Pat Speer

For those interested in a different viewpoint, I spend forty pages of my presentation demonstrating why the HSCA interpretation of this photo is absolutely wrong. For one, it fails to account for the bullet hole and neck lines on the far right side of the photo (when presented in this manner). For two, it displays a beveled exit near the temple, when the autopsy doctors were adamant that there was no beveled exit on the intact skull, and that they failed to find an exit until they inspected the large bone fragment found on the floor of the limousine.

Bill, since you brought up Robinson, maybe you can explain why, according to the ARRB, "His most vivid recollection of the probe is seeing it inserted near the base of the brain in the back of the head (after removal of the brain), and seeing the tip of the probe come out the tracheotomy incision in the anterior neck"? While I don't necessarily believe his memory was correct, it undoubtedly supports my scenario of a bullet heading down the neck, and is in conflict with the theories of most who cite Robinson.. As far as Robinson, and others in Bethesda, recalling a large wound in the back of Kennedy's head, you need to think outside the Lifton/Aguilar box. Kennedy was on his back when he was first brought in. They x-rayed him. They photographed him. Then they peeled back his scalp and bones fell to the table. From that point on, he had a huge gaping hole at the back of his head. Boswell's measurements could only have come at this point, for how could he have measured the wound with the scalp intact? Everyone who saw Kennedy from then on would have seen this huge hole. As this huge hole would leave a stronger impression then what the back of his head looked like before they peeled back his scalp, particularly since he was laying on his back for almost the whole time leading up to this point, it seems logical that this huge hole would become their dominant impression. Your viewpoint that the autopsy photos are faked has been made abundantly clear. Are you at least now willing to admit that there is some kind of bullet hole or wound in the mystery photo in White's location number 7. Can we at least agree that there is something there, even if we disagree on whether the photo is an accurate reflection of Kennedy's wounds? What about you, Bernice? Do you see the bullet hole in the photo? Or are Jack, Tom, and I high?

Really, when has anyone ever shot a hair convered animal and seen the entering bullet do what you are suggesting? Even the government has never tried to sell that excuse. Did McClellend and all the other witnesses just see hair raised on the back of JFK's head and imagined a hole there ... you must be joking - right? What causes this coning effect is that the bones are sprung open and with the hair attached to the bones - it gives the impression of there being a bulge seen on the back of the head. How do I know this other than McClelland, Perry and others seeing this avulsion and describing it ... I consulted ballistic, medical, and forensic experts. BTW, I wouldn't get to excited about what Baghdad Bob Purvis says, espeically after he posted that bit about Kellerman seeing a wound in the hairline and leaving out the rest of this in hopes of salavaging the notion that the autopsy photos are genuine. Let me show what Kellerman said in a little more specific way about the wound that Purvis didn't address ... Mr. KELLERMAN. The President; I am sorry. I did not see any wounds in that man's face. Mr. SPECTER. Indicating with your hand at that moment the front part of his face?Mr. KELLERMAN. Right, sir. Mr. SPECTER. May I interrupt you just to ask whether you had any view-- Mr. KELLERMAN. Surely. Mr. SPECTER. Of the rear part of his head? Mr. KELLERMAN. I did not, sir. Mr. SPECTER. What was the rearmost or uppermost portion of President Kennedy's head which you could observe at that time? Mr. KELLERMAN. It was the hairline to the ear, sir. Mr. SPECTER. I would like to develop your understanding and your observations of the four wounds on President Kennedy. Mr. KELLERMAN. OK. This all transpired in the morgue of the Naval Hospital in Bethesda, sir. He had a large wound this size. Mr. SPECTER. Indicating a circle with your finger of the diameter of 5 inches; would that be approximately correct? Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, circular; yes, on this part of the head. Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the rear portion of the head. Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes. I ask once again, where is that large wound seen in those so-called genuine autopsy photos? Bill[/b] Bill, I fail to see a cone on the back of Kennedy's head, only hair sticking out at an odd angle for a split second. If you consulted ballistic and medical experts you'd see that bones don't "spring open" as you've suggested, except in rare cases, usually involving handgun ammunition. In my presentation I mention a number of articles on memory and cognition which support the possibility that the many witnesses who disagree with each other are in fact all telling the truth as they know it, but that the truth as they know it is not in fact reliable. But it doesn't matter at this point. I'm not trying to PROVE my theory on this thread. The Zapruder film can be fake. The autopsy photos can be fake. There can be ten shooters on the knoll. What I am trying to show is that the bullet hole in the mystery photo (Jack White's #7) demonstrates the Humes entrance was real (at least at one point). Since the single-assassin theorists (outside of Purvis) fail to acknowledge this wound, if we conspiracy theorists, of all stripes and shapes, can agree that this IS a bullet hole, then we can force the lone-nut community to deal with this inconvenient bullet hole. Either they'll have to pretend it doesn't exist, and look like idiots, or they'll have to acknowledge that the Clark Panel, Rockefeller Panel and HSCA FPP were all wrong on this basic point. (Larry Sturdivan, to his credit, now agrees that all these brilliant doctors were, in fact, wrong on this basic point.) If we can get the lone-nut community to agree that all these doctors were wrong, then maybe we can get the media to take a fresh look at the evidence. Maybe they'll even report the various alteration theories fairly for a change. P.S. Jack, in my section on the x-rays, I offer some explanations for the bullet slice on the back of the head and the overly white section revealed in the lateral view. I believe my explanations make perfect sense and will eventually be accepted. I appreciate Mantik's work, nevertheless. If he hadn't raised these issues to begin with, I would never have taken such a close look at the x-rays, and have found the real location of the bullet slice. I'm hoping my work spurs others as his did mine.

