Bill Miller

The small "half-moon" sketch at the bottom represents that piece of the skull from the right occipital/parietal area of the skull. The small circular/oval area with the straight line drawn going into it represents the bullet entrance into the bone, of which this piece of bone contained approximately one-half of the bullet entrance hole This piece of bone, when re-inserted at the base of the skull, completed reconstruction of this portion of the skull and thereafter demonstrated the WHOLE HOLE, which the entering bullet created. It was with this that the entry into the skull could then be measured for size. It is a running joke that you keep describing wounds as factual in one photo compared to another as if they are one in the same, yet they are not on the same portion of the head. If one looks at the frontal Xray alleged to be that of JFK - the entire hole is seen on the back of the skull and it is not down near the neck next to the hairline. Then the photo you argued for showing a hole near the hairline also shows part of the notch that you just referred to as a bullet hole and they can be seen at diferent locations. Now if the assassination was carried out by one shooter as you have said, then how can you support both alleged holes in the back of JFK's head when Oswald was said to have fired only three shots and as I said before, Connally's wrist is to the right and above his right nipple when he took the shot to his back. That means tweo shots had to hit Connally ... one hit JFK in the back and another in his head at Z313. You just ran out of bullets and yet you still have holes to acount for. So if you want to stay within the three shot allegation range, then you are going to have to lose one of the alleged small holes in the back of the President's skull.

The WC is an intentional lie, misrepresentation, and obfuscation of the facts of the assassination. Other than that, there was a single shooter! There were three shots fired! Of those three shots fired, one of the bullets struck JFK, passed completely through him, and ultimately passed through the chest of JBC. Lastly, the one that did the above, is of course the "Magic Bullet", and it is in fact considerably more magic than most are aware. The "Magic Bullet Club" has no association to and/or worship of CE399, as it is just a common old bullet which has no great talent, and it most certainly did not disappear. Therefore, it has no magical powers. In Zapruder frame 224 at the moment Connally's right shoulder is driven forward and down - the Governor's right wrist is to the right of his right nipple and above it. This means that CE399 could not have passed through Connally's wrist at the moment a bullet ripped through his chest and not have at least some microscopic traces of blood on it anywhere. This especially true if we are to be asked to believe that CE399 laid in the Governor's thigh for any perioid of time. I advise anyone who is interested in seeing if CE399 could do what Purvis has said, please go to page 6 of this thread and see the animations in post #80. Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator

That's a valid point, Robin. A few of the people there may have seen the wound from the side when someone tilted Kennedy's head to his left. But many of the witnesses only saw him for a second while he was lying on his back. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to establish the proportions of a large wound on the back of someone's head while they were lying on their back. It would be quite difficult even to establish the proportions with his head tilted only "slightly" to his left. The majority of the witnesses saw Kennedy from the entrance to the room, looking up at him from below his feet or at his side. From their perspective, the wound was on the "far" side of Kennedy's head. This is really getting silly! It only takes one reliable witness for the large avusled hole in the back of JFK's head to have been there. The Parkland nurses who saw the wound up close, thus they are reliable ... Dr. McClelland was less than 18" away and looking at this wound for about 10 minutes or so - so he is reliable - Dr. Clark is reliable - Dr. Perry is reliable - Sibert and O'Neil were reliable - etc., etc,. (Did you know that it was Sibert who first pointed out the bullet hole in JFK's back at the autopsy?) So whether someone was across the room - down the hall - a block away - had one eye - or was considered legally blind ... if they described the same wound that the people who saw it up close described, then their statements are considered reliable on the grounds they have other witnesses who collaborate what they saw. Having won several suits and assisted in several trials ... I can say that any expert who tried to push their position and at the same time tried to push the "mass hallucination" card to the jury would only be hurting their own credibility. Bill

