John Crites

"In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland doctors are the 26 people present at the autopsy. All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wounds as depicted in the photographs; none had differing accounts." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think that's pretty grand, in fact amazing!

If you are referring to Frank Oneill as one of your alterationists Pat, you gotta know something wrong's going on there. I'm sorry, he saw a crater in the back of the head and literally refused to admit that what he saw was not the official government version. In essence, he metaphorically closed his eyes, and covered his ears and said Oswald did it, Oswald did it. Foolish, Insane, damaging type of patriotism. But you do have one there, definitely. Who else?

Robert, I think we are all in agreement of the obvious frontal shot. The debate evolves around the exit wound.

Where did Jackie say she saw the above pic - exactly like that? " I was trying to hold his hair on. From the front there was nothing --- I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on." I will get disagreements of course, but I'm feel she saw a back of the head opening. On top of that, she did happen to dive out of the car to retrieve a part of the head. that's a frontal shot.

I No, they did not mention 2 wounds. They pretended the wound described by the autopsy doctors was really 4 inches away, on a different bone, where NO ONE saw a bullet entrance. Now, some CTs have tried to claim that they were both right and that there were 2 entrances on the back of the head, and thus a conspiracy. But that still relies on the incredibly weird supposition that the autopsy doctors failed to note a wound in an obvious location that was far more likely to create the exit wound where the doctors claimed there was an exit wound. As far as Stringer...NONE of the autopsy participants signed off on the cowlick entrance...and YET...every TV show mentioning the medical evidence from the late '70's until this past year's NOVA presented the cowlick entrance as the one true entrance. IF CTs had screamed about this to the high hills, instead of stomping their feet and chanting that all the evidence is fake, I suspect, they'd have had a lot more success, as far as winning scientists, historians, and journalists, to their side. As far as "I will take the back of the head citizen witnesses over the federal government every time" that sounds well and good, until you realize that there are plenty of side and/or top of the head citizen witnesses, including one named Mrs. John F. Kennedy. I was referring to the witnesses that say there was a back of the head exit wound to the government's version that there was no exit wound in the back of the head, just a small entrance wound in one of two places - depends on who's covering up. I cannot explain enough that we have 2 opinions from the government and their lone nut followers as to the head wounds, long after the HSCA ended (see the ARRB testimony, or JAMA,1992 for example). I consider MS Kennedy a back of the head witness, and definitely not a part of the government when she testified to the WC. And her testimony does not validate the autopsy photos either .

Spencer's recollections of the photos fail to match the recollections of anyone in attendance at the autopsy. Horne assumed she saw photos of Kennedy taken at the end of the autopsy. The more realistic explanation is that she was trying to recall photos she'd developed over 30 years earlier. P.S. Frank O'Neil was not a CT. He thought Oswald acted alone. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Saundra Spencer was a dedicated professional who testified UNDER OATH, UNDER THE LAWS OF PERJURY, that photos were not what she saw. Who in attendance at the autopsy saw EXACTYLY what the photos show? And, who testified UNHDER OATH, that there was a large hole in the back of the head? do a poll. O'Neill stated that he believed that Oswald acted alone out of some kind of twisted, blind, damaging patriotism. Or, to cover his ass. He stated, testified, and wrote of a different scenario than what the photos show. Must have had the same disease Clint Hill is suffering from. Pat, do you believe Oswald acted alone? If so: 1 - did the bullet enter the occipital area? Or, 2 - did the bullet enter the cowlick area? We got 2 government versions, which one do you believe happened if you now think Oswald acted alone, in accordance with your great website. You don't need to answer if you still believe in a frontal shot. Let's see if I can give the short version. When I realized that I couldn't just swallow the myth that the Parkland witnesses were consistent, and proved the wound was on the back of the head, which in turn proved conspiracy, I decided to study the evidence from the ground up, i.e. what is a face sheet, what does it show, where does 14 cm below the mastoid place the wound, etc... Along the way, I came to realize that in their zeal to blame the autopsists and WC for everything, most CTs missed the elephant in the room. In 1968, AFTER the research community pointed out that a bullet entering low on the back of the head--where an entrance was noted at autopsy--would be unlikely to reverse direction and explode from the top of the head--where the large wound was noted at autopsy--the Clark panel was convened and, by golly, found a NEW entrance, 4 inches higher on the back of the head. This was a fabrication. While there was a red mark on the scalp, there was no hole there. So WHY did they "find" an entrance wound there? Well, because, by golly, the BRAIN photos some would have us believe are fake, failed to depict a bullet trajectory from the EOP entrance to the top of the head. In other words, the very photos many CTs want us to believe are fake, disproved the conclusions at autopsy. So, what happens when we assume the Clark Panel was correct on this point? Well, it then becomes clear that Kennedy had a large wound on top of his head (that had all the appearances of a tangential wound of both entrance and exit) AND a small wound near the EOP. TWO head wounds. And, thus, an almost certain conspiracy. As far as Oswald...I have chapter after chapter on why I doubt he shot at Kennedy, and why I suspect some of the evidence against him is bogus. So, yes, I am neither a lone-nutter, nor an Oswald fired shots but he probably had help CT, as one finds among members of the press. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hey Pat, Did the Clark Panel mention 2 wounds to the head which is what you state is the case? So you cannot agree with them, if they didn't cause they would be lying - covering up evidence if your theory is correct. And didn't Stringer say there was an entrance wound in the occipital area? Please correct me if I'm wrong but where did he say anything about another bullet entrance in the cowlick area? The medical case is a government cover up cause nothing syncs 100% between the witnesses and the photos - ever. I will take the back of the head citizen witnesses over the federal government every time.