So the bottom-line is that the autopsy evidence (photos and x-rays), deemed authentic by Pat, shows that Kennedy was shot by two shooters firing from behind???"I don't claim that the evidence is authentic, only that it is probably authentic, as I can't figure out any reason the government would fake evidence to show a conspiracy, and then insist there was no conspiracy. If you can come up with any logical reason why they'd do this, I'm open-minded. Pat previously asserted a "strong likelihood that Kennedy was shot by two shooters from behind," and now illogically asks why "the government would fake evidence to show a conspiracy, and then insist there was no conspiracy." If Pat thinks the unaltered evidence shows two shooters, then no fakery was required to "show a conspiracy." By his own admission, the evidence of two shooters did "show a conspiracy." As for an open-ended pondering of "any reason the government would fake evidence to show a conspiracy," two reasons would be to eliminate the appearance of multiple shooters and elimate the appearance of a frontal shooter. I'm not saying I believe this is what happened, just that the explanation does not lie in a straightforward explication of the shooting scenario and head snap. It speaks for itself, even if one accepts Pat's two rear shooters conclusion, that the evidence and logic didn't determine the WC conclusion. The Dealey Plaza re-enactment, using the hairline location for the head wound, shows that the WC conclusion hadn't been in effect immediately following the autopsy, and not at the time of the re-enactment. The photos and x-rays are far too inconsistent to eliminate the possibility of evidentiary shenanigans. T.C. I guess my previous post was unclear. I believe the evidence on the body convincingly points to two shooters firing from behind. (I also believe the earwitness evidence points to the likelihood of a third participant/shooter somewhere west of the TSBD. I just don't believe there is evidence on the body for this participant/shooter.) Since I believe the evidence suggests a likely conspiracy, I believe the evidence is probably unaltered, as I can't understand why the government would fake evidence in order to make the evidence suggest a conspiracy, if there was none. IF, however, someone were to offer a scenario whereby the government would fake the evidence to suggest conspiracy, and then change its mind and pretend the evidence doesn't show conspiracy, I am open-minded. Let's say Oswald somehow miraculously pulled off the shooting by himself, but the military wanted to implicate Cuba and faked evidence to indicate more than one shooter, then Johnson got wise to the plan and ordered everyone to cover-up this possible conspiracy. Is such a scenario possible??? Yes. But is there any evidence to support this? I don't believe so. I also don't believe the evidence suggesting a conspiracy was of the type that would be faked. If the military wanted to fake the evidence for a conspiracy they would have found Russian military ammo in Kennedy, or something equally overt. IMO. As to the brain matter in the hairline, if you look at my presentation you'll see that I believe the entrance was slightly above that location. The HSCA exhibit crops the photo just below the actual entrance. In the BOH photo Boswell lifts the scalp to straighten out some of the folds and display the entrance. This lifts the entrance hole above the brain matter coagulating in the hair. BTW, while I appreciate Tom's defense of my work, my theory is not his theory. For example, I concluded that the red mark in the cowlick, mistakenly believed by the HSCA to be an entrance, was in fact, the scalp overlaying the beveled exit seen on open-cranium photo. (The HSCA decided that this photo was of the forehead so that they could say this exit was the exit near the temple, even though the autopsy doctors were clear in that there was NO beveled exit found on the skull itself...only on the large fragment found on the floor of the limo.) I believe this "exit" near the cowlick came as a result of a bullet exploding upon impact with the temple, and that the fragment did not make it through the scalp. We should remember that the bullet in Oswald traversed his organs and lodged under his skin at his back and did not exit. Skin is much tougher than most realize. As far as the Groden "volcano-shape" seen on the Zapruder film, I'm convinced that was Kennedy's hair reacting to the impact. The left lateral autopsy photo in particular shows that Kennedy's hair was much longer on top than on its sides. A quick jerk of his head would make such a shape, would it not?

