Michael Griffith

6 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

Are you aware that after the Y incision was made, they were able to find and track the wound through Kennedy?

 

Huh??? This is your answer to the accounts of the probing??? Or did you write this without reading the accounts? Are you aware that we've known for years that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about a bullet exiting the throat? Doug Horne has documented this in great detail (Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, Volume 3, 2010 printing, pp. 845-871).

By the way, Secret Service agent Bill Greer, who was present for the entire autopsy, is yet another witness who heard nothing about the back wound having an exit point during the autopsy:

          Specter: Was anything said about any channel being present in the body for the bullet to have gone on through the back?
          Greer: No, sir; I hadn't heard anything like that, any trace of it going on
through. (2 H 127) 

I've quoted Sibert and O'Neill's ARRB testimony and O'Neill's HSCA interview, but let's see what they said just four days after the autopsy in their report on the autopsy:

          During the latter stages of this autopsy, Dr. Humes located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders. . . . This opening was probed by Dr. Humes with the finger, at which time it was
determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point had entered at a downward position of 45 to 60 degrees. Further probing determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger. (Francis O'Neill and James Sibert, "Autopsy of Body of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy," 11/26/1963, p. 4, LINK)

Well, no wonder the WC ignored this report, did not include it in the published hearings and exhibits, and buried it in the National Archives, where Harold Weisberg discovered it in 1966. 

But let's get even closer to the time of the autopsy. Sibert and O'Neill sent a telegram to FBI Director Hoover at 2:00 AM on 11/23/1963, just hours after the autopsy, and therein they said the back wound was located below the shoulder and was a shallow wound that had no exit point:

          One bullet hole located just below shoulders to right of spinal column, and hand probing indicated trajectory at angle of 45 to 60 degrees downward and hole of short depth with no point of exit. (O'Neill and Sibert, FBI teletype: Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, 11/23/1963, p. 1, ARRB document MD 149)

21 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

The Dictabelt junk has been debunked, yes. No doubt about it, IMO. At the very least, the HSCA/4th Shot/Dictabelt evidence has a very dark cloud hanging over it (based on Steve Barber's "Hold everything secure" discovery alone). And even most CTers should be able to acknowledge the existence of that "dark cloud". (See the webpage below.)

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / JFK Acoustics--Charles Rader Interview

Re: The smell of "Gunsmoke"....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / The Smell Of Gunpowder In Dealey Plaza

Re: Bang....Bang-Bang....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / The Spacing Of The Gunshots

Re: The SBT and Governor Connally's reactions....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / The Ultimate In SBT Denial Among Conspiracy Theorists

No, the HSCA acoustical analysis of the DPD dictabelt has not been debunked, not at all. BBN scientists did new tests that refute the claim that the "hold everything" transmission refutes the HSCA acoustical evidence. Have you not read Dr. Josiah Thompson's new book, which devotes dozens of pages to the new BBN analysis? 

You could start by answering my article on the acoustical evidence:

hscaacous.pdf - Google Drive

13 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

Typical.

"The bullet hit the back but only entered a couple inches in the soft tissue.  No, I can't support my silly nonsense but conspiracy authors said it, so..."

When are you folks going to deal credibly with the fact that we now know that on the night of the autopsy, the autopsy doctors absolutely, positively knew that the back wound had no exit point?

-- Dr. Robert Karnei was a resident surgeon at Bethesda Naval Hospital in 1963 and witnessed the autopsy. In a 1991 recorded interview, Karnei said the autopsy doctors positioned the body in multiple ways to facilitate the probing of the back wound, and that “the men” who saw the probing commented that they could see the end of the finger and then the end of the probe “from inside the empty chest”! He added that the pathologists worked “all night long with the probes” to find the bullet’s path through the body:

          They did have the body--trying to sit it up and trying to get that probe to go. . . .

          Q: Why didn't they turn the body over?

          A: Well, they did. They tried every which way to go ahead, and try to move it around. . . .

          Q: But this was after the Y incision?

          A: Yes. The men described being able to see the end of the finger and the probe from inside the empty chest.

          They were working all night long with probes trying to make out where that bullet was going on the back there. (p. 10)

In his 3/10/97 ARRB interview, Karnei said that by around midnight the autopsy doctors "had not found a bullet track through the body, nor had they found an exit wound for the entry in the shoulder" (p. 001476).

In his 8/27/77 HSCA interview, Karnei said that he recalled the autopsy doctors "putting the probe in and taking pictures" (p. 5). Karnei was not the only witness who saw pictures taken of the probing, but those pictures were never included in the official collection of the autopsy materials. I think we all know why.

Karnei also told the HSCA that he saw "the chest cavity opened and watched the removal of the organs," and that after this he saw Finck "working with a probe and arranging for photographs" (p. 6). This is another reference that indicates photos were taken of the probing.

-- James Jenkins, a medical technician who assisted Dr. Boswell during the autopsy, stated in his 8/29/1977 HSCA interview that Dr. James Humes, the chief autopsy pathologist, found that the bullet tract had not "penetrated into the chest" and that Humes had been able to "reach the end of the wound." Jenkins specified that the back wound "was very shallow" and that "it didn't enter the peritoneal cavity [the chest cavity]. He noted that there was quite a “controversy” because the doctors “couldn’t prove the bullet came into the chest cavity” even though they probed the back wound “extensively” (pp. 5, 7, 10-11, 13).

Jenkins added that at around the time of the probing "they repeatedly took x-rays of the area” (p. 8 ). For obvious reasons, those x-rays were not included in the official collection of the autopsy materials.

