Michael Griffith

53 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

I'd imagine Finck and Loquvam were misled by the idea of an assassin firing down from a 6th floor window and striking the eop and assumed the angle the bullet travelled after passing through the eop was downwards which of course would have carried it right into the cerebellum. But the bullet didn't travel downwards from the eop but upwards due to jfk leaning forward so much at z313. 

That 3rd link you provided shows the cerebellum in red which is more or less where my cross section of a real human skull has the cerebellum. The line of the bullet goes from the eop to the top of the eyebrow ridge. You'll remember Humes talking about an x-ray we no longer have which showed a fragment trail from the eop to the eyebrow ridge. This is the line of the bullet. This line would just graze along the top of the cerebellum which would match the brain photos because the photos apparently show ever so slight damage to the cerebellum. Either this damage is from direct contact from the bullet as it grazed along the top of the cerebellum or damage from the small temporary cavitation that would have been created directly over the cerebellum with the much larger cavitation occuring in the middle of the head after the bullet had already passed the cerebellum.

The cerebellum in the third link is larger than the one in your graphic, and I don't see how a bullet entering 2.5 cm to the right and slightly above the EOP could have missed the cerebellum, given the position of the cerebellum in that image and in the two other linked images. I am baffled as to what you are seeing in these images that would lead you to believe otherwise.

I think it is a reach to dismiss Loquvam's and Finck's statements about the EOP site and the cerebellum. 

Another point is that it is by no means established or certain that Z313 is the rear head shot, since that shot obviously came from the front. It was a frangible bullet that exploded on impact to the right temple and blew out a hole in the right-rear part of the skull. That's why brain matter was blown backward and splattered all over the trunk, on the follow-up car, and on the windshields and uniforms of two of the trailing patrolmen. 

I don't understand how you can take the brain photos seriously given just what we know about the large amount of brain matter that was blown from the head. And how can any thinking person buy the fantasy that JFK's brain weighed 1,500 grams at the autopsy? 

So you see ever-so-slight damage to the cerebellum? Dr. Loquvam did not even see any evidence of premortem hemorrhaging in the cerebellum in the area at and near the EOP site, and he was looking at enhanced color photos of the brain. What's more, the entire FPP noted that there's no damage to the cerebellum where there should be damage if the bullet had entered at the EOP site: 

          The panel notes that the posterior-inferior portion of the cerebellum virtually intact. It certainly does not demonstrate the degree of laceration, fragmentation, or contusion (as appears subsequently on the superior aspect of the brain) that would be expected in this location if the bullet wound of entrance were as described in the autopsy report. There is no damage in the area of the brain corresponding to the piece of brain tissue on the hair which the autopsy pathologists told the panel was the entrance wound. (7 HSCA 129)

Yet, even Dr. Sturdivan now agrees that the EOP site is correct, and that the autopsy photos support the EOP site. Moreover, all three ARRB forensic experts agreed that the skull x-rays show no entry site in the cowlick area. Dr. Joseph Riley, a neuroanatomist, notes that the autopsy photos show intact cerebral cortex at the location of the alleged cowlick entry wound:

          There is no entrance wound where the HSCA locates it. The autopsy photographs show intact cerebral cortex at the point that the HSCA claims is an entrance wound. This is confirmed by correct interpretation of the X-rays. (LINK)

Riley also notes that there is no connection between the high fragment trail and the cavitation wound, which is well below that trail, and that the cavitation wound is consistent with the EOP entry site:

          The pattern of brain damage is inconsistent with a single bullet. The cavitation wound (a "cylinder of disruption" caused by the passage of a bullet) is linear. There is no evidence of continuity between the cavitation wound and the fragments in the right dorsolateral (upper right hand side) cortex. To use a crude analogy, if we cut an apple in half along the core and remove the core from one side of the apple, the part of the core that was removed resembles the location and size of the cavitation wound. In the HSCA trajectory, the bullet path is restricted to the outer (cortical) surface, almost tangent to the brain. Yet there is a cavitation wound along the length of the brain, deep and parallel to the cortical surface. . . .

          The cavitation wound corresponds exactly to a trajectory predicted from the observations of the autopsy prosectors. . . .

          There are clear signs of an entrance wound where it was described by the prosectors. (LINK)

And I take it that you dismiss as "mistaken" the reports from a number of Parkland doctors, two of whom were neurosurgeons, that a large rear wound exposed damaged and bleeding cerebellar tissue?

