Sandy Larsen

Of course they did! Are you incapable of reading? Here is just one sample that proves I'm right (copied from the OP): Boswell as reported by Purdy, HSCA: "Regarding the head wound, Dr. Boswell said the wound was fairly low in the back of the head and that the bone was completely gone above the entry wound. He said that during the autopsy, a piece of skull fragment was brought in which included a portion which corresponded to the missing half of the entry wound in the head" (Source: HSCA rec # 180-10093-10430. Agency file # 002071, p. 6.) What part of "a piece of skull fragment was brought in which included a portion which corresponded to the missing half of the entry wound in the head" don't you understand? A fragment was brought in that fit low on the back of the head. And the fragment completed the half of the entry wound that had been missing. You're in denial Pat. I think that everybody (beside you) knew I was talking about large exit wounds when I said that such a wound would have been noticed by the Parkland doctors and nurses. Naturally small entrance wounds could have gone unnoticed. Indeed, I myself believe small entrance wounds went unnoticed at Parkland. Horne's "gibberish" -- as you put it -- is earth-shattering brilliant compared to the nonsense you proclaim.

Can you say, "spaghetti code?" Of course, Basic back in those days created spaghetti code as well, with its line numbering syntax. But Quick Basic in the 1980s was fully structured, so that resolved the spaghetti problem and made writing code fun. Few people know this, but before Visual Basic (for writing Windows programs) became wildly popular in the 1990s, Microsoft actually sold Visual Basic for DOS! It was basically Quick Basic, but had a visual development environment, with which you could write non-windows (i.e. text only) programs that looked and behaved just like Windows programs! Very cool. Here's the IDE (integrated development environment) for VB-DOS: And here is a calculator program running in the IDE: (Actually, it is in Form Editing mode here, not actually running.) That dark-gray box on the 7 button is the mouse pointer. (Sorry, that's the best you can get with a text-only DOS screen.) But if you run the VB-DOS program in Windows, you get a pretty mouse pointer and it feels just like you're using a Windows program. (BTW, you CAN compile the program and run it stand-alone, without the IDE.)

@Bill Simpich Tommy continued: PS Have you had an opportunity, yet, to check out my 25 free-to-read articles at Substack under my banner "How the KGB Zombified the CIA and the FBI"? I've only had it for about three weeks and I already have 24 followers!

@Bill Simpich Bill, Researcher Thomas "Tommy" Graves wrote the following and sent it by e-mail to me. You might be interested in it. The problem is, "Byetkov"/Obyedkov wasn't a U.S.-loyal double agent -- he was, as Angleton says in his 6 February 1976 Church Committee testimony (where he refers to "Byetkov"/Obyedkov as "the other hangnail"), a Kremlin-loyal triple agent (i.e., the CIA mistakenly thought it had successfully recruited him). I don't know if Angleton realized that *in 1963,* but he talks about it in his 1976 Church Committee testimony, and in retrospect it's very important for the simple reason that one shouldn't trust what a Kremlin-loyal triple agent tells one. Da? Another problem is that Bill conflates "Byetkov"/Obyedkov with Boris Orekhov (SHAMROCK), another Kremlin-loyal triple agent, who duped J. Edgar Hoover in 1966 (iirc) into believing that the KGB had undertaken a six-month investigation (it hadn't) right after the assassination (not ostensibly "in 1967," as Bill seems to believe) and guess what? -- allegedly determined that the evil, evil Military Industrial Complex (or some-such thing) had killed JFK!!! I seem to remember having found a document about SHAMROCK in this regard a few years ago at the Mary Ferrell Foundation website. Yet another mistake that Bill keeps making is that alleged JFKA "cover up artist" wasn't Angleton, but, according to John Newman and British researcher Malcolm Blunt, KGB "mole" Bruce Solie in the mole-hunting Office of Security, who not only sent (or duped his confidant, protégé, and mole-hunting subordinate, Angleton, into sending) Oswald to Moscow in 1959 as an ostensible "dangle" in a *planned-to-fail* hunt for "Popov's Mole" (Solie) in the wrong part of the CIA, but hid OS documents on Oswald from the Church Committee and the HSCA and seems to have managed to lose Volume V of the OS files on Oswald in the late 1970s. EDIT: Made a correction for Tommy.

