Jump to content
The Education Forum
Ron Bulman

Temple Logic?

Recommended Posts

Well, Paul Chambers is a scientist and he thinks the temple shot is from the front.

https://www.amazon.com/Head-Shot-Science-Behind-Assassination/dp/1616145617/ref=sr_1_fkmrnull_1?keywords=Paul+CHambers+JFK&qid=1555636253&s=gateway&sr=8-1-fkmrnull

 

Although he does not think it was the weapon in evidence.

Unless one thinks the Z film is pretty much a comic book I think its pretty hard to deny the back and to the left, especially since Thompson has now come out and said the seeming slight forward motion is nothing of the kind.

Dave Mantik has eliminated the other arguments  eg. jet effect and Sturdivan's nutty neuromuscular reaction.  So has Randy Robertson and Gary Aguilar.

I don't have to repeat Arthur Conan Doyle do I?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, I have always found Charles Robinson credible  on this also.

If you recall, he was the mortician sent over by Grawler's that night.

After commenting on how the morgue was so full and loud it was like a party, he then got to work.

He said that when he moved JFK's hair from his right temple, it looked like a bullet hole to him that he filled in with wax.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

He said that when he moved JFK's hair from his right temple, it looked like a bullet hole to him that he filled in with wax.

I was listening to the early KLIF broadcast and they quote Burkley as saying right temple.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim

The August 2012 Martin Hay critique (in Kennedys and King) of Paul Chambers' book is not that flattering or conclusive: 

In my view, Chambers' handling of the medical evidence is by far the most disappointing aspect of this book. I found myself shaking my head in several places, and I think my jaw actually dropped at one point. He makes a number of bold statements without backing them up or even mentioning the evidence to the contrary. He pushes an outdated and incredible theory involving the handling of Kennedy's body. And he makes one particular claim that many may find beyond belief. Taking what some readers may feel is too long a digression in what is a fairly slim book ostensibly about the Kennedy assassination, Chambers attempts to explain “How Science Arrives At the Truth.”  

Therefore the reader must make a choice between Chambers' reconstruction of the head shot—which is based on a dismissal of both the hard evidence of the X-rays and the soft evidence of the Dallas doctors' testimonies—and his acceptance of the dictabelt which the author previously told us has only a 1 in 11 billion chance of not being an authentic recording of the shots. The two are not compatible. In the end I believe this contradiction sums up Chambers' work. Despite telling us that “Consistency with other evidence is very important to scientists” he appears to have studied each point in isolation and then cherry-picked the details that fit his own thesis. The one point it can really be said that Dr. G. Paul Chambers Ph. D. both makes and proves in his book is that credentials and a good reputation are no proof against being wrong.

 Gene

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Tony Krome said:

I was listening to the early KLIF broadcast and they quote Burkley as saying right temple.

 

Never read about this Tony.  Might you have a link?  I'd like to hear him say this myself.

But I did read the other day about Dennis David telling I think it was the ARRB that on the 25th of November 1963 in the office of William Pitzer, he saw a photograph of JFK's head with a small/entry wound in the hairline of the right temple.  As the lunchtime bridge player with Pitzer, given Pitzer's position of controlling the remote filming in the morgue I think it's a credible possibility.  Just can't remember where I read it.  Anyone else ever seen this?  Seems like he mentioned he and Pitzer discussed the observation.  Wish I could provide the link.  I'll look some more myself.  Maybe it was in The Eye Of History.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Never read about this Tony.  Might you have a link?  I'd like to hear him say this myself.

No problem, got to the 2:00 (thats the 2 hour mark) mark;

 

Edited by Tony Krome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW, I have always found Charles Robinson credible  on this also.

If you recall, he was the mortician sent over by Grawler's that night.

After commenting on how the morgue was so full and loud it was like a party, he then got to work.

He said that when he moved JFK's hair from his right temple, it looked like a bullet hole to him that he filled in with wax.

Tom Robinson said that he was under the impression that the right temple wound represented an exit for a fragment. 

PURDY: Did you notice anything else unusual about the body which may not have been artificially caused, that is caused by something other than the autopsy? 
ROBINSON: Probably, a little mark at the temples in the hairline. As I recall, it was so small it could be hidden by the hair. It didn't have to be covered with make-up. I thought it probably a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet that caused it. 
PURDY: In other words, there was a little wound. 
ROBINSON: Yes. 
PURDY: Approximately where, which side of the forehead or part of the head was it on? 
ROBINSON: I believe it was on the right side. 
PURDY: On his right side? 
ROBINSON: That's an anatomical right, yes. 
PURDY: You say it was in the forehead region up near the hairline? 
ROBINSON: Yes. 
PURDY: Would you say it was closer to the top of the hair? 
ROBINSON: Somewhere around the temples. 
PURDY: Approximately what size? 
ROBINSON: Very small, about a quarter of an inch. 
PURDY: Quarter of an inch is all the damage. Had it been closed up by the doctors? 
ROBINSON: No, he didn't have to close it. If anything, I just would have probably put a little wax in it. 

[...]

PURDY: Were there any other wounds on the head other than the little one in the right temple area, and the big one in the back?

ROBINSON: That's all.

[...]

Purdy: Did you get a good look at that wound on the right temple area?

Robinson: Oh yes, I worked right over for some time.

Purdy: What did you feel caused that wound.