I also take it that you reject as "mistaken" the dozens of accounts of a large right-rear head wound given by other Parkland doctors, Parkland nurses (one of whom packed the wound with gauze), FBI agents, Secret Service agents, a funeral worker at Parkland, the mortician at the autopsy who reassembled the skull, and numerous medical personnel at the autopsy? It's just an amazing, cosmic coincidence that these dozens of people, in three different locations, all reported seeing a large right-rear head wound? None of them could tell the difference between a wound above the right ear and a wound that was several inches farther back and that included a sizable part of the occiput? 

14 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

This image shows the cerebellum would be completely missed by a bullet entering at the EOP site. Note that the below image would need to be tilted clockwise to match Kennedys forward leaning head at Z313 to get the 15 degree downward angle from the 6th floor snipers nest. 

I will deal with your graphic in just a second, but first, does it give you any pause that Dr. Loquvam, after studying JFK's x-rays and the brain photos, including enhancements of them, concluded that a bullet entering the EOP site could not have missed the cerebellum? Does it give you any pause that Dr. Finck, who actually handled JFK's skull and examined the brain, did not answer Loquvam's point by saying, "Wait a minute! A bullet striking at the EOP site could have missed the cerebellum!"? 

Every skull is shaped somewhat differently. No two skulls are identical in shape and size. However, Loquvam and Finck were thoroughly familiar with JFK's skull and disagreed about the rear entry wound, yet both of them, in spite of this disagreement, acknowledged that a bullet entering at the EOP point could not have missed the cerebellum. I find it hard to simply brush this fact aside. 

Now, as for your graphic, that is one weird image of a skull. The EOP is not even apparent in your graphic, and the cerebellum seems unusually small. Compare your graphic with the location of the EOP and the location and size of the cerebellum in numerous other images and diagrams.

For example, these images are particularly helpful because they show the cerebellum in radiographs of a human skull, enabling one to see the spatial/locational relationship between the cerebellum and the EOP:

Figure 1 | Scientific Reports (nature.com)

MRI vs. X-Ray: Pros, Cons, Costs & More (healthline.com) (image 2/4)

Cerebellum: Anatomy, function, and disorders (medicalnewstoday.com)

Look at the location of the EOP and the cerebellum in these images (as well as the size of the cerebellum) and tell me how a bullet striking at the EOP site could have missed the cerebellum. 

Here are some additional graphics for further reference on the EOP:

File:External occipital protuberance - posterior view2.png - Wikimedia Commons

Prominent External Occipital Protuberance - Radiology (weebly.com)

This is not to even mention the extensive, mutually corroborating eyewitness descriptions of a large rear head wound that showed damaged and bleeding cerebellar tissue, and the dozens of mutually corroborating accounts of a large rear head wound that included a sizable part of the occiput. 

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 It never ceases to amaze me the mental gymnastics some researchers will go through in order not to accept that autopsy evidence was tampered with.

There's just no escaping that there was a large blowout wound on the back of Kennedy's heads, through which cerebellar tissue oozed.
 

Let's look at what the medical professionals at Parkland hospital said:

Note 1: "Occipital" and "cerebellar" refers to the lower back of the head. "Temporal" refers to the low area around the ear.

Note 2:  As can be read below, nearly all the Parkland professionals said early on that the gaping wound was at the lower back of the head. But some changed their minds when it came to their attention that the Warren Commission contradicted them, saying that the gaping wound was at the top of the head.

 

1) KEMP CLARK, MD: Professor and Director of Neurological Surgery at Parkland, in an undated note apparently written contemporaneously at Parkland described the President's skull wound as, "...in the occipital region of the skull... Through the head wound, blood and brain were extruding... There was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring... There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound." (WC--CE#392)

In a hand written note dated 11-22-63, Dr. Clark wrote, "a large 3 x 3 cm remnant of cerebral tissue present....there was a smaller amount of cerebellar tissue present also....There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region....Much of the skull appeared gone at the brief examination...." (Exhibit #392: WC V17:9-10)

At a press conference 2&1/2 hours after the shooting Clark said, "The head wound could have been either the exit wound from the neck or it could have been a tangential wound, as it was simply a large, gaping loss of tissue." ("At the White House with Wayne Hawks" news conference, 11/22/63, 3:16 PM, CST, Dallas, Texas) This virtually contemporaneous description is not entirely unequivocal. However, if JFK's skull defect were not rearward, it is impossible to imagine Clark would have conjectured that the skull defect was the possible exit site of the neck wound, for Malcolm Perry, MD, who participated with him in the press conference, and had performed a tracheotomy on JFK, had just claimed three times the neck wound was a wound of entrance.