You mean, he's running for Congress.

Nope. Had there been a gaping hole in the side or top of the head, certainly some of the Parkland doctors and nurses would have noticed it. None did. Nearly all of them saw a gaping hole on the back of the head. Horne is right. Pat and Eddy are wrong. There were extremely few such witnesses, all of whom were the worst witnesses, caught by surprise and getting only a quick glance. They likely didn't notice that, by the time of the head shot, Kennedy had turned his head to the right, and the side of the head they were viewing at that point in time was the BACK of his head. So they saw a blowout on the back of his head, but thought it was the right side of the head. All the witnesses who could view the head for a lengthy period of time saw the wound where it really was... on the back of the head. Impossible. The trajectory would necessitate a gunman floating above the trunk of the limo. Impossible. A Parkland doctor or nurse would have notice such a blowout wound on the top of the head, but none did. We have a photograph of the body alteration:

It's fine that you have your own theory, Eddy. However, the topic of this thread is the fact that the autopsy docs revealed a fragment low in the back of the head adjacent to the tiny EOP wound. If you wish to discuss your dual-blowout wound theory, please do so on another thread.

Well, duh! The autopsists covered up the gaping wound in the back of the head for the Warren Commission. Dr. Finck's revelation of the fragment "curvature" in his WC testimony was an accident.

The premise of your argument suffers from two problems. First, you assume that the autposists were being honest when they said the small EOP wound was one of entrance. As I've argued, the evidence shows that it was actually a wound of exit. Furthermore, the autopsists had a motive to lie about that, because that would have indicated a shooter from the front. Second, you assume that the skull x-ray is legitimate. I think I'll stick with Mantik's interpretation of the small EOP wound, and the x-ray authenticity... or rather, lack thereof.

Eddie, I think you place far too much importance on what one witness, Newman, said. The vast majority of the doctors and nurses said the wound was on the back of the head, not the top.

The whole point of identifying the curvature in a skull bone is to know which side is on the inside of the skull and which side is on the outside. And the only reason that is important is so you know which side the observed beveling is on. If the beveling is on the inside, this is indicative of an entrance wound, and if it's on the outside, this is indicative of an exit wound. It's as simple as that. That is the reason Finck noted he was able to observe the curvature. (See his statements in the OP.) Because he needed to know which side the crater/beveling was on... inside or outside of skull. Now, if Finck was talking about the bullet hole being 100% (not partial, not half) on INTACT skull (i.e. not a fragment), why would he even be noting that he could determine the curvature? In that case, there would be no need to look for curvature to know which side the beveling was observed on. Clearly Finck was referring to a fragment. It's only with a fragment that it is important to determine the curvature in order to know which side is in and which side is out. If you read both of Finck's statement in the OP, you will see that he refers indirectly to a fragment (due to "curvature"), and to beveling/cratering that is only partially on the intact skull. (BTW, the latter ALSO implies a fragment... because if the beveling/cratering is only partially on the intact skull, where else would the remainder of it be? On a fragment, of course.) Pat thinks that Finck is referring to some other off-the-wall, crazy thing. Why? Because what Finck says contradicts what Pat believes. But all one needs to do to see that my explanation is correct is to read what Boswell said at the time of the HSCA. BOSWELL CORROBORATES WHAT FINCK SAID! Not Pat's interpretation of what Finck said, but MY interpretation of what he said. (See Boswell's statements in the OP.) It isn't at all surprising that Boswell sides with my interpretation because I have an open mind and no axe to grind. I adjust my understanding with every new piece of information that I come across. In contrast, Pat has an ideology that he won't budge from. He is determined to make every bit of evidence match his ideology regardless of how ridiculous his arguments become. Such is the danger of being an ideologue. I told Pat before that the reported 15 x 6 mm hole was only in the scalp. Not the bone. But here he is again trying to make the evidence agree with his belief. "Corresponding" doesn't mean that the bone hole size was precisely the same as the scalp hole size, 6 x 15 mm. It means only the the bullet passed through both the 6 x 15 mm scalp hole and the CORRESPONDING bullet hole through the bone.