The 'bone flap" seen in the autopsy photos only covered the area by the temple. Are you saying there was NO large hole at the top of Kennedy's head, or that Jackie was able to hide this HUGE hole so that no one in Parkland could see it? Show me where any of the Parkland witnesses say "oh, yeah, there was this one hole at the top of his head, and then there was this other one on the far back of his head..." They don't. They saw one big bloody hole. Where do you think the large bone fragment found by Sam Kinney came from? Are you gonna twist it so that both this large bone and the Harper Fragment came from the occipital area? And if this is so, how can you still swear by the Zapruder film, when it shows these fragments, (or fragments of their size) breaking away from the skull from in front of Kennedy's ear? Isn't it a hell of a lot more logical to assume that some people remembered things incorrectly than that MANY other people lied, and/or manufactured evidence? Since there has been extensive research on the failings of memory, shouldn't researcher/analysts satisfy themselves that there could be no logical explanation for the conflicting testimony, before they decide a body was kidnapped and altered and/or all the autopsy evidence was manufactured? Particularly since the evidence AS IS demonstrates the likelihood of two shooters... In Elizabeth Loftus' writings she repeats over and over again that eyewitness testimony is perhaps the LEAST reliable form of evidence, and yet jurors trust it more than almost any other, because to admit the failings of eyewitness testimony would be to admit their own imperfection. I think some of the resistance my ideas are receiving reflects that she's right. Why is it asinine and irresponsible to entertain the notion that a group of people might have remembered things incorrectly? Why is it sacred that the Parkland witnesses are correct, but that the autopsy doctors all lied from day one? Is it our goal to insist that the evidence makes no sense, and that therefore the government is evil, or is it our goal to make sense of things as best we can? You don't need to agree with me, but to insist that my research, which I believe sets back severely the lone-nutter arguments that there is "not one scintilla of evidence blah blah blah" is irresponsible, is, I believe, incredibly short-sighted. Pat - try to keep straight what was found and what was seen. Jackie testified that she held the President's head on - Baxter mentions the bone plate. Read carefully how many other people didn't see that bone plate at Parkland ... the reason for this has already been stated. Next, get a diagram of the skull and find out where the "OCCIPITAL BONE" is located. Also, sometime when you have time - compare the size of the bone plate hanging off the side of Kennedy's head in the Zapruder film to the size of the bone seen in the autopsy photos and tell me what you come up with. BTW - Your rsearch is fine ... your saying that all the Dallas doctors and witnesses who laid their hand on the back of their head to describe the location of the wound they saw were simply mistaken is ridiculous.

Bill, I've already explained that those who saw this "big hole" at Bethesda were most logically remembering the condition of Kennedy's skull after his brain was removed. In the case of Robinson, this would undoubtedly be true. You are reaching for excuses IMO. O'Conner saw the same thing when he first opened the shipping casket. The same with Jenkins as I recall. Custer Xrayed the head before the autopsy started. Nowhere have I read that witnesses were talking about seeing the large hole only after the brain had been removed. As far as the Parkland witnesses, most of whom have admitted they didn't get a very good look, (How could they, when Kennedy was lying on his back?) why do you think so many of them deferred to the accuracy of the photos when shown them? Because they're gutless liars? Because they've been threatened? Couldn't it be because they were never that certain to begin with? When someone says "that's not how I remembered it" that's not the same as saying "these photographs are fraudulent and there's a great big conspiracy to cover up what I saw". What so many researchers fail to grasp IMO is that there WAS a great big hole in Dallas, but it was on the top of Kennedy's head (where, not surprisingly, it could actually have been seen while Kennedy was lying on his back). That is BS, Pat .... Those people in Groden's book were asked to place their hand where the large wound was located and they did so by placing their hand on the backs of their heads. The skull flap/called the bone plate by Baxter, wasn't even seen by most of those at Parkland because it was stuck in place on the top of the head. This hole is also visible in the Zapruder film. And yet how many Parkland witnesses mention this hole????? Go back and count them all - I named several in a previous reply.