In a typed summary submitted to Rear Admiral Burkley on 11-23-63, Clark described the head wound as, "a large wound in the right occipito-parietal region... Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound. (Warren Report, p.518, Warren Commission Exhibit #392, Lifton, D. Best Evidence, p. 322)

Under oath and to the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter, Clark described his findings upon arrival to the emergency room, "I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed." (WC--V6:20) Specter, either inattentive to Dr. Clark's skull wound description or wishing to move the wound more anterior than the eyewitness, neurosurgery professor placed it, later asked Clark, "Now, you described the massive wound at the top of the of the President's head, with brain protruding..." (WC:6:25) Dr. Clark later located the skull wound to Mr. Specter again, "...in the right occipital region of the President's skull, from which considerable blood loss had occurred which stained the back of his head, neck and upper shoulders." (WC--V6:29)

In answer to a question from Specter about the survivability of Kennedy's head wounding, Clark said: "...the loss of cerebellar (sic) tissue wound probably have been of minimal consequence in the performance of his duties. The loss of the right occipital and probably part of the right parietal lobes wound have been of specific importance..." (WC6:26) That Clark, a neurosurgeon, specified that the occipital lobe of the brain was missing cannot suggest anything but a very posterior defect.

On 1/20/94 a steel salesman from Tennessee, David Naro, interviewed Clark, MD. Naro reported Clark said, "The lower right occipital region of the head was blown out and I saw cerebellum." This conveys the same message as the document he prepared on 11/22/63 which read, "There was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal region... Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue was extruding from the wound."

2) ROBERT McCLELLAND, MD: In testimony at Parkland taken before Arlen Specter on 3-21-64, McClelland described the head wound as, "...I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered...so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out...." (WC--V6:33) Later he said, "...unfortunately the loss of blood and the loss of cerebral and cerebellar tissues were so great that the efforts (to save Kennedy's life) were of no avail." (Emphasis added throughout) (WC--V6:34) McClelland made clear that he thought the rear wound in the skull was an exit wound (WC-V6:35,37). McClelland ascribed the cause of death to, "...massive head injuries with loss of large amounts of cerebral and cerebellar tissues and massive blood loss." (WC--V6:34)

McClelland's unwillingness to change his recollection has recently attracted detractors in the aftermath of Charles Crenshaw's book, "Conspiracy of Silence". McClelland told Posner, "I saw a piece of cerebellum fall out on the stretcher." (Posner, G. "CC.", p. 311, paper). To dismiss McClelland, Posner quotes Malcolm Perry, "I am astonished that Bob (McClelland) would say that... It shows such poor judgment, and usually he has such good judgment." (Posner G. "Case Closed". p. 311, paperback edition.) Perry's own inconsistent and unreliable memory lessens the merit of his opinions of others, as we will see.

3) MARION THOMAS JENKINS, MD: In a contemporaneous note dated 11-22-63, Jenkins described "a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital) (sic), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound." (WC--Exhibit #392) To the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter Dr. Jenkins said, "Part of the brain was herniated. I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound..." (WC--V6:48) Jenkins told Specter that the temporal and occipital wound was a wound of exit, "...the wound with the exploded area of the scalp, as I interpreted it being exploded, I would interpret it being a wound of exit..." (WC--V6:51.)

Jenkins described a wound in JFK's left temple to Specter. Jenkins: "...I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process." Specter: "The autopsy report discloses no such development, Dr. Jenkins." Jenkins: "Well, I was feeling for--I was palpating here for a pulse to see whether the closed chest cardiac massage was effective or not and this probably was some blood that had come from the other point and so I thought there was a wound there also." A few moments later Jenkins again pursued the possibility that there had been a wound in the left temple: "...I asked you a little bit ago if there was a wound in the left temporal area, right above the zygomatic bone in the hairline, because there was blood there and I thought there might have been a wound there (indicating) (sic). Specter: "Indicating the left temporal area?" Jenkins: "Yes; the left temporal, which could have been a point of entrance and exit here (indicating) (sic-presumably pointing to where he had identified the wound in prior testimony--the right rear of the skull), but you have answered that for me (that 'the autopsy report discloses no such development')." (WC-V6:51)