P.S. I've said it before and I'll say it again. I could learn some good manners from Ben Cole. I could, but I probably won't.

No, Dr. Finck revealed it too, just not as explicitly. First in 1964 for the Warren Commission, and then in a letter in 1965. Finck, WC: "In the case we are discussing today, it was possible to have enough curvature and enough portion of the crater to identify positively the wound of entrance at the site of the bone." (Source) Note: We know that Finck is talking about a fragment here. Because with a fragment, it needs to be big enough to see the curvature. The curvature tells the pathologist which side of the fragment is interior and which side exterior. Knowing that, the side the crater is on indicates the side the bullet exited. Note also that Finck talks about the portion of the crater on the fragment. The remainder of the crater is on the intact skull edge where the fragment fits. Finck Letter to Gen. Blumberg, 1965: "I also noticed another scalp wound, possibly of entrance, in the right occipital region, lacerated and transversal, 15 x 6 mm.. Corresponding to that wound, the skull shows a portion of a crater, the beveling of which is obvious on the internal aspect of the bone; on that basis, I told the prosecutors and Admiral Galloway that this occipital wound is a wound, of entrance." (Source) Note: Again we see portion of a crater. The remainder of the crater is on the occipital fragment that fit there. All three autopsy doctors said that just a portion of the hole/crater was on the intact skull. Humes allows the reader of the autopsy report to assume that the fragment with the other portion of the hole/crater was in place when the skull was reassembled. But it wasn't. Instead of the fragment being in place, a rubber dam was so that embalming fluid wouldn't leak out.

I stand corrected. You get your news from from both left-wing and right-wing fake news sites, and very little from mainstream news. (Not that everything is fake on fake news sites. But too much is.) alt-l = left-wing fake news (Source) alt-r = right-wing fake news (Source) Matt Taibbi is a Democrat hating, MSM hating, political commentator. I wouldn't call that series a CJR one so much as a Jeff Gerth one. Here is David Corn's answer to it: Columbia Journalism Review’s Big Fail: It Published 24,000 Words on Russiagate and Missed the Point The magazine’s attempted takedown of the media’s coverage bolsters Trump’s phony narrative. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/02/columbia-journalism-review-jeff-gerth-trump-russia-the-media/ I criticized your selection of news sources and you criticized my aggressive debating style. I take no offense... maybe you shouldn't either.

It's an assumption based on years of observing everything you say about Russiagate and the January 6 shenanigans, the latter of which was obviously instigated by Trump himself and his associates. That is to say, obvious to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear. For you to miss all that, surely you must have gotten your information from Trump-friendly fake news sites. The sites that don't report anything negative about Trump.

And so, instead, you rely on Trump-friendly fake news sites for your information.

The Senate report didn't say how Manafort and Kilimnik covertly communicated. We can only guess at how they did it. Suppose for the sake of argument that they used code words. If that were the case, the CIA or FBI would know only that they were communicating about something that they wanted to keep secret. From that the CIA/FBI could conclude that they were communicating for nefarious reasons. But they couldn't indict or convict them anything since communicating in code is not illegal. You don't know that. The CIA doesn't disclose things that reveal its sources and methods. You don't know that. The FBI is satisfied with the evidence they have seen. They have security clearances.