I think it was Jenkins who eventually came forward stating that he'd seen the lower entrance in Parkland. Or was it the back wound? Anyhow, I remember he came forward stating that he'd seen one of the wounds supposedly created in transit. I have a whole section on the x-rays in my presentation, Bill. I honestly believe I've made sense of them. One of the main things people miss is that the large wound measured and described by Boswell didn't exist at the time of the x-rays. The x-rays were the first images taken at the autopsy. Humes and Boswell have acknowledged that large chunks of bone fell to the table as they reflected the scalp. I believe the x-rays show these chunks of bone held in place by Kennedy's scalp. Another thing which is frequently missed (most egregiously by the HSCA FPP) is that skull fractures reflect the amount of energy released by an impact of an individual missile. (A shotgun blast, for example, leaves a large hole made up of many criss-crossing fractures but no large fractures). Anyhow, the longest fractures on Kennedy's x-rays appear to begin at what was supposedly the exit. While the exit of a bullet will at times leave larger fractures than the entrance (due to the bullet's tumbling and creating a larger impact surface) the bullet striking Kennedy is reported to have broken up as it crossed his skull. The FPP medical report, in one of its sneakiest moves, says that the fractures at the exit were consistent with the exit of a missile with the mass of the two fragments found in the front seat, thus implying that they exited as one. The problem is, of course, that the two fragments found in the front seat were the nose of the bullet and the tail of the bullet, and that roughly half the bullet in between them was never found. In other words, the panel knew that the recovered fragments could not have made the fractures seen near the temple. This is one of the many reasons I concluded that the bullet strike at 313 hit Kennedy directly on the temple, and never entered the back side of his head. Tom, while we share many opinions on Kennedy's wounds, I am still convinced there was more than one shooter. I fail to understand why the government would misrepresent the evidence if the evidence showed Oswald was the only shooter. The only thing I can come up with is that the government THOUGHT the evidence showed conspiracy, and so deliberately misrepresented evidence, never realizing that Oswald REALLY WAS the only shooter. Even if that's possible, however, I can't fathom how Oswald, who was not believed to have practiced with his rifle in ages, could have hit three out of three. The earwitness evidence, furthermore, indicates there was another shooter. Just what is it that convinces you Oswald could have pulled off the shooting?

So the bottom-line is that the autopsy evidence (photos and x-rays), deemed authentic by Pat, shows that Kennedy was shot by two shooters firing from behind???" T.C. I don't claim that the evidence is authentic, only that it is probably authentic, as I can't figure out any reason the government would fake evidence to show a conspiracy, and then insist there was no conspiracy. If you can come up with any logical reason why they'd do this, I'm open-minded.

The frontal (A-P) view of the x-rays was taken with Kennedy's head tilted slightly backwards and doesn't even show the lower occipital region. Even if it did, the Petrous bone would obscure the area. The A-P view is rarely if ever used to examine occipital fractures for this very reason. The view that would have been used if they were trying to get a good image of an occipital fracture is known as the Towne's View. (If I'm not mistaken.) Unfortunately, the x-rays taken were taken for the basic purpose of finding a bullet in the skull, and not for analyzing the fractures. The key to your response is "obvious altered or fraudulent evidence." I'd read High Treason and Best Evidence before I ever started my investigation. I took what was said quite seriously, and was almost a believer. The more I looked, however, the more I realized that this alteration was not so obvious. Ultimately I concluded that it is the interpretations that have been wrong, and not the evidence. Those with the pre-conception that the "real" evidence would show a shot from the grassy knoll were unable to see that the evidence, taken at face value, demonstrates a strong likelihood that Kennedy was shot by two shooters firing from behind. Far worse, however, is that the various doctors hired by the government were unwilling or unable to look at the evidence honestly. An example of this is that Werner Spitz, of the Rockefeller Panel and FPP, and Russell Fisher of the Clark Panel wrote a text book on forensic pathology together, entitled Medicolegal Investigation of Death. In this book they mention the under-appreciated fact that missing scalp is an indication of an entrance wound. The missing scalp on Kennedy was, of course, in the large wound near his temple. Their failure to discuss this or explain this is to me a demonstration of their failure as "experts". On some level they knew they were hired as salesmen to sell the idea of a lone-assassin to the American public. This golden opportunity to "help" the government prove its case blinded them to some of the real issues. IMO. Either that or they were big fat liars...(which I consider unlikely).

Well, he must not have lost all his access to the Kennedys. In 1956, Joe Kennedy wanted LBJ to run, with JFK as his running-mate. The man he sent to present this opportunity to LBJ was Tommy Corcoran. Similarly, in 1972, Nixon was concerned about Ted Kennedy jumping into the race. Connally called Nixon to tell him that Teddy was definitely toying with the idea. Connally's source? Fellow 8Fer Tommy Corcoran.