In an interview with the HSCA's Andy Purdy on 11-10-77 Marion Jenkins was said to have expressed that as an anesthesiologist he (Jenkins) "...was positioned at the head of the table so he had one of the closest views of the head wound...believes he was '...the only one who knew the extent of the head wound.') (sic)...Regarding the head wound, Dr. Jenkins said that only one segment of bone was blown out--it was a segment of occipital or temporal bone. He noted that a portion of the cerebellum (lower rear brain) (sic) was hanging out from a hole in the right--rear of the head." (Emphasis added) (HSCA-V7:286-287) In an interview with the American Medical News published on 11-24-78 Jenkins said, "...(Kennedy) had part of his head blown away and part of his cerebellum was hanging out.".

Amazingly, in an interview with author Gerald Posner on March 3, 1992, Jenkins' recollection had changed dramatically. "The description of the cerebellum was my fault," Jenkins insisted, "When I read my report over I realized there could not be any cerebellum. The autopsy photo, with the rear of the head intact and a protrusion in the parietal region, is the way I remember it. I never did say occipital." (Gerald Posner, Case Closed", p. 312) Jenkins has obviously forgotten that in his own note prepared, typed, and signed on the day of the assassination, Jenkins said, "a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital) (sic)", and HSCA's Purdy reported that Jenkins said "occipital or temporal bone" was blown out.

When told by Posner that Robert McClelland, MD had claimed, "I saw a piece of cerebellum fall out on the stretcher." Jenkins responded, "Bob (McClelland) is an excellent surgeon. He knows anatomy. I hate to say Bob is mistaken, but that is clearly not right...". (Posner G. Case Closed. p. 313) Clearly, Jenkins had forgotten that he himself had claimed that "cerebellum was hanging out" (as had Ronald Coy Jones, MD--see below). [Might this controversy be resolved in Jenkins' and Jones' favors? Possibly Jenkins believes that cerebellum was 'hanging out' but that it had not reached the surface of the gurney despite the close proximity of the skull in the supine position to its surface?]

Jenkins, however, was not through with discrediting McClelland. To Posner, Jenkins explained how McClelland had made an error, which McClelland later corrected, that there was a wound in JFK's left temple. "I'll tell you how that happened," Jenkins explained, "When Bob McClelland came into the room, he asked me, 'Where are his wounds?' And at that time I was operating a breathing bag with my right hand, and was trying to take the President's temporal pulse, and I had my finger on his left temple. Bob thought I pointed to the left temple as the wound." (Gerald Posner, Case Closed". p. 313)Ignoring the absurdity of such a supposition for the moment, Jenkins failed to reveal an important part of the story. Jenkins failed to tell Posner,who was apparently too uninformed to know, that it was Jenkins himself who had most strikingly claimed that there was an entrance wound in the left temple, as Jenkins' Commission testimony (cited above) proves.

As we will see, Dr. Jenkins' faulty, and possibly self-serving memory seems to have frequently plagued him. It is a testament to JAMA's and Posner's laxity in fact-checking that Jenkins' recollections are so unquestioningly reported. Both Breo and Posner quickly attempted to discredit those who, like McClelland, did not share their biases, and ignored many stupendous inconsistencies of "allies", such as Jenkins (see next chapter). Nonetheless, Jenkins' earliest, "un-enhanced" recollections must be given greatest weight and considered the most likely to be reliable, as in any police investigation. Fortunately, they also agree with the earliest recollections of other Parkland witnesses, an important corroborative factor.

