Robert Prudhomme

My favourite argument from the Lone Nut crowd (and others) is that the surgeons at Parkland Hospital who attempted to save JFK could not possibly have seen a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head because JFK was lying on his back the entire time he was in Trauma Room One, and such a wound would have been hidden from their view.

The absurdity of what they are saying is very obvious, yet it requires a little thought before it becomes totally apparent.

First off, it is necessary to accept that JFK DID have a large gaping wound SOMEWHERE on his head. Once we accept this, the obvious question comes next. If JFK had a large gaping wound anywhere on his head (top of head, right side of head, etc.), except the back of his head, would it not be extremely obvious to any surgeon standing within three feet of JFK's head, and would that surgeon not have mentioned this wound, either in his first day medical report, or his testimony to the Warren Commission? Would resuscitation have even been begun, if it was known the full extent of the damage to JFK's head?

I'm sorry but, the very lack of mention of a large gaping wound anywhere on JFK's head but the back of it tends to make the Back of Head wound a winner by default, and the Back of Head autopsy photo a cheap and insulting hoax.

Pat

A few questions for you:

Do you believe the head shot came from the SE corner of the 6th floor of the TSBD?

Can you explain why the skull bone at the back of JFK's skull would be shattered, if that is where the bullet entered?

Can you explain how a shot entering as low as the EOP could apparently, as you tell us, exit the top of JFK's head?

WELL???

It's easy to be a cynic and say all the autopsy photos and X-rays are faked. But those that due have the burden of explaining the fakes. How do you account for the intact scalp in the back of the head photo? By saying that there was an orange sized hole but the skin was a large intact flap? Or by claiming it's a different body? I think it is more reasonable to start with the existing autopsy evidence and see to what degree it is consistent with the observations by the autopsy and Bethesda doctors and observers. Given the vagaries of eyewitness testimony, nothing will ever be 100% consistent with everyone's recollections, but I think Pat has done a great job pulling all the evidence together in such a way that it explains most of the observations. Before attacking the post, I would encourage you to read his much deeper analysis at PatSpeer.com.

To address Robert Prudhomme's questions, an EOP entrance does not imply the exit at the top of the head and one head wound. The open skull autopsy photo shows two skull wounds, a presumed entrance near the EOP and bevelled half hole, presumably an exit, heading the opposite direction a few inches above it. You could argue that the bullet changed directions 180 degrees, but I think it is more logical to assume there were two head shots: one which entered low near the EOP and another tangential, or gutter wound, which hit the front right side of his head and exited near the top rear. See Pat's chapter 16b. The two shot hypothesis is consistent with the autopsy doctor's brain observations of two different bullet tracks, although it contradicts their conclusions. See:

https://home.comcast...ield/riley.html

https://home.comcast...eld/riley2.html

Given what we know about what happened at Bethesda, it seemed like a chaotic rush job, as opposed to an exercise planned well in advance. Given that situation, isn't it easier to assume that the Bethesda doctors honestly reported most of their observations, but then changed the conclusion of their report to match the political pressure, than to assume that they spent hours photographing and X-raying decoy corpses?

Are you a spokesman for Pat Speer?

I don't quite follow your explanation. On one hand, you are placing the burden of proof on those disagreeing with the autopsy conclusions, regarding the large exit wound just above and to the right of the EOP. Then, in the next paragraph, you state this, "The open skull autopsy photo shows two skull wounds, a presumed entrance near the EOP and bevelled half hole, presumably an exit, heading the opposite direction a few inches above it." I've looked at the back of head autopsy photo many times and, try as I might, I cannot see an exit wound "a few inches" above a location near the EOP.

Perhaps you could define for us what you mean by "a few inches".

I don't give a damn how much of a "chaotic rush job" the autopsy was. If they could find a quarter inch entrance wound near the EOP, they certainly had no trouble finding an orange sized exit wound just above it.

P.S.

The so called "bevelled half hole" was actually a quarter inch hole, and a skull fragment brought in to Humes had the matching half for that hole.

Pat

A few questions for you:

Do you believe the head shot came from the SE corner of the 6th floor of the TSBD?

Can you explain why the skull bone at the back of JFK's skull would be shattered, if that is where the bullet entered?