In a 1979 filmed interview, Jenkins said the following:

          Commander Humes put his finger in it, and, you know, said that ... he could probe the bottom of it with his finger. . . . I remember looking inside the chest cavity and I could see the probe . . . through the pleura. You could actually see where it was making an indentation. . . . It was pushing the skin up. . . . There was no entry into the chest cavity.

-- In his 7/16/96 ARRB interview, autopsy photographer John Stringer said that the back wound was probed and that the probe did not come out of the neck:

          Q: Was the probe put into the neck, or did it come of the neck?

          A: It was put into the back part.

          Q: The back of the body. And then did the probe come out the neck?

          A: No. (p. 73)

-- FBI Special Agent Francis O'Neill, who was in the autopsy room during the entire autopsy, revealed in his 9/12/97 ARRB interview that at the end of the autopsy, there was no doubt in anyone's mind that the bullet that was found in Dallas had fallen out of the back wound:

          There was not the slightest doubt when we left there that the bullet found on the stretcher in Dallas was the bullet which worked its way out through external cardiac massage. And the doctor said, since the body had not been turned over in Dallas, “External cardiac massage was conducted on the president, and the bullet worked its way out."

          There was not the slightest doubt, not a scintilla of doubt whatsoever, that this is what occurred. In fact, during the latter part of it and when the examination was completed, the doctor says, "Well, that explains it.” Because Jim [Sibert] had gone out, called the laboratory, learned about the bullet, came back in.

          Because I was closer to the President’s body than I am to you, and you’re only about a foot and a half away or two feet away. And viewing them with the surgical probe and with their fingers, there was absolutely no point of exit and they couldn’t go any further. And that presented a problem, one heck of a problem. And that’s why Jim went out and called. . . .

          Q: You previously made reference to attempts to probe that wound. Did you ever see any kind of metal object used to probe that wound?

          A: Yes. They used a metal probe, in addition to their fingers. . . . In the back, they probed it to a point where they could not probe any further. In other words, it did not go any further. (pp. 30-31)

O'Neill stated in his 11/8/78 HSCA affidavit that "Humes and Boswell couldn't locate an outlet for the bullet that entered the back." That's when Sibert left to call the FBI lab to see if "any extra bullets existed." He added, "I know for a fact that when the autopsy was complete, there was no doubt in anyone's mind in attendance at the autopsy that the bullet found on the stretcher in Dallas came out of JFK's body," i.e., out of the back wound (p. 000573).

O’Neill also offered this gem of an observation: "I do not see how the bullet that entered below the shoulder could have come out the front of the throat" (p. 000575).

-- FBI Special Agent James Sibert, who was at the autopsy with O’Neill, echoed O’Neill in his 9/11/97 ARRB interview. Sibert said he called Killion to see if any bullets had been found because the autopsy doctors said the back wound had no exit point:

          Q: Can you tell me, was the phone call made to Mr. Killion before or after the body was unloaded from the casket?

          A: Oh, that was after the body was removed; it was on the autopsy table, and the autopsy was in progress. Because the reason I made that call was that the pathologists said, "There’s no exit to this back wound,” and probed it with rubber glove and a chrome probe. (p. 59)

Sibert explained more about the probing and the fact that the autopsy doctors--"Finck, in particular"--said they could feel the end of the back wound:

          But when they raised him up, then they found this back wound. And that’s when they started probing with the rubber glove and the finger, and also with the chrome probe.

          And that’s just before, of course, I made this call, because they were at a loss to explain what had happened to this bullet. They couldn’t find any bullet.

          And they said, "There's no exit.” Finck, in particular, said, "There's no exit.” And they said that you could feel it with the end of the finger. I mean, the depth of this wound. (p. 111)

-- Dr. John Ebersole, the radiologist at the autopsy, stated in his 3/11/78 testimony to the HSCA’s medical panel that the autopsy doctors determined that the back wound had no exit point:

          Further probing determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger, inasmuch as a complete bullet of any size could be located in the brain area and likewise no bullet could be located in the back or any other areas. An inspection revealed there was no point of exit. The individuals performing the autopsy were at a loss to explain why they could find no bullets. (p. 57) 

-- In discussing the probing of the back wound, autopsy doctor J. Thornton Boswell admitted in his 2/26/96 ARRB interview that after they "opened the chest" they could see that "the bullet had not pierced through into the lung cavity but had caused hemorrhage just outside the pleura”:

          We probed this hole which was in his neck with all sorts of probes and everything, and it was such a small hole, basically, and the muscles were so big and strong and had closed the hole and you couldn't get a finger or a probe through it.

          But when we opened the chest and we got at—the lung extends up under the clavicle and high just beneath the neck here, and the bullet had not pierced through into the lung cavity but had caused hemorrhage just outside the pleura. (pp. 75-76)

In a somewhat confusing mix of describing and theorizing, Dr. Boswell then switched from describing the probing to speculating about a hypothetical path from the back wound that would have resulted in a probe coming out of the throat wound, saying that “if you put a probe in this and got it back through like this, that would come out right at the base of the neck” (p. 76). He had to resort to a hypothetical because he knew that at the autopsy they found the end of the tract and that it ended at the lining of the chest cavity.

17 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Bump.

My question.

How did the Warren Commission buglioser, David Von Pein, get re-admitted to the Education Forum, after he was banned for repeatedly posting Mockingbird disinformazia?

I don't like the idea of banning WC apologists. Yes, most of their arguments are wrong, and some of them are patently absurd. However, what if WC apologists ran this forum and started banning CTers for repeatedly posting their arguments? 