4) CHARLES JAMES CARRICO, MD: On the day of the assassination he hand wrote, " (the skull) wound had avulsed the calvarium and shredded brain tissue present with profuse oozing... attempts to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue via packs instituted..." (CE 392--WC V17:4-5)

In is first mention of JFK's skull wound to the Warren Commission on 3/25/64, Carrico said, "There seemed to be a 4 to 5 cm. area of avulsion of the scalp and the skull was fragmented and bleeding cerebral and cerebellar tissue." (6H3) And... "The (skull) 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." (6H6)

On 3/30/64 Carrico appeared again before the Commission. Arlen Specter asked, "Will you describe as specifically as you can the head wound which you have already mentioned briefly?" Dr. Carrico: "Sure. This was a 5 by 71 cm (sic--the author feels certain that Dr. Carrico must have said "5 by 7 cm) defect in the posterior skull, the occipital region. There was an absence of the calvarium or skull in this area, with shredded tissue, brain tissue present...". Specter: "Was any other wound observed on the head in addition to this large opening where the skull was absent?" Carrico: "No other wound on the head."(WC--V3:361)

In an interview with Andy Purdy for the HSCA on 1-11-78, Dr. Carrico said, "The skull wound" ...was a fairly large wound in the right side of the head, in the parietal, occipital area. (sic) One could see blood and brains, both cerebellum and cerebrum fragments in that wound." (sic) (HSCA-V7:268)

As with several other Parkland witnesses, Carrico's memory seemed to undergo a transformation when confronted by an interviewer who seems to have preferred he recall things differently than he did under oath. In an interview with author Gerald Posner on March 8, 1992, Posner alleges Carrico reported, "We saw a large hole on the right side of his head. I don't believe we saw any occipital bone. It was not there. It was parietal bone...". (Gerald Posner, " Case Closed , New York, Random House, p. 311) The notorious unreliability of recollections so different and so far removedfrom the original event places Carrico's more recent opinions under a cloud. It seems possible that Carrico has been persuaded that the photographs of the back of JFK's head have been "authenticated", a scientific impossibility, and therefore he should adjust accordingly his recollections to agree with this "best evidence".

5) MALCOLM PERRY, MD: In a note written at Parkland Hospital and dated, 11-22-63 Dr., Perry described the head wound as, "A large wound of the right posterior cranium..." (WC--V17:6--CE#392) Describing Kennedy's appearance to the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter Dr. Perry stated, "Yes, there was a large avulsive wound on the right posterior cranium...." (WC- V3:368) Later to Specter: "...I noted a large avulsive wound of the right parietal occipital area, in which both scalp and portions of skull were absent, and there was severe laceration of underlying brain tissue..." (WC--V3:372) In an interview with the HSCA's Andy Purdy in 1-11-78 Mr. Purdy reported that "Dr. Perry... believed the head wound was located on the "occipital parietal" (sic) region of the skull and that the right posterior aspect of the skull was missing..." (HSCA- V7:292-293) Perry told Mr. Purdy: "I looked at the head wound briefly by leaning over the table and noticed that the parietal occipital head wound was largely avulsive and there was visible brain tissue in the macard and some cerebellum seen..." (HSCA-V7:302-interview with Purdy 1-11-78.

Inexplicably, Perry told author Gerald Posner on April 2, 1992, "I did not see any cerebellum." (Gerald Posner, "Case Closed", p. 312) When told that Robert McClelland, MD had claimed "I saw cerebellum fall out on the stretcher", Posner claimed Perry responded, "I am astonished that Bob wound say that... It shows such poor judgment, and usually he has such good judgment."

6) RONALD COY JONES: was a senior General Surgery resident physician at Parkland Hospital. Under oath he told the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter, "...he had a large wound in the right posterior side of the head... There was large defect in the back side of the head as the President lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted next with the brain and with a tremendous amount of clot and blood." (WC-V6:53-54) A few minutes later he described "what appeared to be an exit wound in the posterior portion of the skull". (Emphasis added throughout) (WC-V6:56)

Specter asked Jones to speculate from his observations the nature of JFK's wounding. He asked, "Dr. Jones, did you have any speculative thought as to accounting for the point of wounds (sic) which you observed on the President, as you thought about it when you were treating the President that day, or shortly thereafter?" Jones answered, "With no history as to the number of times that the President had been shot or knowing the direction from which he had been shot, and seeing he wound in the midline of the neck, and what appeared to be an exit wound in the posterior portion of the skull, the only speculation that I could have as far as to how this could occur with a single wound would be that it would enter the anterior neck and possibly strike a vertebral body and then change its course and exit in the region of the posterior portion of the head." (WC.V.6:56) While he then expressed some doubt that a high velocity bullet would so radically change course, JFK's skull wound must have appeared to him quite posterior for him to have advanced such an hypothesis.