I think I made it clear that it was a hypothesis. One that solves the EOP entrance-wound trajectory problem. I'm glad you brought up the supposed 6 x 15 mm EOP entry wound through the scalp (not bone), noted in the autopsy report. I have an answer for that. Recall that nearly all the witnesses said that the gaping wound was on the back of the head. As I showed in this thread, even the autopsy doctors INDIRECTLY admitted to a large hole on the back of the head, when they spoke of a missing fragment near the EOP. The missing fragment resulted in a large hole in the skull, and the fact that it escaped means there was a large hole in the scalp as well. The autopsy doctors also said that half the small EOP bullet wound was located on the missing fragment, whereas the other half was on the intact portion of the skull. What this all tells me is this: There was a large hole near the EOP in both the scalp and the skull, and on the margin (edge) of the skull hole was the hole made by a bullet. There was no 6 x 15 wound through the scalp... the bullet merely traveled through the large scalp hole. So, what the autopsy doctors saw was a large hole through both the scalp and the skull, and half of a bullet hole through the margin of the large skull hole. My hypothesis is that, the autopsists saw beveling on the outside of the half-bullet-hole, and immediately recognized the totality of the wound as being one of exit. This would not do, as they were charged with making it appear as though all shots came from behind. They solved this problem by simply reversing the side on which they saw the beveling, from the outside to the inside. In addition, they denied there being a large wound on the back of the head... either through the scalp or the skull. This solution required one more lie. Since they removed the large hole through which the bullet (and the fragment) had traveled, they had to fabricate a tiny scalp hole through which the bullet entered. And so they did... the 6 x 15 mm hole noted in the autopsy report.

The reason for that was because the Senate Committee's "investigation was hampered by Manafort and Kilimnik's use of 'sophisticated communications security practices' and Manafort's lies during SCO interviews on the topic."[175] As noted in the report: "Manafort's obfuscation of the truth surrounding Kilimnik was particularly damaging to the Committee's investigation because it effectively foreclosed direct insight into a series of interactions and communications which represent the single most direct tie between senior Trump Campaign officials and the Russian intelligence services."[175] "Presumed innocence" is not the same thing as "innocence." The FBI is sufficiently satisfied that Paul Manafort funneled information to Russian spies via Konstantin Kilimnik, an FBI fugitive. The following April 5, 2021 New York Times article give details on how Paul Manafort was linked to Russian intelligence. The referenced (and linked) Treasury Department document gives the greatest details. Biden Administration Says Russian Intelligence Obtained Trump Campaign Data Following is an excerpt from the article: The revelation, made public in a Treasury Department document announcing new sanctions against Russia, established for the first time that private meetings and communications between the [Trump] campaign officials, Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, and their business associate were a direct pipeline from the campaign to Russian spies at a time when the Kremlin was engaged in a covert effort to sabotage the 2016 presidential election.

The following April 5, 2021 New York Times article give details on how Paul Manafort was linked to Russian intelligence. The referenced (and linked) Treasury Department document gives the greatest details. Biden Administration Says Russian Intelligence Obtained Trump Campaign Data Following is an excerpt from the article: The revelation, made public in a Treasury Department document announcing new sanctions against Russia, established for the first time that private meetings and communications between the [Trump] campaign officials, Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, and their business associate were a direct pipeline from the campaign to Russian spies at a time when the Kremlin was engaged in a covert effort to sabotage the 2016 presidential election.

From the same Wikipedia article, pertinent details regarding the Republican-Controlled Senate Intelligence Committee findings: The United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded in its August 2020 final report that as Trump campaign manager "Manafort worked with Kilimnik starting in 2016 on narratives that sought to undermine evidence that Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. election" and to direct such suspicions toward Ukraine. The report characterized Kilimnik as a "Russian intelligence officer" and said Manafort's activities represented a "grave counterintelligence threat."[172] The investigation found: Manafort's presence on the Campaign and proximity to Trump created opportunities for the Russian intelligence services to exert influence over, and acquire confidential information on, the Trump Campaign. The Committee assesses that Kilimnik likely served as a channel to Manafort for Russian intelligence services, and that those services likely sought to exploit Manafort's access to gain insight [into] the Campaign...On numerous occasions over the course of his time of the Trump Campaign, Manafort sought to secretly share internal campaign information with Kilimnik...Manafort briefed Kilimnik on sensitive campaign polling data and the campaign's strategy for beating Hillary Clinton.[173][174] The Committee did not definitively establish Kilimnik as a channel connected to the hacking and leaking of DNC emails, noting that its investigation was hampered by Manafort and Kilimnik's use of "sophisticated communications security practices" and Manafort's lies during SCO interviews on the topic.[175] The report noted: "Manafort's obfuscation of the truth surrounding Kilimnik was particularly damaging to the Committee's investigation because it effectively foreclosed direct insight into a series of interactions and communications which represent the single most direct tie between senior Trump Campaign officials and the Russian intelligence services."[175] In April 2021, a document released by the U.S. Treasury Department announcing new sanctions against Russia confirmed a direct pipeline from Manafort to Russian intelligence, noting: “During the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign, Kilimnik provided the Russian Intelligence Services with sensitive information on polling and campaign strategy”.[176][177]