For anyone to suggest that there was this identical missconception or mass hallucination among so many witnesses as to there being a large avusled wound in the back of President Kennedy's head, thus the autopsy photos must be genuine is an asinine and irresponsible position to take in my view. Bill Miller JFK assassination rsearcher/investigator SSA Clint Hill: The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head. DP witness Phil Willis: It took the back of his head off DP witness Marilyn Willis: Matter was coming out the back of his head Nurse Diana Bowron: There was a gaping wound in the back of his head. It was gone. Gone. There was nothing there. Just a big gaping hole. There might have been little clumps of scalp, but most of the bone over the hole, there was no bone there. There was no damage to the front of his face, only wound in the back of his head and the entry wound in his throat. The wound was so large I could almost put my whole fist into it Nurse Doris Nelson: There wasn’t even hair back there. It was blown away. All that area was blown out(when shown the rear of head autopsy photo) Nurse Pat Hutton: A doctor asked me to place a pressure dressing on the head wound. This was of no use, however, because of the massive opening on the back of the head. Dr Malcolm Perry: there was blood noted on the carriage and a large avulsive wound on the right posterior cranium. Dr Robert McClelland: I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted… we did not lift his head up since it was so greatly damaged. We attempted to avoid moving him any more than it was absolutely necessary, but I could see, of course, all the extent of the wound. Dr Marion Jenkins: Part of the brain was herniated; I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound (note "cerebellum", and where it is located) Dr Ronald Jones: There was large defect in the back side of the head as the President lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted next with the brain and with a tremendous amount of clot and blood. Dr Paul Peters: I noticed the head wound, and as I remember--I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput. It seemed to me that in the right occipitalparietal area that there was a large defect. There appeared to be bone loss and brain loss in the area…we speculated as to whether he had been shot once or twice because we saw the wound of entry in the throat and noted the large occipital wound Dr Kemp Clark: I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed. Nurse Audrey Bell: Dr Perry turned the President's head slightly to the President's anatomical left so that she could see a right posterior head wound, which she described as occipital Nurse Margaret Hinchcliff: the President had a gaping wound in the back of his head and an entrance wound in his throat. Dr. Charles Crenshaw: The wound was the size of a baseball(photo depicts Crenshaw indicating right rear) Dr. Kenneth Salyer: This wound extended into the parietal area(a photo depicts Salyer indicating right rear) Dr. Charles Carrico: There was a large, quite large, defect about here(a photo depicts Carrico indicating right rear) Aubrey Rike(Oneal Funeral Home, Dallas):You could feel the sharp edges of the bone at the edge of the hole in the back of the head Bethesda photographer Floyd Riebe: a big gaping hole in the back of the head FBI SA Frank O’Neill: a massive wound in the right rear Petty Officer Saundra Spencer: They had one(autopsy photo) showing the back of the head with the wound at the back of the head. It was just a ragged hole. Mortician Thomas Robinson: about the size of a small orange…Circular…ragged… directly behind the back of his head…they brought a piece of heavy duty rubber, again to fill this area in the back of the head…it had to be all dried out, packed, and the rubber placed in the hair and the skin pulled back over…and stitched into that piece of rubber. FBI SA James Sibert: it was a good size, in the back part of the head there. Well, I think about 3 1/2 inches one way then quite a bit the other...they showed the pictures at that deposition that were neat in appearance, and boy, I don't remember anything like that ...but my recollection of the way the head looked is nothing that would appear as this photograph shows. This photograph is too neat. Right back here is where you would have had that massive wound, right in here, and you see that's neat. My thought was that that was probably taken after reconstruction was done... there was a big cavity there. I mean that you could look in to. The skull wasn’t intact, the bones weren’t in place…there definitely was a large cavity. It was just that apparent that there was so much skull missing

Pat Speer writes ... "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." Dr. McClelland's WC testimony: Dr. McCLELLAND - As I took the position at the head of the table that I have already described, to help out with the tracheotomy, I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered, apparently, by the force of the shot so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral haft, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out. There was a large amount of bleeding which was occurring mainly from the large venous channels in the skull which had been blasted open. Dr. PERRY - As I mentioned previously in the record, I made only a cursory examination of the President's head. I noted a large avulsive wound of the right parietal occipital area, in which both scalp and portions of skull were absent, Dr. Perry went on to say that Dr. Clark did an examination of the President's head wound. You may recall that Dr. Clark was the neurosurgeon who would have had to fix the skull wound had they stabilized the President's condition. Dr. Clark: ......... My findings showed his pupils were widely dilated, did not react to light, and his eyes were deviated outward with a slight skew deviation. I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed Dr. CLARK - No, sir. Such a wound could have easily been overlooked in the presence of the much larger wound in the right occipital region of the President's skull

Oswald being the sole assassin is a myth. For Lee Oswald to have been the lone assassin, then he has to have fired the single bullet that caused all seven wounds to both JFK and Connally. For the single bullet to work ... Connally has to have his right wrist below his right nipple and also to his left of it at Z224. This clip shows that Connally's wrist was to the right and above his right nipple when a bullet ripped through his chest in less than one Zapruder film frame. Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator As Connally's lapel rises it causes a shadow to pass over his white shirt cuff, thus making it almost disappear. On a darker version of the Zapruder film the cuff does vanish making it look as though it is below the door frame and out of sight. In a brighter version of the Zapruder film the cuff can still be seen through the shade of Connally's lapel and as the lapel falls back down, the cuff becomes sunlit once again and is more visible. The white shirt cuff was never below Connally's right nipple, thus when a bullet passed through his body - it could not have caused his wrist wound, which is needed for the single bullet theory to work. This means that yet another shot was fired at some point that caused the wound to Connally's wrist, thus you have a second gunman.