It is particularly noteworthy that Jones continued to believe JFK's skull suggested a rear exit of a bullet that entered from anterior. In January, 1983 he told David Lifton, "If you brought him in here today, I'd still say he was shot from the front." (BE, p. 705) Jones told student, Brad Parker, on 8/10/92, again, "...if they brought him in today, I would tend - seeing what I saw, I would say that he was shot from the front." Jones told Parker that he fundamentally agreed with McClelland's drawing of the back of the head as seen in Six Seconds . Jones specifically denied to Parker that hehad seen a right anterior skull defect. He said, "Yeah. I didn't think that there was any wound -- I didn't appreciate any wound, anyway, in the right temporal area or the right side of the upper part of the head, you know, over the -- in front of the ear say, or anything like that ". These description are fully consistent with the autopsy report of a right rear defect. If the defect did extend forward, the anterior portion was quite small. Only Gerald Posner reported Jones described JFK's wound as "a large side wound". Posner made no mention of Jones' Warren Commission testimony, testimony which is incompatible with Posner's thesis, nor did Posner ask about the statements attributed to Jones by Lifton, which Jones repeated to Brad Parker in 1992).

7) GENE AIKIN, MD: an anesthesiologist at Parkland told the Warren Commission under oath, "The back of the right occipitalparietal portion of his head was shattered with brain substance extruding." (WC-V6:65.) He later opined, "I assume the right occipitalparietal region was the exit, so to speak, that he had probably been hit on the other side of the head, or at least tangentially in the back of the head...". (WC-V6:67)

😎 PAUL PETERS, MD: a resident physician at Parkland described the head wound to the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter under oath as, "...I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput...It seemed to me that in the right occipitalparietal area that there was a large defect." (WC-V6:71)

Peters told author Lifton on 11-12-66, "I was trying to think how he could have had a hole in his neck and a hole in the occiput, and the only answer we could think (of) was perhaps the bullet had gone in through the front, hit the bony spinal column, and exited through the back of the head, since a wound of exit is always bigger than a wound of entry." (David Lifton, Best Evidence. p. 317) Peters repeated this speculation in a speech on the subject on 4/2/92, in a talk entitled, "Who Killed JFK?", given at the 14th annual meeting of the Wilk-Amite Medical Society, at Centreville Academy, Centreville, Mississippi, according to a transcript furnished by Claude B. Slaton, of Zachary, Louisiana.) As if to emphasize the low location of the skull wound, Peters elaborated to Lifton, "I'd be willing to swear that the wound was in the occiput, you know. I could see the occipital lobes clearly, and so I know it was that far back, on the skull. I could look inside the skull, and I thought it looked like the cerebellum was injured, or missing, because the occipital lobes seemed to rest almost on the foramen magnum. Now I didn't put my hand inside his head and lift up the occipital lobes, because I wasn't about to do that under the circumstances... (but it) looked like the occipital lobes were resting on the foramen magnum. It was as if something underneath them, that usually kept them up from that a little ways, namely, the cerebellum and brainstem, might have been injured, or missing." (David Lifton, Best Evidence, p. 324) Author Livingstone read Peters' words of description back to Peters asking for his comment. Peters, after hearing the above quote said, "Well, I would say that's pretty accurate about what I thought at the time. But Dr. Lattimer from New York who was privileged to view the autopsy findings told me that the cerebellum did appear to be intact. So, if I say, what I have reasoned since then is that probably what had happened was that part of the cerebral hemisphere had been shot away, which caused the occipital lobe, you see, to fall down. So rather than the props underneath it being destroyed, part of it was actually destroyed... You have to remember, I've been an American all this time, too. And so I'm subject to what I've learned from reading and looking since." (Transcript of Livingstone interview with Peters)

When shown enlarged Zapruder film frames depicting a right-anterior wound, Peters wrote, "The wound which you marked...I never saw and I don't think there was such a wound. I think that was simply an artifact of copying Zapruder's movie... The only wound I saw on President Kennedy's head was in the occipitoparietal area on the right side." (Personal letter to Wallace Milam 4-14-80, copy, courtesy of Wallace Milam to author Aguilar; also in Lifton, BE: 557)

Peters told author Livingstone that he and others closely examined JFK's skull wound. "...Dr. Jenkins commented that we'd better take a look at the brain before deciding whether to open the chest and to massage the heart with our hands, we stepped up and looked inside the skull and that's how I made note in my own mind of where the wound was in the skull." (Transcript of Livingstone interview with Peters. Peters repeated this assertion in a speech on the subject on 4/2/92, in a talk entitled, "Who Killed JFK?", given at the 14th annual meeting of the Wilk-Amite Medical Society, at Centreville Academy, Centreville, Mississippi, according to a transcript furnished by Claude B. Slaton, of Zachary, Louisiana.)