By the way Pat, DiEugenio on BOR (last show) referred the listeners to your website to check out your summary of the media coverage of the 50TH. Putting this argument aside, thanks again for the work you did. Now - back to the exit wound in the head discussion,,,,,,,,,,,,

Spencer's recollections of the photos fail to match the recollections of anyone in attendance at the autopsy. Horne assumed she saw photos of Kennedy taken at the end of the autopsy. The more realistic explanation is that she was trying to recall photos she'd developed over 30 years earlier. P.S. Frank O'Neil was not a CT. He thought Oswald acted alone. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Saundra Spencer was a dedicated professional who testified UNDER OATH, UNDER THE LAWS OF PERJURY, that photos were not what she saw. Who in attendance at the autopsy saw EXACTYLY what the photos show? And, who testified UNHDER OATH, that there was a large hole in the back of the head? do a poll. O'Neill stated that he believed that Oswald acted alone out of some kind of twisted, blind, damaging patriotism. Or, to cover his ass. He stated, testified, and wrote of a different scenario than what the photos show. Must have had the same disease Clint Hill is suffering from. Pat, do you believe Oswald acted alone? If so: 1 - did the bullet enter the occipital area? Or, 2 - did the bullet enter the cowlick area? We got 2 government versions, which one do you believe happened if you now think Oswald acted alone, in accordance with your great website. You don't need to answer if you still believe in a frontal shot.

I got problems pasting in the forum Robert, especially if I want to paste something that non-members can also see. I think it is me more than the site, but AI will email for help so send me a message if you want Robert with any questions you may have. Dr Crenshaw was in his late 50's when he wrote Conspiracy Of Silence, so he was not very old when recollecting what transpired at parkland Hospital that day

I think Reitzes once posted here that after reading Posner and Bugliosi - helped persuade him to change over to a lone nut. I swear I saw that, I know it sounds like I'm making this up, like who could be that naïve - or dishonest to even himself ? I would think someone like that would feel more at home in macadam's pocket, so I'm sure he's over at that forum.

ALSO: in Conspiracy Of Silence: Dr Crenshaw also also remarks on the back of the head autopsy photo (I posted earlier ): "This is incorrect (referring to the photo) this area contained a large exit wound".

Andric, I have Conspiracy Of Silence by Crenshaw, Hansen and Shaw, and on page 78&79: Then I noticed that the entire right hemisphere of his brain was missing, beginning at his hairline and extending all the way behind his right ear, and; part of his brain, the cerebellum, was dangling from the back of his head by a single strand of tissue, and; blood was still seeping from the wound onto the gurney, dripping into the kick bucket on the floor. He also definitely clarifies the wound in the (front of the) neck was an entrance wound

Stringer disputing the brain photos but says the back of the head photos are genuine? That's a contradiction. Saundra Spencer's statements are most credible. The photos were altered. Frank Oneill disputed the photos because of the huge hole in the back of the head.