Pat - you may find this intgeresting ... it can be found on Lancer's forum. Autopsy personnel were FORCED to sign off authenticating the material. Proof of it is in the ARRB testimonies of the two autopsy photographers, Floyd Riebe and John Stringer. Counsel Jeremy Gunn read the affidavit that each signed stating that the material in the autopsy is authentic, as far as their personal knowledge is concerned. Riebe told Gunn that he signed it, although it was incorrect(ARRB deposition of Floyd Albert Riebe, May 7, 1997, p. 54). When Gunn asked him why he signed it, Riebe told him that "We was shown this and told to sign it and that was it." (ARRB deposition of Floyd Albert Riebe, May 7, 1997, p. 53) John Stringer told Gunn a very similar story. Gunn read the affidavit that Stringer signed aloud and asked Stringer if he saw that. Stringer: Yes Gunn: Is it your understanding that the statement is incorrect? Stringer: Well, yes...... Gunn: When you signed this document, Exhibit 78, were you intending to either agree or disagree with the conclusion reached in the second to last--next to last sentence? Stringer: I told him that I disagreed with him, but they said, 'Sign it.' Gunn: And who is 'they' who said 'Sign it?' Stringer: Captain Stover (Stringer's superior, the Commanding Officer of U.S. Naval Medical School) (ARRB deposition of John T. Stringer, July 16, 1996, p. 136-137) So we have two autopsy personnel who signed off the autopsy materials as being authentic, although they did not believe this to be the case. When they refused to do so, they were ordered to sign the affidavit. Doesn't sound too convincing to me that the autopsy materials in question were indeed authentic if Riebe's and Stringer's superiors had to twist their arms to force them to sign the document. One has to seriously look at the possibility that Humes, Boswell, and Finck were given an affidavit and told to sign it like Riebe and Stringer were. Bill C There are all kinds of problems with the "official" autopsy photographs. First of all, the photographs were NOT authenticated by the HSCA, even though it publicly proclaimed it did so. The HSCA admitted that its authentication was not quite complete: "Because the Department of Defense was unable to locate the camera and lens that were used to take these autopsy photographs, the photographic panel was unable to engage in an analysis similar to the one undertaken with the Oswald backyard pictures that was designed to determine whether a particular camera in issue had been used to take the photographs that were the subject of inquiry." (HSCA, VI 226, footnote # 1) However, the camera that was used was indeed found, as Doug Horne of the ARRB was to reveal after he found a suppressed HSCA file detailing that the Department of Defense had sent the autopsy camera to the HSCA for study. (Unanswered Questions Raised by the HSCA's Analysis and Conclusions Regarding the Camera Identified by the Navy and the Department of Defense as the Camera Used at President Kennedy's Autopsy, page 4) It was revealed by Horne that HSCA Chief Counsel Robert Blakey had a problem. Blakey, in a letter to the Secretary of Defense explained: "Our photographic experts have determined that this camera, or at least the particular lens and shutter attached to it, could not have been used to take JFK's autopsy pictures." (Unanswered Questions Raised by the HSCA's Analysis and Conclusions Regarding the Camera Identified by the Navy and the Department of Defense as the Camera Used at President Kennedy's Autopsy, page 4) The HSCA was less than honest with the American public here, Jim. While it publicly claimed the original autopsy camera could not be found, the suppressed document tells us that the autopsy camera was indeed found, sent to the HSCA for testing, and it was determined by the HSCA's own photographic experts that IT COULDN'T BE MATCHED TO KENNEDY'S AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHS!! Oh, by the way, the Department of Defense told Blakey that the camera that was sent to the HSCA for testing "was the only camera in use at the National Naval Medical Center in 1963." (Unanswered Questions Raised by the HSCA's Analysis and Conclusions Regarding the Camera Identified by the Navy and the Department of Defense as the Camera Used at President Kennedy's Autopsy, page 4). Would you want to base your conclusions about the autopsy photographs being genuine when even the HSCA couldn't authenticate them, and tried to keep it a secret from the American public? If it wasn't for the work of Doug Horne and the ARRB, we might never have known about this little charade Blakey tried to pull. Thus, the argument for photographic doctoring is not out of the realm of possibility here. Bill C.