It appears that that is not the whole story. According to this Wikipedia article: On November 26, 2018, Mueller reported that Manafort violated his plea deal by repeatedly lying to investigators. On February 13, 2019, D.C. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson concurred, voiding the plea deal.[22][23][24] On March 7, 2019, Judge T. S. Ellis III sentenced Manafort to 47 months in prison.[25][26][27] On March 13, 2019, Jackson sentenced Manafort to an additional 43 months in prison.[28][29] Minutes after his sentencing, New York state prosecutors charged Manafort with sixteen state felonies.[30] On December 18, 2019, the state charges against him were dismissed because of the doctrine of double jeopardy.[31][32][33] The Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee concluded in August 2020 that Manafort's ties to individuals connected to Russian intelligence while he was Trump's campaign manager "represented a grave counterintelligence threat" by creating opportunities for "Russian intelligence services to exert influence over, and acquire confidential information on, the Trump campaign."[34] (Bolding mine.)

Thanks Eddy. That's right! Though I would say that they "inadvertently admitted" there was a large hole in the back, since they didn't come right out and "state" it. I assume you are referring to this prior statement of mine from page 1 of this thread: "If you carefully observe the Z film around 313, you will see that Kennedy's head was hit twice within a couple frames. The first one forced his head forward, and the second one back and to the left. The first one obviously is what entered near the EOP." You are right, there is no trajectory that fits the EOP entrance at ~Z312, because the exit would be somewhere on the face. And of course there was no wound on the face. Pat Speer pointed this out a few days ago and I agreed with him. I could think of only one way to resolve this problem, and I posted it on this thread: According to the hypothesis described there, the bullet actually entered the forehead at the hairline and EXITED through the EOP hole. BTW, I wouldn't place much stock in what the Newmans said they saw. They had no warning that there was about to be a blowout wound, and had no chance to study precisely where it was. The Parkland hospital doctors and nurses are much better witnesses. And they all place the gaping wound on the back of the head.'

Some of the evidence is common knowledge. Other evidence I did produce in this thread, but you seem to have missed it.

There were two large fragments that were brought in to the autopsy, the "triangular" one and the 6.5 x 10 cm one that was brought in late. The triangular one fit on the top of the head. (There is an extant x-ray of the "triangular" fragment together with a couple other fragments.) Since nobody saw a gaping wound on the top of the head, it is my belief that the hole on top of the head, as described in the autopsy report, was made by hitting the top of the head with a hammer and removing fragments after slashing the scalp open in clandestine pre-autopsy surgery. So this "surgery" is what created the large "triangular" fragment. The autopsists pretended it was brought in from Dallas. The other large fragment was 6.5 x 10 cm one that really was brought in from Dallas. Only this one is mentioned by Sibert and O'Neill in their report. The report states that this fragment was brought in late and was kept by Dr. Humes (i.e. not put back in place by the morticians). The report states that this fragment was available for "further investigation." You need to read the autopsy report again. It mentions a 13 cm (5 inch) hole on the top of the head above the right ear (my paraphrase). And it mentions an exit bullet hole, 2.5 to 3 cm in diameter, on the margin of that large hole. I don't believe any of this is true, but it is there in the autopsy report. Well I'm in agreement with you. But two of your premises are wrong IMO, one being that you have misinterpreted the mystery photo, and the other being that the "triangular" fragment came from the back of the head. The fragment that came from the back of the head was the 6.5 x 10 cm fragment that was never put back in place because it arrived too late. That fragment was kept by Humes, and according to my hypothesis, later became the Harper fragment. We have corroboration that the fragment from the back of the head wasn't put back in place from the morticians, who said they had to put a rubber dam the size of a large orange in the back of the head to cover the gaping hole, so that embalming fluid wouldn't leak out.