44 minutes ago, Charles Blackmon said:

Where did it come from? Officer Bentley took a wallet from Oswald in the car on 11/23. Later on at the police station Gus Rose was given a wallet, told it was Oswald's, and found the Hidell I.D. inside. As we all know, that fake I.D. was used to tie Oswald to the rifle purchase. Why was the I.D. never mentioned in Bentley's reports or the reports of other officers who were in the car that day? Has anybody ever really dug deep into this?

There were actually two Oswald wallets and two Hidell ID cards found.

WC apologists refuse to admit that someone clearly planted a fake "Oswald" wallet, complete with a fake Hidell ID card, at the Tippit murder scene, even though former FBI Special Agent Robert Barrett insisted that an Oswald wallet with both Oswald ID and fake Hidell ID was found at the scene, and even though Barrett clearly recalled that he was asked if he knew who Oswald or Hidell was by the policeman who was examining the wallet. In addition, former FBI Special Agent James Hosty confirmed that Barrett told him about the finding of an Oswald wallet at the Tippit scene. Moreover, there is news film footage of policemen examining a wallet right next to Tippit's patrol car.

I discuss the Oswald wallet and the Hidell ID planted at the Tippit scene at some length in my article "Did Oswald Shoot Tippit?".

According to the folks at Democracy Now, Common Dreams, Ratical, and other far-left groups, we either "deserved" 9/11 or 9/11 was our fault or the U.S. Government was complicit in 9/11. 

Greg, your paper is excellent. I've added a link to it on the Article and Videos page of my JFKA website.

jfkassassination (google.com)

10 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

The most "absurd" assertion made by conspiracy theorists at this forum (or any other) is the assertion that Vincent T. Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" has (in any major way at all) been "debunked".

Such a notion concerning Bugliosi's mammoth 20-year effort is not only utterly laughable, but also provably wrong (based on the sum total of evidence in the JFK case).

Have you answered Dr. Gary Aguilar's critique of Bugliosi's book?

Essay - Review of Reclaiming History (maryferrell.org)

Among other things, Aguilar points out that Bugliosi claimed that neutron activation analysis (NAA) proved that the JFK bullet fragments were from MC bullets, even though he was aware that a peer-reviewed article published in the Journal of Forensic Science refuted that claim. 

The article was written by two scientists from the Lawrence Livermore Lab, Dr. Erik Randich (a metallurgist) and Dr. Pat Grant (a chemist). Randich and Grant noted that MC bullets are "quite similar" in composition to other FMJ bullets, and they showed that the NAA profile of the JFK bullet fragments proved that the fragments were consistent with "any number" of other FMJ bullets. They established that "any number of jacketed" bullets would have produced the same NAA profile as the JFK bullet fragments. 

Yet, Bugliosi dismissed Randich and Grant's study because ardent WC apologist Larry Sturdivan, who had no training in metallurgy or chemistry, told him in a letter that the study was wrong! As Aguilar notes,

           He [Bugliosi] had to choose between the personal remarks of a longstanding anti-conspiracy NAA proponent with unremarkable credentials and those of two conspiracy-agnostic Lawrence Livermore Lab scientists with superb credentials writing in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, and he chose the former.

To this day, WC apologists still peddle the false claim that NAA proves that the JFK bullet fragments came from the type of ammo that Oswald allegedly used, when in fact it proves no such thing. 

18 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Even allowing for the modest forward tilt of JFK's head in Z312-313, a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window and entering at the EOP site would have blown out part of the face and could not have created the exit wound described in the autopsy report. 

We can see this fact clearly in CE 388, Humes's diagram of the rear head bullet's path through the skull. In order to get the bullet to create and exit the alleged exit wound above the right ear, Humes had to assume JFK's head was titled forward by about 60 degrees. Of course, Z312 shows no such pronounced forward tilt.

CE 388 also shows the path of the fragment trail from the EOP site to a point just above the right eye socket, and it includes the 7 x 2 mm fragment that Humes removed. Compare the location of the low fragment trail as illustrated in CE 388 with the high fragment trail, and then try to imagine how even a first-year medical student could have mistaken one for the other. 

Also, compare the EOP entry site and the fragment trail in CE 388 with the location of the cerebellum in images that show the cerebellum in a skull, and you will see that the cerebellum would have been severely damaged. The fragment trail clearly, self-evidently would have gone through part of the cerebellum. 

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

What you fail to see, I suspect, is that to many Mantik is synonymous with Fetzer. He rose to prominence through Fetzer, and never cut ties with Fetzer. Although he's admitted some of his mistakes, he has never divorced himself from Fetzer's claims the moon landing was fake and the Towers were brought down by laser beams etc. And there's a reason for this. It's because they are two peas in a pod. (With the notable difference that Mantik is basically a gentle person and Fetzer is pretty much a bully.)

You are wrong. I got with Dr. Mantik about these claims. He does not believe the Moon landings were faked, and he has no idea how or why you think otherwise. He said, "In fact, subsequent high-resolution images of the Moon have identified the landing site. Why on earth would Pat invent such nonsense?"

As for 9/11, he said he is open to the possibility of controlled demolitions but stressed that he has done no research on the subject and is not an expert on the matter. He also said he does not believe that a missile hit the Pentagon. 

28 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

My problem with an entry wound just above the external occipital protuberance is that there is no credible exit wound for such entry, at least in my understanding. 

Even allowing for the modest forward tilt of JFK's head in Z312-313, a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window and entering at the EOP site would have blown out part of the face and could not have created the exit wound described in the autopsy report. 

4 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

What's sad is that you and a few other newbies around here have been cluttering the forum with debunked nonsense-- quoting Bugliosi, denying the CIA/Mockingbird cover up of JFK's assassination, posting false, defamatory propaganda about Prouty, and denying JFK's NSAM 263 policy.