Are there really people who post in this forum who actually believe the Harper Fragment resulted from a shot by a lone gunman from the rear?

WHO SAW THIS? ANY TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES IN DALLAS AND DC THAT SAW EXACTLY THIS? GOVERNMENT SAYS NO LARGE WOUND ANYWHERE IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD REGION. INCLUDING THE BACK WOUND, WHO SAW EXACTLY THIS?

come on, come on, come on, come on. who saw this? Dis Dr. Clark say he saw this?

Take the sworn testimony of the witnesses at Parkland and Bethesda. Sworn under oath, under laws of perjury and what do we got? What do so many of them say as to the back of the head wound? Sure there are variations, but too many refer to the back of the head. Understanding that as the years go by, recollections may vary, interviews and statements will be taken out of context, or changed to render an author's point of view. But testimony, the statements under oath - just too many times, too many witnesses. There was a blow out in the back of the head, a shot from the front. OK, who all saw this at Bethesda? Forget about Parkland, no way!. The Unites States Government declared (HSCA Vol 7) that everybody at Bethesda saw this.

Carrico testified to occipitoparietal ? Now that would possibly suggest the wound was in the back of course, but up to the top somewhat as well, and I don't think he was referring to any entrance wound on the side of the head because he defines a large gaping wound - one wound. Mr. SPECTER - Would you describe as precisely for me as possible the nature of the head wound which you observed on the President? Dr. CARRICO - The wound that I saw was a large gaping wound, located in the right occipitoparietal area. I would estimate to be about 5 to 7 cm. in size, more or less circular, with avulsions of the calvarium and scalp tissue. As I stated before, I believe there was shredded macerated cerebral and cerebellar tissues both in the wounds and on the fragments of the skull attached to the dura.

another honest, innocent medical professional

I always felt the easiest proof of an exit wound to the back of our President's head was in volume 7 of the HSCA report. Instead of admitting to the collaboration of the exit wounds by so many witnesses present at Parkland and Bethesda, the authors, aka the government, chose to lie as evidenced below: "Critics of the Warren Commission's medical evidence findings have found on the observations recorded by the Parkland Hospital doctors. They believe it is unlikely that trained medical personnel could be so consistently in error regarding the nature of the wound, even though their recollections were not based on careful examinations of the wounds In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland doctors are the 26 people present at the autopsy. All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wounds as depicted in the photographs; none had differing accounts." (Volume VII, HSCA) . All the proof that is needed.

You are welcome Vince, you deserve any and all compliments. You may not get any from Gerald Blaine though -- haha

Exactly Ray, And as for Parkland, they were gunshot experienced doctors and Nurses.

sorry I misspelled your name Malcolm

Looks like maybe the first week of August, Malcum, And from citizen Weisberg: EDGAR HOOVER WRITES J. LEE RANKIN ON AUGUST 12, 1964 ABOUT THE LAB REPORT ON THE CURB. THE ABSENCE OF COPPER PRECLUDES THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE MARK ON THE CURBING SECTION WAS MADE BY AN UNMUTILATED MILITARYTYPE FULL METAL-JACKETED BULLET SUCH AS THE BULLET FROM GOVERNOR CONNALLY'S STRETCHER, Cl, OR THE BULLET OR BULLETS REPRESENTED BY THE JACKET FRAGMENTS, C2 AND C3, FOUND IN THE PRESIDENTIAL LIMOSENE. FURTHER, THE DAMAGE TO THE CURBING WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH MORE EXTENSIVE IF A RIFLE BULLET HAD STRUCK THE CURBING WITHOUT FIRST HAVING STRUCK SOME OTHER OBJECT. THEREFORE, THIS MARK COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE FIRST IMPACT OF A HIGH VELOCITY RIFLE BULLETgust FBI Memo

I will try to contact Groden , to get his position on this. Very interesting, and crazy if it's true