Bill, are you saying that the dark shadow behind Kennedy's head, which to me appears to be Jackie's elbow, is the back of Kennedy's head? I see a line of brown along the back of his head in contrast to this shadow. Wouldn't there be some blood? The white arrow I placed on the lower side of Kennedy's head partially covers Jackie's elbow. The head of the President is between the two arrow tips. As far as the HSCA, they did the opposite of what you said. I cited Robert Blakey ... take it up with him. The whole idea of presenting fakes is that some are good enough that the human eye cannot tell if it is authentic or not. This is why the camera being sought was important. Read what Richard Lipsey told the HSCA. Part of the problem is some wounds were omitted from the offical report. Lipsey says the Bethesda doctors found that at least three bullets hit JFK if I remember right. Where is there any mention of this in their reports? It appears that some evidence was being supressed and possibly some of it was invented - who knows what to believe once this web of deception starts being woven? Bill

As a final note, one might add that this wound of entry and the resulting injury is totally inconsistant with a shot fired from the 6th floor of the TSDB at/or in the vicinity of what we know as Z-312/313. Nevertheless, still only one shooter. In accordance with a science that has since evolved - Blood spatter science proves that the fatal shot came from the front. I suggest you reading about it on Lancer's forum. There is a simple rule of physics that says when you push through another object - pieces of the object being penetrated will avulse in the direction of the force. The bones on the back of JFK's head were sprung open to the rear and it doesn't take a genius to understand why the autopsy photos could not show this. Which direction is JFK's head bulged out? Answer: TO THE REAR! Bill BTW, I am still waiting to hear you address the large hole seen on the back of JFK's head and why you claim the autopsy photos were authenticated when the HSCA says the opposite.

I ask a simple question. Please go back to Jack White's post on the first page of this thread. Look at his #7. Is that not a bullet hole? While the black and white version of the photo has been lightened to better show the neck lines (presumably by Lifton) the star-shaped hole is still visible in the color photo posted by Robin. It is not an artifact. I know you think the photos are fakes and that the Dallas witness testimony trumps the testimony of everyone who saw Kennedy before and afterwards. That's fine. I'm trying not to have that argument. I'm trying to focus on one point. Is there a bullet hole where Jack says there is in that photo? It doesn't matter if that photo is of Kennedy's forehead, back of his head, or butt. It doesn't matter if you think the photo is real. Because if there's a bullet hole in that photo, and everyone can see it, we can PROVE to the mainstream media that the government and medical estabishment are guilty of incompetence and deception. I wouldn't use that photo to try and show a bullet hole in a million years. I personally wish it did show a bullet hole because it damned sure isn't present on the alleged frontal Xray of JFK's skull. Two bullet holes to the back of JFK's head would certainly mean another assassin. The side view Xray shows that the right eye socket is blasted out, which the autopsy photos show to not be the case. Paul O'Conner says that the object near the hairline was a piece of debris stuck to the hair and I see that the HSCA enlargement supports this. It would be noce if we had a better angle at which to see that peeled back area of the head. Have you ever wondered why they took that photo of the notch and none of the area of the hole that you think is there? Could it be that there was no hole to get a picture of? I say this because it seems to me that had there of been such a hole that the Feds would have had billboard size enlargements made of it to help make their case, but yet there is not even a good wallet size photo of such a wound. I wish you like, but I cannot support your determination based on that photo. BTW: I don't remember Custer ever saying there was a huge hole on the back side of Kennedy's head. I have seen Custer, along with Jenkins, O'Conner, David, and Wecht all discussing what they had witnessed on the night of the assassination. I believe it was their first actual meeting together which took place around 1992 if my memory is correct. Custer said that he could put his two hands together and slide them into the opening in the back of JFK's head. That after doing so he had small specs of matter on his glaves. As far as the Dallas witnesses, yes, there were many who remembered the head wound as being further back on Kennedy's head than it appears to be on either the Zapruder film or the autopsy photos. I know of no such witnesses. Each person has always placed their hand on the right back side of their head when describing that wound. Even the mortician who was hired to cover the hole in the event the President's body was to be viewed ... had validated its location. Even McClelland, who has stuck to his story of looking down into a hole on the back side of Kennedy's head (how, pray tell, when Kennedy was lying on his back?) defers to the accuracy of the photos. He has suggested instead that the hole he saw was somehow covered up when the doctors tugged on Kennedy's scalp in the back-of-the-head photo. I recall McClelland trying to find a way to justify those photographs. he admits that the large hole is not seen on them. I cannot say why McClelland would suggest that pulling on the scalp would hide the large hole in the occipital region for the scalp would have to be pulled on from the top which would pull the scalp even further above the hole and exposing it even more. Even if you ultimately reject my theories on what happened, I hope you'll take a look at my presentation. I think my analysis of the HSCA's trajectories, in particular, is an area upon which all CT's can agree. I entitled that section "The Tangled Web." Thanks, I entend to do that. Bill