I've never quoted Bugliosi unless it was to refute him. I've never denied the possibility that a CIA-Mockingbird operation aided the cover-up (I think it's at least entirely plausible). Every word I've said about Prouty has been documented, and much of it comes from Prouty's own statements and from pro-Prouty sources. And I've never denied JFK's "NSAM 263 policy"--you have simply ignored the evidence about the background and intent of that policy. 

The point is that it is harmful and illogical to attack people who posit a JFKA conspiracy just because they don't agree with every facet of your outlandish, fringe version of the conspiracy. 

53 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

In 2013, I was invited to "debate" Mantik because some of the most prominent names in research-land wanted to put him on the defensive. I have come to know these people. They don't trust Mantik's research, and were delighted when he was forced to admit some of his mistakes during our "debate."

What you fail to see, I suspect, is that to many Mantik is synonymous with Fetzer. He rose to prominence through Fetzer, and never cut ties with Fetzer. Although he's admitted some of his mistakes, he has never divorced himself from Fetzer's claims the moon landing was fake and the Towers were brought down by laser beams etc. And there's a reason for this. It's because they are two peas in a pod. (With the notable difference that Mantik is basically a gentle person and Fetzer is pretty much a bully.)

I seriously doubt this, but I will check with him just to be certain. 

On 6/1/2023 at 7:32 AM, Dave Chrisman said:

I have always been puzzled by the aforementioned image. Gerry Down's "Clean Cut Throat Wound" thread inspired me to start this topic.
In my mind, I'm looking for a very basic analysis of the photo. The KISS principle.

The Parkland doctor removed the breathing tube and the wound/incision "closed of its own volition". Closed, not larger, gaping and irregular.
Therefore, a closed wound is the way it should have showed up at Bethesda for the autopsy.

My questions are such:  Why does the throat wound look like this in the photo? Was it dissected? If so, where is the photo pre-dissection? Why would
you take a photo after mutilating the wound but not before? Autopsy photos are supposed to explain and prove something. No pre-dissection photo means
an explanation of the original wound is hearsay and is useless in a court of law. Remember, this is before Oswald is dead. I DGAF who you are or how 
"reputable" you are, no image of the throat wound looking as it left Parkland casts doubt on evidence in juror's minds (and mine).

I look forward to genuine responses and please don't hi-jack the thread as was Gerry's with poison dart talk. Thank you.

One thing to keep in mind about the throat wound is that Dr. Charles Carrico told the HSCA that the damage he saw beneath the surface of the wound proved that the bullet must have been traveling from front to back:

          . . . there was some damage to the trachea behind it [the wound], so the
thing must have been going from front to back. (7 HSCA 270)

Similarly, Dr. Nathan Jacobs pointed out in a January 1967 letter to Ramparts that the Parkland doctors described a laceration of the pharynx and trachea larger than the throat wound, and that this indicated the bullet had entered the throat, not exited it (Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After the Fact, p. 158).

Finally, any discussion on the throat wound needs to include the fact that we now have truly massive evidence, from multiple independent and mutually corroborating sources, that on the night of the autopsy, the autopsy doctors knew beyond any doubt that the back wound was shallow and had no exit point. In relation to this fact, we also now know that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about a bullet exiting the throat. 

If you study other conspiracies, i.e., conspiracies that virtually no one disputes, you find that intricate, powerful conspiracies do not require hundreds of knowing participants. For example, the Iran-Contra conspiracy plotted to initiate actions that involved hundreds of people who had no idea they were furthering the goals of a plot. 

As a micro example, consider the JFK autopsy. Only a handful of people at the autopsy knew they were carrying out a cover-up. Most of the people at the autopsy had no idea they were witnessing or facilitating a cover-up. Sibert and O'Neill, for instance, wrote a report on the autopsy that contained revealing, damaging information that proved problematic for the lone-gunman theory. Several other federal agents gave descriptions of JFK's wounds in their reports and/or WC testimony that contradicted the lone-gunman story. When the medical personnel at the autopsy later spoke with the HSCA, most of them provided damning descriptions of the large head wound that Baden and/or Blakey felt compelled to suppress and lie about. 

Similarly, a number of DPD officers and FBI agents submitted reports and/or gave testimony about the evidence regarding the shooting that contained damning information that WC apologists later had to attack as "inaccurate," "mistaken," etc.

1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said:

How can anyone watch the 1963 Walter Cronkite interview of JFK where JFK says the famous line..."It's their war. They're the ones that have to win it or lose it." and not clearly see that JFK was "in the least" not wanting to commit our troops there except for tactical support in an advisory way?

Did you somehow miss the part of the interview when JFK made it clear that he was opposed to withdrawing from Vietnam, when he said that withdrawing would be a "great mistake"?:

          All we can do is help, and we are making it very clear, but I don't agree with those who say we should withdraw. That would be a great mistake. I know people don't like Americans to be engaged in this kind of an effort. Forty-seven Americans have been killed in combat with the enemy, but this is a very important struggle even though it is far away.

          We took all this--made this effort to defend Europe. Now Europe is quite secure. We also have to participate--we may not like it--in the defense of Asia.

And look what JFK said when asked about De Gaulle's then-recent statement (regarding neutrality in Vietnam):

          Mr. Cronkite: Mr. President, have you made an assessment as to what President de Gaulle was up to in his statement on Viet-Nam last week?

          THE PRESIDENT. NO. I guess it was an expression of his general view, but he doesn't have any forces there or any program of economic assistance, so that while these expressions are welcome, the burden is carried, as it usually is, by the United States and the people there. But I think anything General de Gaulle says should be listened to, and we listened.