Robinson: I think either a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet. Or a very small piece of shrapnel.

Conzelman: Did it pierce the entire scull, could you see from the inside that it was evident from the inside scull as well as outside?

Robinson: The inside of the scull was badly smashed, it could have well been a piece of bone that passed through there or 

[...]

Purdy: Do you feel that any significant portion of the bullet after it hit the head, exited from the head, not just being picked up by the doctors? Do you feel that possibly exited, where could some if exited from the head? If any. You mentioned one possibly was that right temple.

Robinson: Yes, that did go through my mind. Well they had the little pieces, They picked them out.

Purdy: So you feel that's the only place that the significant size of the bullet could have exited.

Robinson: It was no bullet, it was a fragment or a piece of the bone. Purdy: You would say that there is no other part of the head where that bullet would exited or a part of the bullet? Were there other little holes anywhere?

Robinson: No.

[...]

Purdy: And your feeling about the forehead, you felt then and you feel now that was caused by what?

Robinson: A piece of bone or metal exiting.

Share this post


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

Tom Robinson said that he was under the impression that the right temple wound represented an exit for a fragment. 

PURDY: Did you notice anything else unusual about the body which may not have been artificially caused, that is caused by something other than the autopsy? 
ROBINSON: Probably, a little mark at the temples in the hairline. As I recall, it was so small it could be hidden by the hair. It didn't have to be covered with make-up. I thought it probably a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet that caused it. 
PURDY: In other words, there was a little wound. 
ROBINSON: Yes. 
PURDY: Approximately where, which side of the forehead or part of the head was it on? 
ROBINSON: I believe it was on the right side. 
PURDY: On his right side? 
ROBINSON: That's an anatomical right, yes. 
PURDY: You say it was in the forehead region up near the hairline? 
ROBINSON: Yes. 
PURDY: Would you say it was closer to the top of the hair? 
ROBINSON: Somewhere around the temples. 
PURDY: Approximately what size? 
ROBINSON: Very small, about a quarter of an inch. 
PURDY: Quarter of an inch is all the damage. Had it been closed up by the doctors? 
ROBINSON: No, he didn't have to close it. If anything, I just would have probably put a little wax in it. 

[...]

PURDY: Were there any other wounds on the head other than the little one in the right temple area, and the big one in the back?

ROBINSON: That's all.

[...]

Purdy: Did you get a good look at that wound on the right temple area?

Robinson: Oh yes, I worked right over for some time.

Purdy: What did you feel caused that wound.

Robinson: I think either a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet. Or a very small piece of shrapnel.

Conzelman: Did it pierce the entire scull, could you see from the inside that it was evident from the inside scull as well as outside?

Robinson: The inside of the scull was badly smashed, it could have well been a piece of bone that passed through there or 

[...]

Purdy: Do you feel that any significant portion of the bullet after it hit the head, exited from the head, not just being picked up by the doctors? Do you feel that possibly exited, where could some if exited from the head? If any. You mentioned one possibly was that right temple.

Robinson: Yes, that did go through my mind. Well they had the little pieces, They picked them out.

Purdy: So you feel that's the only place that the significant size of the bullet could have exited.

Robinson: It was no bullet, it was a fragment or a piece of the bone. Purdy: You would say that there is no other part of the head where that bullet would exited or a part of the bullet? Were there other little holes anywhere?

Robinson: No.

[...]

Purdy: And your feeling about the forehead, you felt then and you feel now that was caused by what?

Robinson: A piece of bone or metal exiting.

So there was a wound in the right temple hairline, that was not examined during the autopsy.  Though Jenkins says Humes and Finck started to but were stooped by Burkley.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I gather some of you think the frontal shot is not proven enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Tony Krome said:

No problem, got to the 2:00 mark;

 

I first thought you meant the 2 minute mark.   For anyone else making the same mistake it's at the 2 hour mark.  Interesting at the 2 minute mark they talk about how thorough the security is at Love Field, that even their equipment was inspected...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Never read about this Tony.  Might you have a link?  I'd like to hear him say this myself.

But I did read the other day about Dennis David telling I think it was the ARRB that on the 25th of November 1963 in the office of William Pitzer, he saw a photograph of JFK's head with a small/entry wound in the hairline of the right temple.  As the lunchtime bridge player with Pitzer, given Pitzer's position of controlling the remote filming in the morgue I think it's a credible possibility.  Just can't remember where I read it.  Anyone else ever seen this?  Seems like he mentioned he and Pitzer discussed the observation.  Wish I could provide the link.  I'll look some more myself.  Maybe it was in The Eye Of History.

Here's David on the right temple, about half way down on page 4.  I thought I'd read a little more it elsewhere but I'm not positive.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=708#relPageId=4&tab=page

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

So there was a wound in the right temple hairline, that was not examined during the autopsy.  Though Jenkins says Humes and Finck started to but were stooped by Burkley.

This sure doesn't sound like he saw the large orange blob wound that we see in the extant Z film - just like the Parkland medical professionals didn't see it either. 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter how the skull photographs are oriented, they appear to show two small holes in the right temporal scalp:

znuC8bo.jpg

 

 

Edited by Micah Mileto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are even more witnesses to this right forehead or right temple wound.

If you collect them its about five I think.

 

PS I made a mistake, its Tom Robinson not Charles Robinson.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

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...