What some consider to be "information", others consider to be garbage. Therefore, if you want your "information" debunked, might I recommend that you refer back to the John McAdams site since he specializes in this and he has done a relatively superior job of doing so. About the only information on this thread which I currently see worthy of review and comment is the work of Mr. Speer. In that regards, many could learn much as regards the head wounds suffered by JFK, as well as the inherent discrepancy these wounds present with the WC scenario of the assassination. Merely because you chose to run down a rabbit hole does not mean that the remainder of us are convinced that a rabbit exists in the hole and we are to follow. Tom, my interest was in seeing if you were just implementing propaganda or did you actually understand the evidence as it was .... you have answered my question by not having addressed the evidence. And BTW, "Trauma Room One/The JFK Medical Cover-up Exposed" - page 231 - Robert Blakey, HSCA Chief Counsel, is quoted as saying the photographic panel could not authenticate the autopsy photographs. They determined that the camera said to have taken the autopsy photos could not have been the actual camera used at the autopsy. Your saying otherwise in a previous post is just another instance of you misstating the facts, which is why I am sure you have no interest in addressing the evidence before you. Bill

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Since the single-assassin theorists (outside of Purvis) fail to acknowledge this wound, ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- One would often think that perhaps I get lonely out here on this limb by myself.----------NOPE! The EOP wound is, without any doubt, real. Rest assured that this horse was well rode and well lathered when I finished my conversations with Dr. Boswell on the subject, as at that time, all of the implications of the wound did not make sense or register. Still only one shooter! Tom If anyone ever wonders why I referred to you in another reply as 'Baghdad Bob Purvis' ... this was a fine example of it. With all the information laid before you in the past several pages of this thread, all you did was just make a brief statement without anything to support it and didn't address a single fact before you that pointed to the contrary. Saddam would be very proud of you IMO. Bill Miller JFK assasination researcher/investigator

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. Pat, you sat right there and watched my presentation at Lancer's conference about the coning effect - you heard Sherry speak up and add to what I said about the head wound. The Dallas doctors said that the bones were sprung open. In other words there were fractures in the ocipital bone that were pushed upward and outward as the missile left the head. It was those sprung opened bones that allowed Dr. McClelland to stand at the head of the table and look right down into JFK's skull and see some of the cerebellum. The Dallas doctors had 100's of gunshot wounds under their belts by that time. Specter asked every question he could about a small hole below that area, but didn't show any interest to speak of in the large avulsed area. Once again, where is the large "5" round hole according to Kellerman that is supposed to be on the back of the President's head in those autopsy photos? The mortician who had to cover that hole has validated it being there, yet it is not seen on those autopsy photos that you guys think must be genuine because you can't see why the Feds would doctor evidence in the murder of John Kennedy. I heard what Purvis had to say ... so is it your position that the mortician was just dellusional and spent all that time and effort covering a hole that wasn't there? More of what Kellerman said pertaining to the wound that you find hard to believe would be missing from the autopsy photos ... 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. Mr. SPECTER. More to the right side of the head? Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. This was removed. Mr. SPECTER. When you say, "This was removed," what do you mean by this? Mr. KELLERMAN. The skull part was removed. Mr. SPECTER. All right. Representative FORD. Above the ear and back? Mr. KELLERMAN. To the left of the ear, sir, and a little high; yes. About right in here. Mr. SPECTER. When you say "removed," by that do you mean that it was absent when you saw him, or taken off by the doctor? Mr. KELLERMAN. It was absent when I saw him. I often refer to "the coning effect". This is the shape that JFK's head took on after a bullet sprung the bones outward and to the rear as described by so many witnesses and as seen captured on the Zapruder film. Another phrase I use to describe this is that "it looks like the butt-end of a watermelon." The actual fractures are not visible through the hair because of the wound being on the dark side of the head combined with motion blur being present on the film. Bill