Can you explain how a shot entering as low as the EOP could apparently, as you tell us, exit the top of JFK's head?

WELL??

"Mr. 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 covered in 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."

Pat

A few questions for you:

Do you believe the head shot came from the SE corner of the 6th floor of the TSBD?

Can you explain why the skull bone at the back of JFK's skull would be shattered, if that is where the bullet entered?

Can you explain how a shot entering as low as the EOP could apparently, as you tell us, exit the top of JFK's head?

Mr. Prudhomme, I think you're missing a VERY crucial point.

If what Mr. Speer is correct...and there was indeed an entrance wound at the hairline, going upwards into the skull...at what point would an "Oswald" have been able to shoot at a downward angle and make the bullet turn upward and exit through the top of the head?

In other words...how far forward would JFK's upper torso have been for this to occur? From the 6th-floor TSBD window, it would had to have been a point at which JFK's head was nearly between his knees.

So at what point in the Z-film would this have occurred?

Try looking at the information THIS way...and you'll see the single shooter from the rear vanish before your very eyes.

I agree with you, Mark. I'm just waiting for Pat to tell us the shot had to come from somewhere near ground level and, even then, there is no way it could exit anywhere near the top of JFK's head.

And your "faulty memory" theory doesn't hold water, either.

If every witness saw something different on JFK (ie. large wound on the left front of the head, large wound on the right side of the head, large wound on the top of the head, no large wound at all, etc.) I could see your point. However, the vast majority of Parkland and Bethesda witnesses "mistakenly" saw a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head that involved occipital bone.

How do you explain all of these witnesses mistakenly seeing roughly the same thing? How do you explain the first day medical reports by Parkland surgeons all pointing toward a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head?

Of course, though, Pat, your "conspiracy" still points to a shooter from the rear, and, of course, we cannot completely rule out Oswald as the shooter.

Business as usual.

bump

The most basic mistake they made in that video, as you point out, is to maintain the lie of the entrance wound in the cowlick; four inches higher than the entrance wound in the external occipital protruberance reported by Humes during the autopsy.

We don't know what kind of bullet hit JFK in the head, but [...]

Ollie: We know something critically important, though! We know that the fatal shot bullet was NOT explosive (soft point). See evidence here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RCX3RdVHqo

FF to minute 7:00"

Therefore, one of the main Posner absurdities ("explosive bullet") goes straight to hell, and its author with it.

http://patriot.net/~ramon/jfk/The-Miraculous-Bullet.png

-Ramon

Ramon

That is the most ridiculous video I have ever seen, and it does not surprise me that Gary Mack had a part in it. I have shot many deer in my life, many of those head shots with soft point bullets, and I have NEVER seen a deer's head completely disintegrate like that from being hit with a soft point bullet. Even hollow point bullets will not have that kind of an effect.

You are barking up the wrong tree, and have a LOT to learn about bullets and ballistics.

P.S.

Since when did soft point bullets start being referred to as "explosive" bullets?

Being merely one of the '..."educated" city folk...' (post #58), I'm wondering if it wouldn't have been easier to just grind off the extractor claw?

You could, Ian, but then how would you extract an empty cartridge from the chamber after the cartridge is fired?

I thought I'd read it somewhere - from the HSCA firearms panel, testimony of Lutz (emphasis mine):

Mr. LUTZ. This rifle can be loaded in two ways. If an individual wanted to insert a single cartridge, a separate clip would not be required. The bolt would be opened. Normally the rifle would be pointed down or in some way so that the cartridge could be fed in by hand into the chamber area of the rifle. Then the bolt would be closed on that cartridge and you would be able to fire the rifle with a single round.

The normal procedure to load the rifle with more than one round would be to insert a number of cartridges, one through six, in the clip, in this case a brass clip. They are inserted into this and it acts as a retainer or a holder for the cartridges. They are then inserted into the open area by pushing it down. The bottom of the bottom cartridge is forcing the follower all the way to the bottom. It pushes it down and is forced to the extreme bottom and goes into a locked position allowing you then to push the bolt handle forward stripping the first cartridge from the top of the clip and inserting it into the chamber area of the rifle.