Bill, thanks so much for your answer. This is fascinating. You honestly fail to see the star-shaped bullet hole next to Jack's number 7, which to me is as clear as day. This bullet hole has been the bane of my existence. I first saw it in Groden's TKOAP 12 years ago, and couldn't believe he didn't mention it in the photo caption. When I finally gave in to my curiousity 3 years ago and began reading everything I could, I was shocked that no one in the research community, not Lifton, not Livingstone, not Brown, not Wecht, not Aguilar, not Mantik, mentioned this hole. I then read the HSCA Reports on historymatters and was shocked to find the Forensic Pathology Panel not only failed to mention this hole, they interpreted the photo incorrectly. After that I felt I needed to create a presentation. (In my presentation, by the way, I show where this bullet hole is on both the other back-of-the-head photos and on the x-rays.) In my presentation, in the conclusion section under Alteration Analysis, I mention the research and writings of Stanford Professor Barbara Tversky. I e-mailed her recently to tell her what help her writings were to me when I was trying to understand how people can remember things so differently. Her response stressed that people not only remember things differently, they PERCEIVE them differently to begin with, based upon their pre-dispositions. Our memories are not like videotape (they're more like sand-paintings created under the influence of drugs). After the Peter Jennings insult in 2003, I was so pissed off I got online and started arguing with people on some chat set up by AOL. I remember that there was this one guy who kept saying Posner and the WC were right, because he'd looked at the autopsy photos online, and that there was a bullet hole entrance right where the WC said it was. When I pointed out that Posner ignores the bullet hole he saw and that Posner claims the entrance was 4 inches higher, and that all the top doctors on the Forensic Pathology Panel, including Dr. Michael Baden, agreed, he said "xxxx Michael Baden" and went away. It occurred to me then that the mystery photo, and the bullet hole, can be used to discredit the lone-nut community, and prove, at the very least, that the Clark Panel's movement of the head wound was incorrect. Please take a look at the section of my presentation called "Solving the Great Head Wound Controversy". If you still fail to see what I'm talking about, let me know. In my presentation I was more critical of those who've failed to see the entrance than was deserved. It occurs to me now that the ability to perceive this hole might have a genetic basis, like the ability to curl your tongue. I was watching a movie the other day that repeated a story--I assume it was true--that when Columbus arrived in the new world, the natives originally could not see his ships. Their eyes were not conditioned to seeing large things on the ocean's horizon. Like the tribesmen who had never seen a gorge in The Gods Must Be Crazy, they couldn't develop a perspective that made sense to them. I suspect this is true in regards to this photo. Every friend or acquaintance who I've shown this photo to, and bullet hole to, has seen it immediately once I've pointed it out. While some have argued that it is not conclusive, they have all agreed that it is most logically a bullet hole. When I showed the bullet hole to Robert Groden in 2004, he immediately agreed that it was the Humes entrance. When I asked him why he never said this in his books, he claimed he did. (I double-checked his books and was unable to find such a statement.) I'm hoping we can clear up some of this confusion in this thread. Pat Robin, when I compared the pre-mortem and post-mortem lateral x-rays, I found that the area in your rectangle was black in the pre-mortem x-ray as well. Accordingly, it appeared that it could be a sinus. The elliptical-shaped smudge mark below it is not on the pre-mortem x-ray, however, and is in the exact spot where I see a bullet-hole in the open-cranium photo. It is also directly adjacent to the EOP.

Bill, on the first page of this thread, Jack White posted his interpretation of the photo. In it he numbers important points. Point #7 is, in his interpretation, the entrance wound claimed by Humes. I share this interpretation. But even if Jack and I are wrong, what's important is that there is something there. Please take a look and confirm whether or not you believe there is something there. If we can all agree there is something there, then we can force the lone-nutters and the lone-nut defenders in the media to try and explain what it is. Remember that, in the official story, this photo is of Kennedy's forehead and the area in question is of Kennedy's left forehead, where no one saw an entrance or exit. So what is it? If they can't explain it, then they have to acknowledge something is wrong. If they do try to explain it, it will almost certainly be certifiable b.s. I'm hoping we can all work together on this issue to get a few sleeping dogs in the media and/or medical establishment, to finally wake up.

I believe Martinez claimed that Hunt lied to the Cubans in order to get them to help out in the burglary. Evidently, Hunt used the fact that Castro had sent McGovern a list of CIA assassination attempts on himself to imply that McGovern was in bed with Castro. Consequently, one of the things the "burglars" were told to look for in the DNC was anything connected to Castro. Sturgis' story seems to be consistent with Martinez'.

It also might be significant that Joe Kennedy, the U.S. Ambassor to England, was the former head of the Maritime Commission. He was also close with Corcoran. By 1940, FDR knew where things were heading and it only makes sense he told Land what to tell McCone and Bechtel. I wouldn't be surprised if Joe Kennedy bought Bechtel and Kaiser stock in this period.

Bill, I addressed these issues in my presentation at Lancer. A more elaborate presentation is in the link below. I hope you'll take a look. (Good work on the Z-film alteration issue, by the way.) I've resurrected this issue not because I want to beat a dead horse, but because I believe this horse can lead us somewhere. As we've seen, people with as diverse opinions as Jack White, Tom Purvis, and myself all agree that there is a wound near the neck lines. Robin Unger disagrees that the area in question is the neck lines, but seems to agree that it is a wound of some sort. That's fine. The conspiracy/research community can agree to disagree on what this wound represents and still unite around the fact that it is SOMETHING. The WC-defenders/lone-nut community, on the other hand, can NEVER admit this wound exists without admitting the incompetence of the Clark Panel and the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel. They can't admit that the autopsy doctors were right in 1966 when they first described this photo and wrong two months later in 1967 when they signed a report written by the Justice Department that changed their interpretation--because that would be to admit the likelihood of a cover-up. By the way, this is far from an alleged autopsy photo at this point. As shown in my presentation, Figure 25 in the Forensic Pathology Panel's final report is a blow-up from this photo. Additionally, Larry Sturdivan, Chad Zimmerman, Robert Artwohl, David Mantik, Gary Aguilar, Cyril Wecht, and Robert Groden have all seen the official photos, and have reproduced this photo in their work or reported that it is an accurate, albeit slightly cropped, version of the one in the archives. If by "alleged", you mean that you believe this photo was inserted afterwards and is not of Kennedy, well then you should explain why the government would insert a photo into the record that hurts their case. If you believe this photo helps the government's case, please explain, as I don't see that at all. As I said, to me this photo is the key to changing the official history of the assassination. I don't believe a rational person, no matter how distrustful of conspiracies and conspiracists, can fool themselves into believing there's nothing near the neck lines (in my impression) or forehead (in Baden's impression) or top of the head (in Robin Unger's impression). The doctors were clear: there was no beveled exit on the intact skull, and the only entrance they noticed was near the hairline. The wound I've been arguing for (Jack White's #7) proves a conspiracy, at worst, or widespread government incompetence, at best. If anyone has any friends in the media, please alert them to this thread. Maybe someone will decide to take off their rose-colored glasses and honestly take a look.