          What, of course, makes Americans somewhat impatient is that after carrying this load for 18 years, we are glad to get counsel, but we would like a little more assistance, real assistance. But we are going to meet our responsibility anyway.

           It doesn't do us any good to say, "Well, why don't we all just go home and leave the world to those who are our enemies."

Look at what JFK said on the White House tapes. He made it as clear as English can be that he was determined to win the war. Selverstone documents this beyond any rational dispute in his new book The Kennedy Withdrawal. 

Yes, certainly, JFK did not want to send regular combat troops to South Vietnam, but that is a galaxy away from the spurious claim that he was determined to abandon South Vietnam after the election. Although he wanted to avoid deploying regular infantry units in South Vietnam, he was determined to keep providing military and economic aid to keep South Vietnam free. Every public statement he made supports this fact, and we now know that his private comments--recorded on the White House tapes--confirm this fact. 

Never, never, never, not one single time, not once on the White House tapes do we hear JFK express even a hint of an intention to abandon South Vietnam after the election. We hear just the opposite, as Selverstone documents. 

It is often overlooked that the Clark Panel said that the fragment trail on the lateral skull x-rays ran parallel with the EOP and was consistent with the fragment trail described in the autopsy report. The panel said the fragments were above “a horizontal plane through the floor of the anterior fossa of the skull,” i.e., a horizontal line parallel with the EOP and thus consistent with the autopsy report’s description of “along a line corresponding with a line joining the above-described small occipital wound and the right supra-orbital ridge”! 

Even more incredibly and erroneously, and in contradiction to their claim that the high fragment trail was the trail described in the autopsy report, the Clark Panel stated that the high fragment trail lined up with the revised entry site. This is astounding because the revised entry site (aka the cowlick entry site) is about 4 inches higher than the EOP site given in the autopsy report. Moreover, as Dr. David O. Davis informed the HSCA, the high fragment trail is actually about 5 cm (1.9 inches) above the cowlick entry site (1 HSCA 201). Dr. Gary Aguilar concurs:

          Therefore, the trail of fragments is 5-cm higher than the “above-mentioned hole” [the cowlick entry site]. And so, if extended posteriorly, the fragment trail does not pass through the “above-mentioned hole,” but 5-cm above it. (https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_3.htm)

So where is the entry site that could explain the fragments in the high fragment trail? Keep in mind that the high fragment trail does not extend to the back of the skull. It is concentrated in the right frontal region and dissipates toward the back of the head, and falls well short of the back of the head. 

And, again, why does the autopsy report say nothing about the high fragment trail? Why does the autopsy report describe a low fragment trail that is nowhere to be seen on the extant skull x-rays? Try to fathom how even a first-year medical student could have mistaken a fragment trail near the top of the head for a fragment trail that started several inches lower at the EOP and that ran to a point just above the right eye. 

20 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

It is unfortunate I think that with all the attention and analysis that people like Robert F. Kennedy Jr, and Oliver Stone and Jeff Morley have managed to give the missing documents, and the CIA's reluctance to comply with The JFK Act, and good books like that of Jim Douglass, that two stars have signed up for what is essentially a diversion on the Dan Moldea order.  In this two parter I analyze the producer's-Nick Celozzi--prior attempt at a documentary on the subject.  And I found some real problems with it.  And, as noted, he has changed that already for the feature film script, which makes even more problems. Rosselli as a shooter! Nicolleti with Tippit chasing Oswald? Please.

But having Rosselli as a shooter and having Nicolleti and Tippit chasing Oswald is no worse and no more implausible than having Lansdale as a key player in the plot, having Lansdale in Dealey Plaza, and having JFK being killed because he was supposedly going to abandon South Vietnam after the election.

13 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

   I notice that some of the members here are starting threads and endlessly debating about debunked JFKA disinformation lately-- e.g., ignoring the fact that the fatal head shot blew the occipital skull (Harper) fragment behind the limo, extravasating the cerebellum, and that the sham Bethesda autopsy "findings" bore little resemblance to the Parkland medical observations.

    Two particularly absurd posts were David Von Pein referencing Bugliosi's meticulously debunked Reclaiming History disinformazia, and Gerry Down arguing that the CIA wasn't necessarily involved in the JFKA op and psy op!

   To these absurdities, we have Kevin Shahrdar postulating that Fletcher Prouty was complicit in JFK's murder, and Michael Griffith endlessly arguing that JFK wasn't determined to get out if Vietnam in 1963.

   What has happened to the Education Forum?  

It is truly sad that you equate (1) defending the SBT and repeating Bugliosi's debunked claims with (2) questioning Prouty's veracity and character and citing evidence that JFK had no intention of abandoning South Vietnam after the election.

Once again, we get back to the core problem that some of you folks here go way beyond the basic and sound case for conspiracy and then attack anyone who does not embrace your vastly expanded conspiracy scenario. Lots of people who believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy view Prouty as a dubious source and reject the Stone-Prouty-Newman version of JFK's Vietnam policy. But you and a few others act like no one can sincerely believe that a plot killed JFK unless they accept every single aspect of your version of the plot. 

The holes in the back of JFK's coat and shirt are hard physical evidence that refutes the SBT. However, WC apologists dismiss this concrete evidence with the farcical bunched-clothing theory.

To his credit, even WC apologist Jim Moore does not buy the bunched-clothing fantasy. Moore concedes that "the odds against this millimeter-for-millimeter correspondence boggle the imagination" (Conspiracy of One, p. 155). Moore also notes that the photographic evidence refutes the idea that Kennedy's clothing was markedly bunched when the shooting began; he points out that the Willis and Betzner pictures both show JFK's white shirt collar, "which would not be visible were his jacket bunched" (p. 155).