Lutz is full of crap. While there are some rifles that it is possible to push a cartridge into the chamber and close the bolt behind it, the Carcano is not one of them.

Shown below is the face of a Carcano bolt:

On the bottom of the bolt face can be seen something called an "extractor claw", whose sole purpose is to remove the empty cartridge from the chamber after firing. As the bolt moves forward to pick up a cartridge from the magazine, the cartridge gets bumped up out of the magazine and the spring loaded "elevator bar" pushes the base of the cartridge up into the bolt face. If everything goes correctly, the cartridge base is tucked neatly into the bolt face, with the extractor claw seated into the groove at the base of the cartridge, and the cartridge is loaded into the chamber by what the Mauser people referred to as "controlled feed".

I could not find a good photo of a Carcano with a cartridge in the bolt face but I found a photo of a German Mauser K98 which possesses virtually the same style of action.

Unknown make of rifle with Mauser action. See how the groove at the base of the cartridge is seated onto the extractor claw.

IF you attempted to load a cartridge into the chamber by hand, you will find, with the cartridge base ahead of the extractor claw, it will be impossible to even close the bolt, as the placing of the cartridge ahead of the bolt face adds to the total length of cartridge and bolt. And, if you try to force it, you will have another problem; that being trying to remove the cartridge from the chamber.

Years ago, I owned a bolt action rifle made by the Midland Gun Co. of Birmingham, England. It was chambered for .308 cartridges and equipped with a Mauser action. As the .308 cartridge is somewhat shorter than other military cartridges, I came to learn that it did not function all that well in the Mauser action. What would happen is that, as the bolt was pushing the cartridge forward out of the magazine, instead of coming upwards smoothly as the nose of the cartridge rode up on the ramp, it would bump too abruptly; causing the cartridge base to miss the extractor claw. As this left the cartridge AHEAD of the extractor claw, without me knowing it, I would try to close the bolt and, of course, it would not close. In fact, the cartridge would jam in the chamber, and I used to have to keep a cleaning rod with me so I could push the cartridge back out from the muzzle of the barrel.

This is the reason more modern rifle bolts, such as those made by Remington, while keeping the Mauser forward locking lugs, changed from controlled feed to a spring loaded extractor claw. This type of action allows you to hand load a cartridge into the chamber and close the bolt behind it, as the spring loaded extractor claw will snap over the cartridge base as it moves forward.

It has been pointed out to me that many captured 6.5mm Carcano rifles were taken back to Nazi Germany and converted to fire the 8(7.92)x57 mm Mauser cartridge. This was a rather desperate effort, towards the end of the war, and the converted rifles were all single shot rifles.

This has led many researchers to draw the erroneous conclusion that it is possible to load cartridges into a Carcano, one at a time and without a clip but, alas, nothing could be further from the truth. The rifles still had the Mauser bolt with the extractor claw used in the "controlled feed" system, and you could not close the bolt behind a cartridge fed by hand into the chamber.

What actually occurred is the company doing the conversions fabricated a wooden block that fit into the space normally occupied by the clip, and it was held in place by the lock that normally held the clip in place. On the top of this wooden block was carved a recess in the shape of a 7.92x57 Mauser cartridge. It positioned the cartridge in such a way that, when the bolt came forward, it picked up the cartridge in the normal fashion, holding it with the extractor claw, and delivered it into the chamber of the rifle.

We members at the Education Forum tend to take ourselves a bit too seriously, and forget that, once in a while, we have to remember the therapeutic value of having a good laugh.

Duncan Macrae knows the value of a good chuckle and, for the last few weeks, has kept us rolling in the aisles with his whimsical interpretation of Prayer Man. He has taken a blurry still from a film, often referred to in some circles as a "vague pixellated mess", and drawn in long hair, coat buttons, a purse and God knows what else, in a satiristic effort to pass Prayer Man off as a woman. Good ol' Dunc, he really knows the meaning of satire! I'm just waiting for the next phase of his joke. What's next, Dunc? Ruby red lips and a blonde wig?

The important thing to remember, though, and this applies especially to the casual browsers of this forum, is that Mr. Macrae is only having fun, and does not really expect anyone to believe he can actually see all of these things in that still. This is just his way of having fun, and the evidence points overwhelmingly to PM being a man.