So Robin, in your estimation, what is number 7 in Jack White's interpretation? To me that's the key to the whole assassination.

Thanks, Frank, for, well, your Frankness. I tried to deal with the issue of reflection in my presentation. In retrospect, my tone was perhaps overly-argumentative. Since the conspiracy theorists I'd read had almost universally accepted that the photo was taken from behind, and since the lone-nutters I'd read had universally accepted that the photo was taken from the front, I was unaware of the difficulties understanding the photo shared by so many in the middle. The relevant slide (for those who haven't read it.) Reflections on Reflection Since the most frequent complaint from lone-nutters defending the official view of this photo is that conspiracists print it the wrong way, and that everyone who knows anything about forensic pathology just knows that the scalp is reflected over the face during an autopsy, I decided to confront this argument head-on by finding a photo of a typical reflection of the scalp. And guess what, they are right. Typically the scalp is reflected over the face. But what the lone-nutters forget to say is that just as typically the posterior part of the scalp is reflected down towards the neck and that in this photo (if one is to go along with their interpretation of the photo) there is no reflection at all at the back of the head, just tangles of torn scalp! Dr. Ed Uthman describes a typical reflection of the scalp as follows: “The diener (an assistant) uses a scalpel to cut from behind one ear, over the crown of the head, to behind the other ear…The skin and soft tissues are now divided into a front flap and a rear flap. The front flap is pulled (this takes some strength) forward (like being scalped) over the patient’s face, thus exposing the top and front of the skull. The back flap is pulled backwards over the nape of the neck.” As the entrance at the back of the head was one of the areas the doctors were trying to inspect, and as the back of the head was reportedly intact, and as none of the four scalp lacerations noted in the autopsy report came anywhere near the exit near the EOP, and as Dr. Humes testified they only made a small incision between Kennedy’s ears before reflection, and as it MAKES NO SENSE for them to have just ripped apart the scalp at the back of Kennedy’s skull with their bare hands, one should have no problem concluding this photograph was taken from behind and that the torn scalp in the photo is where the torn scalp is in the autopsy report, at the front of the President’s head by his ear. When one takes into account that the Bethesda personnel who helped with the autopsy and have been interviewed by such men as David Lifton, Robert Groden, Harrison Livingstone, and William Law seem to have no problem identifying the photo as being taken from the back with the scalp reflected to the left, one can only wonder why the doctors are so much more confused by anatomy than their underlings and assistants. One might even assume they’ve been playing dumb. Over the years Dr. Humes has made a number of statements regarding the reflection of the scalp that only make sense when one views the photo as taken from behind. He told the Warren Commission.: “I extended the lacerations of the scalp…down in the directions of both of the President’s ears…We had to do virtually no work with a saw to remove these portions of the skull, they came apart in our hands very easily…as we moved the scalp about, fragments of various size would fall to the table…when we reflected the scalp away from the badly damaged skull, and removed some of these loosened portions of skull bone, we were able to see this large defect in the right cerebral hemisphere.” One can only assume that when he says he reflected the scalp away from the badly damaged skull, he doesn’t mean he reflected the scalp over the badly damaged skull near the President’s right temple, as would be the case should he have reflected the scalp in a manner consistent with the lone-nutter interpretation of the autopsy photo. Dr. Humes’ interviews with the HSCA forensics panel thirteen years later were even more helpful. When asked about the supposed in-shoot in the cowlick, he replied: “I don’t know what that is. Number one, I can assure you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I don’t know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood…it certainly was not any wound of entrance.” Notice that he says they had “reflected the scalp to get to this point,” implying that “this point,” the red spot in the cowlick adjacent to the midline, was some distance from where they had begun reflecting the scalp. Note also that when one views this photo in the official manner the scalp near the supposed entrance in the cowlick has not been reflected at all! Humes’ comments to the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1992 are also relevant. He said “The head was so devastated by the exploding bullet…that we did not even have to use a saw to remove the skullcap…We peeled the scalp back and the calvarium crumpled in my hands from the fracture lines…” Since there was little damage to Kennedy’s left skull;, and since Humes said there was little or no cutting, Humes’ comment that they did not need to remove the skullcap confirms that they pulled the brain out from the devastated right side of Kennedy’s skull. Since there was talk of an open-casket funeral, it only makes sense that the doctors would try to preserve as much of Kennedy’s face as possible. If this was so, then they would have logically reflected the scalp to his left, pulled the brain out from the right side of his skull, and preserve the left side of his face. Still, one might propose the scalp was reflected forwards on the right side only. The open cranium photo, even when interpreted incorrectly, reveals the flaw in this thinking, as the line of reflected scalp appears so low on the forehead that an incision down the middle of Kennedy’s forehead would have been necessary. When questioned by the ARRB in 1996, Dr. Humes cut-off any speculation along these lines. When asked by Jeremy Gunn whether there were any incisions made in the scalp besides the one extending the large lacerations between the ears, Dr. Humes said succinctly “No, we didn’t make any others,” whereby Gunn interjected “So there were none front to back along—“to which Humes interrupted “No. There were lacerations of the scalp in several different directions, but no, we didn’t make any other incision.” After reading an online article by Dr. Chad Zimmerman, where he correctly pointed out that to reflect he scalp to the left the doctors would have needed to cut along the base of the skull at the back of the head, that last statement of Humes’ gave me pause. After re-reading Humes’ and Boswell’s discussion with the pathology panel, from 19 years earlier, however, it’s clear there was some minor cutting along the back of the head. Boswell: “we just folded that back and this back and an anterior flap forward and that exposed almost the entire—I guess we did have to dissect a little bit to get to…” Humes: “To get to this entrance, right?” Boswell: “But not much…” Since the scalp by the entrance near the EOP, the only entrance the doctors could have been discussing, has not been reflected or dissected at all in the official interpretation of the open cranium photographs, these statements can only be interpreted as support that the photos were taken from behind. Still, the lone-nutters choose to ignore such statements, and even common sense, when defending their incorrect impression of this photo. In Dr. Chad Zimmerman’s interpretation of this photo, for instance, the President’s right ear is at the end of a line of reflected scalp. If this is so, however, then the gaping hole directly in front of the ear (where the wing of bone is flipped outwards in the other photos) is hidden by this reflected scalp. This raises the question of just how one reflects badly lacerated scalp over an area where there is no bone. Zimmerman also claims that when he visited the archives with Larry Sturdivan and saw the original autopsy photos, they could see the fatty tissue of the President’s chest in the background of the color version of this photo, and “that, therefore, this photograph was taken after the Y-incision was conducted on the President’s chest.” Never mind that the doctors testified they finished measuring and photographing the President’s head wounds before they performed the Y-incision, and that lying Kennedy on his left side or sitting him upright, which appears to be the likely positions of Kennedy’s body in the open cranium photo no matter how one orients the photograph, after the Y-incision, would have been a needlessly messy proposition. Never mind doing your homework either. In an attempt to explain how he was able to understand the open cranium photographs to a greater degree than the autopsy doctors, Zimmerman said I “tend to believe that the color prints were not shown to the autopsy physicians during their interview with the HSCA investigators.” This is bizarre, since the doctors were shown all the photos in 1966, and 1967, and again by the ARRB in the late 1990’s, and failed to come to the conclusions espoused by Zimmerman. It’s also misleading in that the record shows the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, not the HSCA “investigators” cited by Zimmerman, showed Dr.s Humes and Boswell open cranium photograph number 44. Number 44 is, of course, a color print.