When I mentioned in another forum that the holes in the back of JFK’s coat and shirt overlap and align with each other, one longtime WC apologist called this factual statement “kooky.” But the fact that the holes overlap and align almost exactly has been known for decades. 

The hole in the coat is 5.375 inches (5 and 3/8th inches) from the top of the coat’s collar and 1.75 inches (1 and 3/4th inches) from coat’s midline. The hole in the back of the shirt is 5.75 inches from the top of the shirt’s collar and 1.125 inches from the shirt’s midline. 

FBI firearms and ballistics examiner Robert Frazier explained to the WC that the two holes lined up vertically after factoring in the fact that the shirt collar was about half an inch above the coat collar. Frazier made this observation after Alan Dulles asked him if the position of the holes indicated that they were made by the same bullet. Frazier said yes, and explained why:

          Mr. Dulles. Is the hole in the shirt and the hole in the coat you have just described in a position that indicates that the same instrument, whatever it was, or the same bullet, made the two? 

          Mr. Frazier. Yes, they are. 

          They are both—the coat hole is 5 and 3/8th inches below the top of the collar. The shirt hole is 5 and 3/4 inches, which could be accounted for by a portion of the collar sticking up above the coat about a half inch. (5 H 60)

As for the horizontal position of the holes, Frazier said that both holes are “approximately the same distance” from the middle of both garments:

          Mr. Frazier. And they are both located approximately the same distance to the right of the midline of both garments. (5 H 60)

Finally, the Croft photo, cited endlessly by WC apologists, is overruled by the Betzner 3 and Willis 5 photos, which were taken closer to the start of the shooting. But, even if we ignore this crucial fact, there are two fatal problems with the Croft photo as support for the bunched-clothing theory:

One, the bunch is not high enough to account for the location of the rear clothing holes. Two, it is simply ludicrous to suppose that JFK's tailor-made shirt, which he was sitting back against, could have bunched in virtually perfect correspondence--in both degree and shape--with the coat. 

Here are more eyewitnesses who said a large part of JFK's brain was missing. 

Keep in mind that Vincent Bugliosi's "answer" to all this evidence of considerable missing brain was to quote Michael Baden! Baden told Bugliosi that, gee, he had looked at the autopsy photos of the brain and they showed that only "an ounce or two" of brain matter was missing. End of story, according to Baden and Bugliosi. If so, JFK's brain lost no more than 56 grams of its matter (1 ounce = 28 grams). "Basically," Baden assured Bugliosi, "the president's whole brain was still there." Keep this nonsense in mind as you read the accounts below.

Francis O'Neill, one of the two FBI agents who attended the autopsy:

          Parts of the brain were still within the cavity, but not much. The head wound was massive. It would seem that no one could survive such an injury. . . .

          Humes pointed out a tracheostomy had been performed. He also pointed out to Sibert and myself the grave wound at the right rear of the President's head and the tremendous damage done to the brain therein. (Report of Francis O'Neill: "Assassination of President John F. Kennedy and Aftermath,” ARRB record MD 189, p. 6)

From O'Neill's ARRB interview:

          Mr. Gunn: Earlier in the deposition we referred to your observation of the brain being removed during the course of the autopsy Do you recall that?

          Mr. O'Neill: Yes.

          Mr. O'Neill: [After some discussion about removal procedures] "... Now once again too this is just a portion of it [the brain] because the rest of it was--you know, really gone. And it was a very, very large portion of it. . . . 

          Mr. Gunn: "Do you have any sense of what percentage of the brain was missing at the time it was removed from the cranium?

          Mr. O'Neill: . . . It was--Oh well, more than half of the brain was missing. (ARRB Deposition of Former FBI SA Francis O'Neill, 9/12/1997, pp. 74-75)

Again, Dr. Mantik's OD measurements of the skull x-rays confirm O'Neill's account. 

James Sibert, the other FBI agent who attended the autopsy:

          A: I think part of the brain was missing, as I recall, or a statement to that effect was made--due to this explosion caused by the gunshot wound in the head.

          Q: Do you recall seeing. . . .?

          A: I certainly don’t recall seeing an intact brain, you know, like you see on a color photograph in med school or something like that. (Deposition of James Sibert, ARRB, 9/11/1997, p. 84)

Dr. Charles Crenshaw, one of the Parkland doctors:

           - Head wound was behind right ear, in the occipital-parietal region, in right rear quadrant of the head,
and was baseball-sized;
          - Brain matter was oozing out, and had a consistency resembling oatmeal;
          - He feels he definitely saw cerebellum extruding from the wound;
          - There was a complete absence of bone, hair and scalp at the wound site. (Meeting Report, ARRB, 4/14/1997, p. 1)

Yet, the autopsy report says nothing about damage to the cerebellum, and the alleged autopsy brain photos show no apparent damage to the cerebellum. 
 
Dr. Robert McClelland, one of the Parkland doctors, told the WC that at least a third of the brain had been blasted out:

          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 channel in the skull which had been blasted open. (6 H 33)

And remember that according to the autopsy records, JFK's post-mortem brain weighed 1500 grams, about 150 grams more than the average male brain weighs! As mentioned, Baden told Bugliosi that JFK's brain was missing no more than 56 grams of tissue ("an ounce or two"). Right. And just never you mind about all the brain matter that was splattered inside the limo, on the back of the limo, on Jackie's dress, on the follow-up car, and on two of the trailing patrolmen? Only "an ounce or two"? You bet. 