This is assuming two things; that the bullet that entered the front of JFK's head actually exited his skull, and that the large "exit" wound in the right rear of his skull was in alignment with the path of this bullet.

Hi Bob:

Please go here, click in "View Brief" and read the "Contest Brief".

"Numerical Analysis of the Detailed Effects of a Bullet Passing Through a Human Cranium"

https://www.freelancer.com/contest/Numerical-Analysis-of-the-Detailed-Effects-of-a-Bullet-Passing-Through-a-Human-Cranium-281621.html

I am going with the minimalist scenario. Those simulations cost a pretty penny and you must start with Occam.

If you, Horne, Mantik, Chris Newton, etc. want to add a 2nd. bullet, you better bring a sack of dollars, to include your bullet(s), angle, etc.

Then again, this is a great business opportunity. Will explain later. Keep tuned.

-Ramon

ps: Required reading:

http://forum.assassinationofjfk.net/index.php/topic/1725-looking-for-douglas-horne-and-david-mantik/

http://scicomp.stackexchange.com/questions/20831/need-to-perform-a-computational-fluid-dynamic-simulation-analysis-of-a-human-bra

"Numerical Analysis of the Detailed Effects of a Bullet Passing Through a Human Cranium"

Ramon

Why are you assuming the bullet went through JFK's cranium? Have you never heard of a bullet breaking up completely, and not exiting a cranium?

It would mean that the bullet deflected a little after impact. Entirely possible.

Why the deflection? The so-called "Herrera Effect" (competitor to the "Alvarez Effect") negates it. See below.

(1) Minimalist, from above: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oMYjHEQkEQ

(2) With CFD: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-G11nq5Pa4

(3) Lateral view with more realism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tB6eB2lXBk8

-Ramon

====================================

This is my hypothesis, in slow motion, as it were:

(1) The *pointy* bullet enters the forehead causing little damage, the small orifice cannot possibly move an adult, much less reverse his forward movement.

(2) The cerebral mass accumulates a lot of energy which starts to push the back of the head. This is the principle upon bombs are based: increasing accumulation and sudden release of energy.

(3) Meanwhile, the bullet -who is in a real rush, having other businesses to attend (such as being many yards behind the limo, even buried in the pavement at this point) leaves the scene of the crime. The bullet exited through a tiny hole, but left a heck of a mess behind.

(4) Eventually the accumulated and compressed brain matter pushes so hard that a disk (to simplify the math) of occipital bone cannot possibly stay in place and bolts in a backwards motion, in the exact same direction as the projectile.

(5) It was this disk and its "glue" which *PULLED* (not pushed!) the body of a grown up, "back and to the left".

That model should be simple enough, but it captures the essence.

This is assuming two things; that the bullet that entered the front of JFK's head actually exited his skull, and that the large "exit" wound in the right rear of his skull was in alignment with the path of this bullet.

Is impossibiltate a real word, Jon?

Seriously, though, there is another way to look at the head shot(s). It would seem that a shot from the front AND a shot from the rear are impossible, due to the apparent lack of movement of the head from the back shot, and the violent "back and to the left" movement from the front shot but, I believe, JFK's movements have been grossly misinterpreted. What I see, when I watch the Z film, is the shot from the front causing a very short, brief recoil of JFK's head, and the violent "back and to the left" movement is simply JFK's limp form falling over. I have seen this many times hunting deer.

I see I have made the mistake of responding to DVP and MacRae. I should know by now that the worst thing you can do with these types is give them a platform to spread their propaganda from.

Still pretty shaky interpretation of him being in that building. If I was to step out on the steps, but never left the alcove at the top of the steps, I might, if quickly answering a reporter's question, still have considered myself "in" that building.

Bob,

I've discussed that "Inside or Outside?" subject with other people in the past, such as this discussion with J. Raymond Carroll in July 2014....

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-741.html

RAYMOND CARROLL SAID:

Slight problem there, David: No motive, no means, and he was watching from the front steps. But you are correct that he acted alone!

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

J. Raymond Carroll is one of the very few conspiracy theorists on the planet who thinks Lee Oswald was totally innocent of everything regarding JFK's death---that is: Lee didn't even have any knowledge at all of the plot to kill the President. Lee was as innocent as Mother Teresa, per J. Raymond. That's how far afield from reality Mr. Carroll has strayed.