Is that it? This is perhaps the single-most important piece of evidence regarding the assassination, certainly in the league of the Zapruder film and the rifle, and yet hardly anybody has an opinion on it?

If it's available in digital form could you post or a link to it? I don't think there is one. I dug out the magazine and took a look back through it and have to acknowledge some mistakes in my previous post. The Bobby Baker cover story was not the issue of November 22. The November 22 issue had Elizabeth Ashley on the cover and a six-page article on the Baker scandal. While it never says Johnson is in danger it can only be inferred from reading the article. The title alone implies something big is about to happen: "Scandal Grows and Grows in Washington" by Keith Wheeler. Some examples: "In a very real sense the present Establishment is the personal creation of Lyndon Baines Johnson who, from the day he took over as majority leader until he went to the Vice-Presidency, ruled it like an absolute monarch." "Bobby Baker grew up in the Senate and eventually became a power in his own right by insinuating himself into the service and the favor of the Establishment's mighty men--first Johnson, then Kerr." "A man who knows Johnson well said recently, "He even tried to be Johnson. When he came into the Senate Chamber, he'd take the Johnson stance..." "Bobby Baker was Lyndon's bluntest instrument in running the show the way he wanted it. He'd go around the country putting the arm on those oil men in the Southwest and then he'd hand out the money where it would do the most good--for them." "It is frequently customary when campaign contributions are made for the donor to earmark part or all of his gift for a specific candidate. But under the operations of the Johnson-Baker axis the earmarking did not always stay put." It then gets into the shenanigans surrounding the Carousel Club and Serv-U Corporation. It details how one of Baker's partners, Alfred Novak, was found dead in his car from carbon monoxide poisoning. (Does that sound familiar?) It notes that Johnson was guest of honor when the Carousel Club finally opened. Amidst the list of Baker's other financial interests is one I find very interesting: "a real estate venture in Jacksonville Beach, Florida, where seven members of a syndicate put up a mere $540 each and borrowed a whopping $105,000 from Jimmy Hoffa's Teamsters to promote a motel and shopping center that has never been built..." No doubt Bobby Kennedy found this interesting as well. If left to its course, the Baker scandal would almost certainly have destroyed Johnson. He was way too close to Baker.