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? 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 too 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

Tom, Please stop the ramblings and address the issues I raised. Now if you do not mind, please answer the question as to where is the avulsion that each and every witness to the head wound in Dallas had described, not to mention those who signed off on the form Tannenbaum mentioned in TMWKK. I do not see that avulsion/large hole in those autopsy photos - please point it out and do not tell me about "BS" if you are going to say that everyone was mistaken. I am as patriotic as the next person, but if you are going to say that our government never lies to its people, then we must be talking about two different countries. So please stop the side stepping and address the large rear head wound that is not present in the autopsy photos of the back of JFK's head, with the exception of the peeled scalp photo. I also didn't appreciate the same side stepping when you didn't address the Bethesda eye witnesses who came forward and told about this large head wound in the back of Kennedy's head because direct eye witness statements and/or testimony is not hearsay ... that would be the same large head wound that each and every person at Bethesda's presidental autopsy signed as seeing in the document Tannebaum mentions. You did the same side stepping over the FBI Agents observations, as well as the mortician's. And if you don't believe the body was switched, then you must be saying that Dennis David is lying about Boswell confirming that his (David's) team carried in the President's body while inside that gray shipping casket. And before you call Dennis David a xxxx, let me remind you that there is in fact a document that notes the President's body arriving at Bethesda in a gray shipping casket. That document has been posted on Lancer's forum many times. Bill

Bill! Although there may in fact be those here who are so misguided and ill informed that they still worship at the "Church of BS of the Altered X-ray's & Autopsy photo's", as a general rule it has been my experience that most here are by far too intelligent to subscribe to this concept. It seems to me that your experience has been in accepting hearsay evidence and accepting the word of men who were controlled by the military. Esecially since it has been completely disputed and disproven by virtually every qualified expert who has examined the documents, as well as the photo's and X-rays having been authenticated by the autopsy surgeons themselves That is a false statement you have made. The photos have been viewed by some experts who could not tell if anything was wrong with them. Those experts were not afforded the statements of those who were present at the autopsy and had seen the large hole in the back of JFK's head. And, although this is of course an open forum in which all members have the "right" to their opinions, I for one have little time to waste on persons who are merely followers of the David Lifton theories of body kidnappings and altered autopsy evidence. I don't agree with the timing of the alteration that Lifton offers, but I do know that even the FBI Agents who were present during the autopsy saw the large hole in the back of JFK's head. Tannenbaum stated that the report given to the HSCA on whether anyone at Bethesda had seen the large wound in the back of the President's head was false. He went on to say that the actual document that each person had to sign did state that they all had witnessed the large hole in the rear of JFK's head. Maybe you may wish to contact Tannebaum for a copy of that document, unless of course you DON'T HAVE THE TIME! And correct me if I am wrong, but the Bethesda doctors that you cited talked about a hole that was "above and to the right of the occipital protuberant" .... the piece of brain matter stuck to the hair is well below the occipital protuberant ... would you not agree? Come on! At least give us some new BS upon which to feed! This is not even close to original. And, when truly "new" and revealing information is being presented by persons such as Mr. Speer, who has to the extent possible really done his homework and research, I would highly recommend that anyone who is seriously interested in the facts of this case pay great attention to the object lesson and learning objective presented. That is provided one actually has an interest in learning and ultimately passing the final test. Tom PS Others, who enjoy being confused and lost in the mire and smoke, please continue to look for body kidnappings and alterations to the medical evidence. I am certain that Mr. Lifton would like to sell you a new book which will further lead you down the rabbit hole. So it is your opinion that those who saw JFK inside a gray shipping casket had lied. That the mortician who had to place the rubber pad over that large hole in the back of Kennedy's head had lied. That Dennis David is lying when he says that Boswell told him that the casket he had led the detail for had the President's body in it. Maybe you think that all the Dallas doctors had lied, as well as the FBI Agents present at the autopsy. Maybe you think the Zapruder film is lying when it shows the avulsion on the back of JFK's head. No Mr. Purvis, you come across to me on this matter like Fetzer and White do about film alteration. Both misstate the evidence and ignore the majority of the witnesses to keep their faith alive. BillMiller JFK assassination researcher/investigator THE AVUSLION NOT SEEN IN THE AUTOPSY PHOTOS