And I see that Raymond has been gullible enough to fall for the worn-out "Oswald Was Doorway Man" schtick too. Oh, my. Ray is in trouble.

I wonder if Ray can explain to us why Oswald HIMSELF lied about his location at the time of the assassination? Or does Raymond think that being on the front steps of the Book Depository is the same thing as being "inside" the building?

RAYMOND CARROLL SAID:

Lee Oswald was "out with Bill Shelley in front," just as he told Fritz. The front steps are actually "in the building," as you can see for yourself if you go there.

The proof is in the Darnell film, discovered by Sean Murphy, and you can see it for yourself in this thread on the Education Forum.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Nobody who was standing on the TSBD steps would ever say they were "in the building". That's nuts. The steps are OUTSIDE the front door, for Pete sake [see photo below]. And it goes to show how desperate CTers like Raymond Carroll truly are to exonerate a double-murderer.

RAYMOND CARROLL SAID:

He never said he was "inside," he said he was "in the building." Since the steps he was standing on are within the building's structure, he was quite correct in stating he was "out with Bill Shelley in front" yet still "in the building."

Actually, we cannot hear the question in the video, and the question may have been "were you in the building TODAY?"

Anyway, we don't have to parse what he said. The Darnell film PROVES he was on the front steps.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The Darnell Film proves no such thing. Your "Prayer Man" could be almost anybody. But you now like the idea that "PM" was Oswald---so, it's Oswald.

And we most certainly CAN hear the reporter's question to Oswald. The reporter clearly says: "Were you in the building at the time?"

Oswald's answer: "Naturally, if I work in that building, yes sir."

And what do you think Oswald thought the reporter meant by "AT THE TIME"? Considering the previous question had been: "Did you shoot the President?", I don't think there's much doubt.

[...]

Again, only a person hell-bent on finding Oswald innocent for some odd reason could possibly think these steps are located "in the building"....

David Von Pein

July 2014

To be quite frank with you, David, I don't even read your posts anymore, once I see you are on one of your obsessive rants again.

I will accept that as a total putdown of MacRae's "research analysis" or whatever he calls it.

Believe it or not, I, too, would like to see a better refining of this still of PM before I am completely convinced of anything about it.

P.S.

Still pretty shaky interpretation of him being in that building. If I was to step out on the steps, but never left the alcove at the top of the steps, I might, if quickly answering a reporter's question, still have considered myself "in" that building.

I wonder if Gloria Calvery was associated with Mary Woodward, or one of the group Woodward was standing with, as she seems to be standing closely with them (if that is her in the red skirt).

From looking at the Altgens 6 photo, it is not that far from the red skirt woman to the little concrete island.

Good catch, Chris, as it was, after all, a trick question. I've got to run out and do a few chores but I'll be back in a bit to discuss this further.

Duncan can see all kinds of things in that photo that no one else can see.

Gee, that sure sounds familiar. Where have I heard stuff like that before?

The pot/kettle irony that emanates from CTers nearly every day is unparalleled.

Badge Man.

Prayer Man.

Black Dog Man.

Tan Jacket Man.

Etc., etc...

And just two days ago, conspiracy theorist and nine-year Education Forum veteran Kathleen Collins took the time to send me a private e-mail in order to provide me with this bombshell proof of a gunman she sees in the Nix Film. The assassin in the film apparently decided to fire a rifle at the President while standing right out in the open where everybody could easily see (and film) him. Those Presidential assassins sure were brilliant planners, weren't they?....

Subject: Nix film

Date: 9/16/2015 11:58:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time

From: Kathy Collins

To: David Von Pein

----------------------------

Dear David,

Here is a link to the Nix film that shows a man, leaning on a car, shooting. Whoever put the clip up is pointing to 2 other men. But clearly, the man at the car is shooting.

youtube.com/watch?v=gvz6sxhb3PA

Kathy Collins

So, you agree that Dunc's "analysis" of PM is bogus?

Duncan can see all kinds of things in that photo that no one else can see. I'll take a pound of whatever it is he is smoking, please.