When shown by author Livingstone the HSCA's Dox drawings of the rear of JFK's skull prepared to precisely replicate the photographs, Peters claimed, "Well, this is an artist's drawing, and I don't think that it's consistent with what I saw... It's to, (sic) in the rear and to the side, that's the parietal area. So it's in the back and the side of the head, I would say in laymen's terms." To eliminate any confusion as to what Peters meant, Livingstone asked, "The way I read it (Lifton's question to Peters regarding the location of the head wound), you're saying that the center of the gaping wound that you did see was 2.5 centimeters to the right of the occipital protuberance." Peters answered, "Well, I wouldn't say that was the center of it (the skull wound he saw). I would say that was about where it began. Yeah." (Transcript of Livingstone interview with Paul Peters)

Author Gerald Posner claimed that on March 10, 1992, Peters told him, "The only thing I would say is that over the last twenty-eight years I now believe the head wound is more forward than I first placed it. More to the side than the rear. I tried to tell Lifton where the wound was, but he did not want to hear." (Posner, Case Closed", p. 310, paperback edition.) On April 2, 1992, Peters said, "...my observations were given earlier but they're still, I think, accurate after 25 years... The wound was occipital-parietal... I saw about a 7 centimeter hole in the occiput...". (Speech by Peters, "Who Killed JFK?", given at the 14th annual meeting of the Wilk-Amite Medical Society, at Centreville Academy, Centreville, Mississippi, according to a transcript furnished by Claude B. Slaton, of Zachary, Louisiana) While Posner seemed to wish to cast doubt on the manner Lifton represented Peters' opinions, it seems that Lifton's account was far more consistent with Peters' other statements than Posner's. Lifton still has a recording of his interview with Peters and told the author the statements Lifton cited were taken from Peters verbatim and in context.

In a speech to a gathering of Urologists in San Francisco in 1992, Peters demonstrated JFK's skull defect as he recalled it, on a human head for author Aguilar, placing the wound at the top rear portion of the skull, which, if the skull were a cube, involved the right rear corner--a location that has no defect in current autopsy photographs.

Peters apparently reported to author Gerald Posner on March 10 1992 that Robert McClelland, MD, who has steadfastly maintained the view that there was a rear skull wound of exit, was in error. "I don't think Bob McClelland was in the best place to see the head wound..." (Posner, Case Closed", p. 313) Robert McClelland, MD had diagramed a skull and indicated JFK's skull wound in the low rear portion of JFK's skull to author Thompson. Peters indicated on that same diagram complete agreement with the McClelland's low placement on 8-7-79 in a letter to author Livingstone. A copy of Peters' letter and diagram was produced in Groden and Livingstone's High Treason ". Peters' letter to author Livingstone reads in full:

"Dear Mr. Livingstone, "I have marked an "X" on the picture which more accurately depicts the wound, although neither is quite accurate in my opinion. There was a large hole in the back of the head through which one could see the brain. Sincerely, Paul C. Peters, MD"

Peters believed that the "X" marked the point of exit for the wound in the head. In an interview with author Livingstone, Peters referred to the "X" in the aforementioned diagram and said, "...the "X" is about where the wound was. The "X" does not imply that that wound is exactly correct. The "X" applies about where I thought the wound of exit was." (transcript of interview with Peters)

The "X" is marked squarely on the right rear portion of the skull parallel with a point just below the top of the ear. (See group of photographs following page 27 in Groden and Livingstone, High Treason", for a copy of the diagram and Peters' letter.) So Peters has done a complete about face after having discussed the case with Lattimer who convinced Peters that he did not see what he had repeatedly said he saw. Moreover, Peters felt confident enough in Latimer's opinion of what Peters had seen that he was willing to reproach McClelland for his refusal to alter his recollection to agree with Lattimer as Peters himself had done. Apparently suggestion from non-witness, Lattimer, has done wonders for Peters' memory of what he saw. It may not, however, have helped his credibility.