Great, Tom ... now go find Baxter's testimony and post what he said about seeing this alleged small hole ... that will get us past the hearsay rule. Mr. Specter - Now, will you describe in as much particularity as you can the nature of the head wound Dr. Baxter - The only wound that I actually saw--Dr. Clark examined this above the manubrium of the sternum, the sternal notch. This wound was in temporal parietal plate of bone laid outward to the side and there was a large area, oh, I would say 6 by 8 or 10 cm. of lacerated brain oozing from this wound, part of which was on the table and made a rather massive blood. loss mixed with it and around it. Mr. Specter - Did you notice any bullet hole below that large opening at the top of the head? Dr. Baxter - No; I personally did not. Well it appears that we can put to rest that we are looking at a hole for the hair is seen under the mass, which means it is not a hole at all. Bill

Pat ... I regret that I missed your presentation this past year. While I have expressed some of my views concerning the wounds seen in the alleged original authopsy photos and Xrays, I still applaud your desire to pursue the evidence in any light that you see it in. Besides, you may have something in your sights that can add something that I am just not seeing at the moment. I need to remind myself at times that I too, have used what I deemed to be fraudulent evidence generated by the Feds and turned it back on the official story in order to debunk it. Bill

And since Mr. Miller can not seem to reconcile this, then one should also sleep soundly at night in knowing that the autopsy surgeons did not "mis-locate" the wound which they observed by some four inches. The EOP entry does not show on the AP X-ray! The Cowlick aka Z-312/313 entry does show on the AP x-ray. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I know a few second and third graders that could have figured this one out.! STILL!-------Only one shooter! I believe that an attempt was made in the official record to make it appear there was a wound down near the hairline, but that is all the evidence there is of it. No one that I have been made aware of saw that wound pre-autopsy. no one at Parkland saw it - no SS Agent saw it - O'Conner and Jenkins didn't see it - and Jerroll Custer didn't see it. Not even Sibert or O'Neil saw it or witnessed Humes, Boswell, or Fink looking at it. What they did see was this "LARGE HOLE" in the back of Kennedy's head. The offical autopsy evidence misleads one into believing there was never a large hole in the back of Kennedy's head - it offers an Xray that shows no such little hole near the lower hairline when viewed from the front - and the only Xray that looks remotely as if it shows a hole near the hairline also shows the entire right front of JFK's face blown away, which the photos do not. I don't know who's Xray you guys think you are seeing, but it cannot be JFK's. So I will say this once more ... you are trying to make sense out of fraudulent photographs and Xrays. Bill

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. Can you or Robin find this alleged hole in the frontal view of the Xrays said to be of JFK? You see, my point is that you are trying to validate a wound from obvious altered or fraudulent evidence which shows conspiracy already. Bill

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 gather that Jack marked that spot because of what was seen on the other autopsy photo and not because it was still visible in that very poor and somewhat blurry view. What exactly are you going to show the medical community ... a doctor will want to see the Xray .... the Xray willl not show a hole in that area ... the doctor will have to then tell you that it was an artifact attached to the outside of the head at best. If asked to speculate, he might say it could be a piece of brain matter stuck in the hair, or possibly a piece of tape, but obviously not a hole or else it would be visible on the Xray of the skull. In a court of law once you have evidence like a medical photo and an Xray that is supposed to be genuine and it has been shown that they don't even support one another, then they are deemed unreliable. The important part IMO isn't having to exaplain what the artifact is, but rather it, nor the blood spot on the cowlick match up with the intact hole seen on the Xray. Commander Humes, according to some who knew him such as Dennis David have said that Humes would follow orders without question. That if he was told to say something other than what was really true, then Humes would follow that order to the letter. Paul O'Conner, nor anyone else mentioned seeing a little hole in that area. Jerroll Custer said that he had placed both his hands in that large hole and when he pulled them out he had little pieces of brain matter stuck to his gloves. Custer saw no other smaller hole below it. Two FBI Agents stood over the autopsy and watched carefully as it unfolded and neither of them mention such a small hole, but rather a large hole. So again, if either artifact seen on the autopsy photos do not match the intact hole seen on the Xray - there is some more important explaining that needs to take place than trying to explain what a bloodless artifact is seen near the lower hairline. Regardless, this is just my opinion ... I respect your concerns as well. Bill

Here is a visual of the problem they would have had ... of course, the official drawing had the President leaned much further forward as I recall. I would have asked Hume's to pick and angle and then said, "You have some fancy explaining to do!" Bill