Of course, as LBJ well knew, JFK was a man who liked to keep his options open. As Tim Carroll's quotes from RFK demonstrate, if I was LBJ I would be worried. LBJ was VERY worried about the Baker scandal. While digging up some info on Tommy The Cork for John's thread, I took a look back though Baker's Whealing and Dealing. He says that Bobby Kennedy called him at Corcoran's office to tell him he'd looked through the files and that he shouldn't be worried. This was at a time when Johnson was so scared of his connections to Baker that he was using Lady Bird as an intermediary. Since Baker doesn't give an exact date, perhaps this was before RFK came to realize just how much there was on Baker. Anyhow, Life Magazine's cover story when Kennedy was killed was on the Baker scandal and how it was reaching the point where it could force LBJ off the ticket. I've read it, and it's very damaging, and very long, particularly for an article in a photo magazine. My guess is that LBJ would have been forced off the ticket should the Baker scandal been allowed its normal course, but that JFK was gonna wait a bit longer before deciding. I suspect he told Lincoln what she wanted to hear, because she HATED Hoover and Johnson. She eventually accused them of Kennedy's murder.

Some more bits on "The Cork" from Pat's stack o' books. The Washington Pay-Off 1972, Robert Winter-Berger. pg. 206-207 The Cork represents Burlington in an anti-Trust case. His mere presence is credited with providing an effectiive defense. pg. 274. The Cork befriends Anna Chenault in 1959. He shows her the ropes in becoming an effective lobbyist for South Vietnam. In 1969, Flying Tigers Airline, part-owned by Chennault, is given a lucrative contract through Nixon's manipulations. (Chennault of course has admitted that she interfered with the 1968 Peace talks at Nixon's request.) Spooks, 1978, Jim Hougan. pg. 266 It's mentioned that Robert Maheu performed work for The Cork (Maheu's book never mentions this.) Counsel to the President 1991, Clark Clifford. pg. 190 Truman hated "the cork" intensely. Truman questioned The Cork's commitment to the New Deal. Clifford questioned his ethics. Notes that Truman had Hoover bug The Cork's phone calls from 1945 to 1948. pg. 581 Notes that Anna Chennault dedicated her memoirs to The Cork. Also notes that the back channel used by Nixon to communicate with Chennault and Thieu in 1968 included John Mitchell and John Tower. (I'd forgotten about Tower's involvement.) The Court Years 1980, William O. Douglas pg. 260 Refers to Cork as FDR's "hatchet man." Notes that Cork was an active lobbyist who worked underground, contacting key staff members to put pressures on agencies. Notes that the Cork told Justice Brennan that if Brennan would not allow a specific merger he'd get a bill through congress to approve it. Says the bill was introduced in March 1971. (Douglas fails to mention that the Cork had been one of his biggest supporters.) Command of Office, 2004, Stephen Graubhard. pg. 328 Notes that in 1956 Joseph and Robert Kennedy approached The Cork with an offer that he was to take to LBJ. The offer? Johnson tack JFK on as VP and Joe would arrange the financing for Johnson's presidential campaign. Johnson refused. Washington Confidential, 1951, Jack Lait and Lee Mortimer. pg.158. Notes that "Persuasion on the Department of Justice is handled by Laughlin Currie, a former Truman appointee, through Tommy "The Cork" Corcoran, a Roosevelt favorite." (Note that this is roughly when Rosselli was released.) Bitter Fruit, 1983, Stephen Schlesinger and Stephen Kinzer, pg. 90-94 Notes Corcoran's role in getting the U.S. to overthrow Arbenz. pg. 229 Notes that Corcoran's lobbying on United Fruit's behalf back-fired and Dulles et al sat back and watched as United Fruit was dragged into an anti-trust lawsuit. It eventually had to return 100,000 acres to the Guatemalan peasants. From the Diaries of Felix Frankfurter, 1975 Joseph P. Lash. pg. 36 Lash Notes that Frankfurter helped arrange for a Young Cork to become Oliver Wendell Holmes' law secretary. pg. 233 May 4, 1943. Frankfurter notes that Justice Frank Murphy was disturbed by The Cork's power over the FCC and was dissenting from the majority opinion allowing the FCC to control NBC. (This oughta help feed John's suspicions about Operation Mockingbird.) pg. 310. April 7, 1947 Frankfurter notes that Frank Murphy "went on to speak deprecatingly of the efforts to run Bill (William O. Douglas) for the vice-Presidency. Quotes Murphy as saying that Joe Kennedy is behind it. "He continued to speak very disparagingly, as he has often spoken, of Douglas' political manifestations through "Tommy Corcoran" and "those fellows". Murphy then went on to talk of Kennedy at length, and told Franfurter of an approach made to him by Kennedy, to run Kennedy's legal affairs, at the very time Murphy was being rumored for a spot as Attorney General. Kennedy's emissary? Arthur Krock (the journalist who, only weeks before the assassination, would write about the likelihood of the CIA pulling a coup d'etat on JFK). These last passages raise a question I'd never before considered. Was Joseph Kennedy part of the Suite 8F Group? Memoirs, 1968 Arthur Krock. pg. 162. Recounts one day in 1935 when he hid upstairs at Joe Kennedy's mansion after FDR and The Cork stopped by. Listens as they drink, sing songs, and tell stories for hours. He was hiding from FDR because he'd just attacked him in a column about the "wealth tax"(at SEC Chairman Kennedy's request?). pg. 337. Recounts Corcoran's role in getting LBJ onto the ticket with JFK. Corcoran, probably at Joe Kennedy's request, convinced everyone that JFK would lose without Johnson. Johnson said no unless Sam Rayburn--the head of the party--recommended it. Edward Foley and Corcoran then met with Rayburn, but to no avail. Hale Boggs (???) then went in and met with Rayburn, telling Rayburn that LBJ would swing Louisiana to the Dems, and this did the trick.