2 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

 

Its credible when you consider the brain tissue was shredded from the massive head wound and so was not in its normal texture or consistency.

Oh, come on. Shredding would not have changed the cerebellum's color, nor its location. 

What is your theory? Are you suggesting the autopsy doctors got another brain and damaged it on the right hand side to make it look like a bullet had gone through it from the rear?

Are you saying that the numerous witnesses--doctors, nurses, federal agents, police officers, the mortician, med-techs at the autopsy, and others--who saw a large amount of brain missing in the skull and/or who saw brain matter splattered inside the limo, on the trunk of the limo, on the follow-up car, on the two left-side patrolmen, and on Jackie's dress--that they were all somehow "mistaken"? The fact that brain matter was splattered on six surfaces is a matter of record that no one has ever dared to dispute.

How could JFK's brain have weighed anywhere close to 1500 grams given the amount of brain tissue that was splattered inside the limo, on the trunk of the limo, on the follow-up car, on Jackie's dress, and on two of the trailing patrolmen? 

How do you explain the fact that the skull x-rays show a large amount of brain missing, just as numerous witnesses described? Just an amazing, cosmic coincidence?

Yes, I am absolutely saying that the brain in the autopsy brain photos could not be JFK's brain. Yes, I am absolutely saying that another brain was used for those photos. That is the only rational, credible explanation. JFK's brain could not have weighed 1500 grams (150 grams more than the average male brain).

At some point, common sense, candor, and Occam's razor have to carry the day. It is indisputable that brain matter was splattered on six different surfaces. It is simply a fact that cerebellar tissue looks very different than other brain tissue, including in its color. It is ludicrous and discrediting to claim that the witnesses who saw a large amount of missing brain were actually looking at the brain shown in the autopsy brain photos, especially the mortician who reassembled the skull, the federal agent who got three up-close prolonged looks at the large head wound, and the nurse who packed the head wound with gauze. 

This is a sad waste of time and an unfortunate repetition of falsehood. 

The shoring idea is patently absurd. The bullet would have been long gone before the shirt collar could have shored up the neck. 

Exit wounds are not punched in. The throat wound was punched in. It was also only 3-5 mm in diameter. 

As we have discussed at length in this forum, we now know that on the night of the autopsy, the autopsy doctors knew for an absolute fact that the back wound had no exit point. Boswell admitted to the ARRB that once they removed the chest organs, they were able to probe the wound, and Dr. Karnei noted that the doctors positioned JFK's body "every which way" to facilitate the probing. They found the end of the tract--it ended at the lining of the chest cavity. Men around the table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the chest cavity lining. This was when Finck declared for all to hear that the back wound had no exit point, and that's why a call was placed to Dallas to inquire if a bullet had been found there. 

We have known for years now that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about a bullet exiting the throat wound.

The shirt slits were not made by a bullet but by a nurse who was hurriedly cutting away JFK's clothes. That's why there's no fabric missing from them, and that's why no copper traces were found in or around the slits, although copper traces were found around the holes in the back of the coat and shirt. The FBI’s Robert Frazier admitted that the front shirt slits were “not specifically characteristic of a bullet hole” (5 H 61). An initial FBI lab report noted that the slits had the “characteristics of an exit hole for a bullet fragment” (Director FBI to SAC Dallas, Urgent, 11/26/1963, FBI HQ JFK File, 62-109060-421; Jevons to Conrad, 11/26/1963, FBI HQ JFK Assassination File, 62-109060-1086; Hoover to James J. Rowley, Chief of U.S. Secret Service, 12/5/1963, FBI HQ JFK Assassination File, 62-109060-1781; LINK) 

Frazier lamely theorized that a yawing bullet could have made the slits. However, when bullets make exit holes in clothing, they remove fabric in the process, yet no fabric is missing from the shirt slits. Moreover, a yawing bullet could not have produced a small, neat, punched-in throat wound, even if the shirt had been able to shore up the neck a millisecond before the bullet exited. A yawing bullet would have produced a much larger wound. 

Any bullet exiting the shirt slits could not have missed the tie. We have known for years that the tie had no hole through it and no nick on either edge. This is powerful, irrefutable evidence that the SBT is bogus. 

And on and on we could go. It is just absurd. It is sad that we have a group of people who, for reasons best known to themselves, simply refuse to acknowledge plain, obvious, determinative facts but keep on repeating myths that have been debunked for decades now. 

As you read these additional accounts of missing brain matter, keep in mind that the alleged autopsy photos of the brain show virtually no brain tissue missing. Also keep in mind that the autopsy doctors claimed that the brain shown in those photos weighed 1,500 grams! This is astounding because the average male brain weighs about 1,350 grams. Keep these facts in mind as you read the accounts below.

Patrolman Bobby Hargis, who was riding closely behind and to the left of the limousine, said that when the explosive head shot occurred, he was "splattered with blood and brain":

          Mr. HARGIS. Yes; when President Kennedy straightened back up in the car the bullet him in the head, the one that killed him and it seemed like his head exploded, and I was splattered with blood and brain, and kind of a bloody water. (6 H 294)

Patrolman B. J. Martin, who was riding beside Hargis, said blood and "other matter" were splattered on his uniform, windshield, and motor:

