recognize the autopsy photos? [See the documentary, “The Parkland Doctors” (2018).]

5.    In my online critique of Speer’s work, I pointed out that his explanation of the 6.5 mm object leads to a profound paradox: If the Outer Table Fragment (which lies on the posterior skull on the lateral X-ray) does not correlate (in 3D) to the 6.5 mm object (on the AP X-ray), then where do we see the correlate of the Outer Table Fragment on the AP X-ray? After all this time, when will Speer finally confront that profound paradox?

6.    In general, what does Speer really think about optical density data?

7.    It is well established that witnesses are reliable if three conditions are met: A) recollection is prompt, the items recalled are significant, and D) the items are not too complex. So why does Speer needlessly confound this issue?

8.    Cairns, who held the Harper bone in his hand, noted “inner markings that run around the base of the skull” [emphasis added] on the inside of HF. How does Speer explain Cairns’s comments—and why would all three pathologists agree on occipital bone?

9.    After all these years, where has Speer posted his own reconstruction of the skull? 

10.  What does Speer make of Gary Aguilar’s list of occipital witnesses?

11. Why is this occipital site the only anatomic location—in all the autopsy photos—that appears 2D? [Robert Groden concurs.]

12. What does Speer make of Humes’s comment that the red spot does not represent a wound?

13. Based on remarkably detailed X-ray observations at NARA, Dr. Chesser has recently reported minute metal fragments embedded in the anterior skull. How does Quixote explain this in his scenario of four posterior bullets—and no frontal bullet? Does he deny that these minute fragments are authentic?

14. And what about those motorcycle men, who describe lots of activity on Elm Street—activity that is not seen in the Z-film? [See the Preface to my e-book.]

15. It would also be very interesting to hear Speer explain how a White Patch can appear on both lateral X-rays, but totally vanish on the AP X-ray.

16. Did the HSCA really authenticate JFK’s autopsy photographs?

17. Also note that, for Speer to be correct (about the head wounds), we must not believe the statements of nearly all the Parkland physicians, or of the radiologist John Ebersole, or Tom Robinson (about the forehead wound), to say nothing of the paramedical witnesses from Bethesda (who saw the posterior skull defect).

18. Eight Bethesda MDs described the same posterior head wound that the Parkland MDs had seen: George Burkley, Robert Canada, John Ebersole, Calvin Galloway, Robert Karnei, Edward Kenny, David Osborne, and John Stover. When will Speer address the recollections of these eight Bethesda MDs?

And then we still have two questions (from my immediately prior response) still pending:

19. The lateral JFK skull X-rays show essentially no brain in a very large frontal area (on both left and right sides), yet the brain photographs show virtually no missing brain on either side. How does Speer explain this?

20. How did that 6.5 mm object arise—especially since it was not seen at the autopsy by dozens of witnesses?

Finally, I’ve offered advice to Speer before, which still stands. He might consider becoming a bit more disciplined before careening into verdicts. I would also encourage him to lay aside his ad hominem attacks. David Hackett Fischer (Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought 1970, p. 293) has critiqued such ad hominem attacks: "But an ad hominem debate is unlike tennis in one respect – it is a match which everybody loses: players, referees, spectators and all." These attacks do not lead to any new knowledge and they surely won't win Speer many new friends. In this tent (of researchers) we have acres of space for divergent views – but tolerance is always welcome. 

 

[Micah Mileto]

Captain Canada and George Burkley are NOT occipital wound witnesses. Information claiming they are comes from Michael Kurtz, and is probably fabricated.

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter-19c-lost-in-the-jungle-with-kurtz

 

[Pat Speer]

Methinks the emperor has no clothes. Mantik accuses me of an "ad hominem" attack. I merely pointed out that he either misled his strongest supporters about the nature of the "white spot", or sat back quietly while they misled others. This is not a personal attack on my part. It is a true and salient observation. If people are gonna cite Mantik's research on this forum, they should realize that what people claim of Mantik is often at odds with what Mantik actually believes. They should also realize that Mantik is inconsistent, at best.

Single-assassin theorist Robert Wagner, for example, cited Mantik's one-time claim there's no evidence for a shot from the knoll. He didn't realize that Mantik now claims there is such evidence. In any event, Mantik responded by claiming Wagner's book should be banned.

As far as the 20 questions for me pushed by Mantik... the vast majority of these are answered on my website, and have been answered on my website for years...well before Mantik "reviewed" my website for CTKA. (A "review" to which Jim "in the interest of fairness" DiEugenio refused to allow a response, BTW). In any event, I don't see any point in taking the bait and allowing my original observation to get buried.

[Keyvan Shahrdar]

Looking at the Zapruder film today.  After the President gets hit at zframe 313, I see a couple plumes of blood coming out of the top of his head as his head moves toward the left.  If you look at how high his right shoulder is; the top of his head was leaning towards the left.  In the Mary Moorman photo, you can see how low his left shoulder and how high his right shoulder is and you can see how pronounced the top of his head is tilted toward the left.  I now strongly believe that the bullet that hit the President at zframe 313 came from the pergola next to the grassy knoll.  That bullet entered his skull close to his ear and exited the top of the head.

[Cory Santos]

6 hours ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

Looking at the Zapruder film today.  After the President gets hit at zframe 313, I see a couple plumes of blood coming out of the top of his head as his head moves toward the left.  If you look at how high his right shoulder is; the top of his head was leaning towards the left.  In the Mary Moorman photo, you can see how low his left shoulder and how high his right shoulder is and you can see how pronounced the top of his head is tilted toward the left.  I now strongly believe that the bullet that hit the President at zframe 313 came from the pergola next to the grassy knoll.  That bullet entered his skull close to his ear and exited the top of the head.

Ok in the Moorman photo, I see JFK Jackie.  Next row, looks like Gov. and his wife.  First row, seems to be missing someone.  Is this me?  Clearly does not correlate to Z313- Governor is already sliding onto his wife but is still upright.  And what is in front of Kellerman? Thoughts?