John, the Howard Hughes bio-pic The Aviator dealt in no small part with war-profiteering. Hughes had been given millions of dollars in contracts during WW2 and had not created one acceptable war plane. Senator Owen Brewster tried to use this against Hughes in order to force Hughes to give his international flights over to Pan-Am. But Hughes started discussing how many HUNDREDS of millions went to the other contractors for unfilled contracts, and started talking about Brewster's personal ties to Pan-Am. This killed the hearings. (Of course we know Hughes had some help in this from Pearson and Maheu etcl) You've piqued my interest in Corcoran. While I doubt he personally was involved in the assassination, his career is symptomatic of the corruption of the period. Can you imagine the conversations between men like Davidson, Williams, Maheu, and Corcoran, should they have ever shared a drink?

Please answer the following questions: Do you see it? Do you see something but remain skeptical it's a bullet hole? Do you have no idea what I'm talking about? Do you believe this photo is not even of the back of Kennedy's head but is instead a photo of Kennedy's forehead? Does this photo totally confuse you?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In that regard, I will have to check with my distant cousin "Tom Purvis", former Sheriff of Mobile County to find out if his daughter ever dated LHO's kin folk. http://www.mobileso.com/MobileSO/About/ Tom Purvis 1975 - 1995 Perhaps you are confusing it with LHO's trip to Mobile on his speaking engagement for his first cousin. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/oswald.htm On July 27, 1963, Lee was accompanied by Dutz and Lillian Murret (his aunt and uncle) and Marina to speak at the House of Studies at Spring Hill College in Mobile, Alabama. There he discussed his experiences in the Soviet Union before an audience of Jesuit seminarians. Among a variety of views he expressed was the following: Not sure whether a "Jesuit Priest" in training is or is not allowed to date! But I will, for the sake of clarification, ask Ann (Tom's Daughter) if she ever dated any of this bunch. Who knows?????????? Perhaps there is an even closer association between the "Purvis" & "Harvey" families than even I am aware. Thomas Harvey Purvis (Born in Mobile, AL, but from MS) Humor trumps sarcasm. Purvis wins this round.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I believe that within the strong evidence ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The only item of "strong evidence" that I am aware of is the "strong smell" which has come about as a result of the "smoke" & BS that has and continues to be generated in an attempt to send persons chasing the figment of someone's imagination. There is exactly ZERO forensic; ballistic; pathological; and/or physical evidence of other than a lone/single assassin. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On the one hand, we have the probability of a second shooter, probably in the Dal-Tex Building, ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The "probability" of a second shooter correlates exactly with the amount of forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical evidence to support such a hypothesis. Still at ZERO! And, anyone who continues to follow this path and lives that long, will be here (or on some other location) 40+ years from now, still "searching" for the facts and truth. Therefore, searching for a hypothetical "employer" of a mythological being, is not likely to place the assassination of JFK into it's proper perspective. Let me guess, Tom. You haven't even bothered to read my presentation because you already know everything. I couldn't possibly have uncovered ANYTHING that would cast doubt on a lone assassin, right? The fact that the neutron activation analysis indicated the exact opposite of what Guinn said it did--meaningless, right? The fact that the trajectories of the Single Bullet Theory lead right through Kennedy's spine--meaningless, no value whatsover, right? The fact that the autopsy photos and x-rays give a strong indication--I believe it is conclusive--that Kennedy was struck twice in the skull---absolutely a waste of time, pointless, etc... And not to mention that almost half the earwitnesses at Houston and Elm, despite being told there were three shots, testified to hearing four.... This is all worthless as evidence, barely worth noting, right? Why? Oh yeah, because Oswald's half-nephew once dated one of the Mobile Purvises, of the minute rice and barbed-wire fortune...