          Mr. BALL. What about your uniform?Mr. 
          Mr. MARTIN. There was blood and matter on my left shoulder of my uniform.
          Mr. BALL. You pointed to a place in front of your shoulder, about the clavicle region?
          Mr. MARTIN. Yes, sir.
          Mr. BALL. Is that about where it was?
          Mr. MARTIN. Yes.
          Mr. BALL. On the front of your uniform and not on the side?
          Mr. MARTIN. No, sir.
          Mr. BALL. That would be left, was it?
          Mr. MARTIN. Yes ; on the left side.
          Mr. BALL. And just below the level of the shoulder?
          Mr. MARTIN. Yes, sir.
          Mr. BALL. And what spots were there?
          Mr. MARTIN. They were blood spots and other matter.
          Mr. BALL. And what did you notice on your windshield?
          Mr. MARTIN. There was blood and other matter on my windshield and also onthe motor. (6 H 292)

Jack McNairy, who saw the limousine up-close at Parkland Hospital, said in a video-taped interview that there was "gray matter" splattered over a large part of the back seat:

          As I looked around, I saw that there was gray matter splattered here [pointing to the inside of the rear passenger door to the right JFK's seat] and along the back of the front seat. (LINK)

Patrolman H. B. McClain, who helped Jackie get out of the limousine at Parkland Hospital, said in a video-taped interview that there was "matter" splattered all over the inside of the right-hand side of the car:

          I could see what looked like a piece of skull, some hair, and matter splattered all over inside the car. It was all on the right-hand side of the car, except the part of the skull--it was laying right in the middle. (LINK)

When interview by CBS News in 2013, Clint Hill repeated his account of seeing a large amount of missing brain:

          Scott Pelley: What did you see?

          Clint Hill: Brain matter, blood, bone fragments all come out of the wound.… Then Mrs. Kennedy came up on the trunk. She was trying to grab some of that material and pull it back with her.… I got a hold of her and I put her in the backseat. … And when I did that, his body fell to its left into her lap. His face--is head was in her lap. The right side of his face was up. I could see his eyes were fixed. I could see an area through the skull that there was no brain matter in that area at all. So I assumed it was a fatal wound. (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/agent-who-jumped-on-jfks-limo-recounts-fateful-moments/)

Secret Service agent Sam Kinney, who rode in the follow-up car, stated in a recorded interview with Vincent Palamara that brain matter splattered "all over" his windshield and arm:

          The back of that Lincoln would be directly in front of me. Well, I had brain matter all over my windshield and arm. That's how close we were. (LINK, 19:33-19:47)

In 2003, Dr. Robeert Grossman, one of the Parkland doctors, wrote that Jackie's dress was splattered with brain tissue and blood:

          Her face was very white and she appeared to have been crying. She was wearing a light-colored dress. The lap of her dress was covered with blood and brain tissue. (https://www.deseret.com/2003/11/22/19797270/neurosurgeon-recalls-examining-the-dying-jfk)

Clearly, the autopsy brain photos do not show JFK's brain. Similarly, the claim that JFK's post-assassination brain weighed 1,500 grams is obviously bogus. Even if we assume the brain was weighed after it had been fixed in formalin, the weight of 1,500 grams is ludicrous. Fixing a brain in formalin may add about 100 grams of weight, but it may also reduce the weight by that amount. The average male human brain weighs about 1,350 grams. 

Finally, a quick point about the cerebellum. The cerebellum has a different color and has different topographical markings than other brain tissue, so it is just not reasonable or credible to suggest that two neurosurgeons mistook brain tissue from the temporal lobe, the occipital lobe, or the parietal lobe for cerebellar tissue.

Below are some witnesses whom I have not quoted yet regarding the large amount of missing brain. Either these people were all "mistaken" or the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent. Note that their accounts consist of observations made at close range in the back seat of the limo, then at Parkland Hospital, then at the autopsy, and then after the autopsy.

Floyd Riebe, who assisted John Stringer with taking photos at the autopsy, said that less than half the brain was present:

          Q: Did you see the brain removed from President Kennedy?
          A: What little bit there was left, yes.
          Q: Were any photographs taken of the brain?
          A: I think I did some when they were putting it in that stainless steel pail.
          Q: When you say that there was not much left, what do you mean by that?
          A: Well, it was less than half of a brain there. (Deposition of Floyd Albert Riebe, ARRB, 5/7/1997, pp. 43-44)

From Clint Hill's 11/22/1963 report, in which he describes what he saw at very close range as he rode on top of the back seat on the way to Parkland--part of the brain was gone and there was a wound in the right-rear part of the head:

          As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. (11/22/1963 report, p. 3)

From Clint Hill's WC testimony--there were pieces of brain matter "all over" the rear part of the car, and he still saw the right-rear head wound:

          Mr. SPECTER: What did you observe as to President Kennedy's condition on arrival at the hospital?

          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 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. (2 H 141)

Mortician Tom Robinson, who witnessed the autopsy and who reassembled JFK's skull after the autopsy, said that the amount of brain missing in the back of the head was about the size of a closed fist:

          Robinson said that he saw the brain removed from President Kennedy's body and that a large percentage of it was gone "in the back," from the "medulla," and that the portion of the brain that was missing was about the size of a closed fist. He described the condition of the brain in this area as the consistency of "soup." (Meeting Report, ARRB, 6/21/1996, p. 2)

Gloria Knudsen, wife of Robert Knudsen, who processed some of the autopsy photos, said her husband told her that JFK's brains were largely missing:

          Mrs. Gloria Knudsen said that her husband Robert had told her that . . . the President's brains were largely missing (blown out). (Meeting Report, ARRB, 5/10/1996, p. 2)

I should add that Dr. Mantik has confirmed via OD measurements that the skull x-rays indicate a large amount of missing brain, on both sides of the skull, and that more than half of the right side of the brain is missing.

The alleged autopsy photos of the brain show very little brain matter missing. They could not be photos of JFK's brain.