9) CHARLES CRENSHAW, MD: a resident physician at Parkland neither wrote his observations contemporaneously or was interviewed by the Warren Commission. He, with co-authors, Jess Hansen and Gary Shaw, recently published a book, JFK: Conspiracy of Silence, " (Crenshaw, CA, Hansen, J, Shaw, G. ( JFK: Conspiracy of Silence, 1992, New York, Signet). Crenshaw has claimed both in his book and in public interviews that the President's head wound was posterior on the right side. In JFK: Conspiracy of Silence, he wrote, "I walked to the President's head to get a closer look. His entire right cerebral hemisphere appeared to be gone. It looked like a crater--an empty cavity. All I could see there was mangled, bloody tissue. From the damage I saw, there was no doubt in my mind that the bullet had entered his head through the front, and as it surgically passed through his cranium, the missile obliterated part of the temporal and all the parietal and occipital lobes before it lacerated the cerebellum." ( JFK: Conspiracy of Silence, p. 86)

The FBI interviewed Crenshaw July 22, 1992 and reported Crenshaw apparently did not like his own description of JFK's skull wound in JFK: Conspiracy of Silence Of the skull wound the FBI reported, "(Crenshaw said) The head wound was located at the back of the President's head and was the approximate size of Doctor CRENSHAW's (sic) fist. It extended from the approximate center of the skull in the back to just behind the right ear, utilizing a left to right orientation and from a position a couple of inches above the right ear to the approximate middle of the right ear utilizing a top to bottom orientation." (FBI file # 89A-DL-60165-99) The FBI also reported, "(Crenshaw's) description which indicates that the wound extended from the hairline back behind the ear and to the back of the head was 'poorly worded.' (sic) The correct description indicates that the wound was located entirely at the rear of the head behind the right ear." (FBI file # 89A-DL-60615-100.) While Crenshaw has been roundly criticized for having kept silent for so long, his observations regarding the head wound are consistent with the contemporaneous observations of others, especially those of Kemp Clark, MD, professor of Neurosurgery, who pronounced Kennedy dead. Crenshaw claimed to have kept quiet about his observations out of professional and personal fear of reprisals.

As will be seen Breo took great exception to Crenshaw's account. Author Gerald Posner dismissed Crenshaw with quotations from fellow Parkland physicians: Perry stated, "I feel sorry for him. I had thought of suing him, but when I saw him on television [promoting his book], (sic) my anger melted. He has to know that what he said is false, and he knows the rest of us know that. You have to pity him. What a way to end his career. His story is filled with half-truths and insinuations, and those of us who know him know he is desperate... He is a pitiful sight." Perry's excoriation of Crenshaw must, however, be considered in the context of his own egregious memory, and his own possible perjury before the Warren Commission. Perry, as will be discussed, denied under oath to the Warren Commission that he had made unequivocal statements to the press claiming the neck wound was a wound of entrance. He falsely accused the press of misrepresenting his comments when an exact transcript of his comments revealed that the press had accurately reported his unequivocal comments that the neck wound was a wound of entrance. Perry, to the author's knowledge, has never apologized to the press nor has he explained his untruthful testimony to the Commission. Moreover, as has been demonstrated, Perry seems to have adjusted his recollections to suit his questioner, whether Specter of the Warren Commission, or author, Posner.

10) CHARLES RUFUS BAXTER, MD: a resident physician at Parkland in a hand written note prepared on 11-22-63 and published in the Warren Report (p. 523) Baxter wrote, "...the right temporal and occipital bones were missing (emphasis added) and the brain was lying on the table..." (WR:523). Very oddly, as Wallace Milam pointed out to one of the authors (Aguilar), when asked to read his own hand written report into the record before the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter the words are recorded exactly as he wrote them, except for the above sentence. That sentence was recorded by the Warren Commission and reads "...the right temporal and parietal bones were missing. (emphasis added)...". (WC-V6:44) It is reasonable to assume that Baxter's original description of a more rearward wound is more reliable than his later testimony before Arlen Specter, who on more than one occasion tried to move the skull wound away from the rear. Baxter then described the head wound saying, "...literally the right side of his head had been blown off. With this and the observation that the cerebellum was present...." (WC-V6:41) Thus the wound he saw was more likely to have been "temporo-occipital" than "temporo-parietal", because he also recalled, "cerebellum was present". (WC-V6:41) Shortly later in the same interview he also said, "...the temporal and parietal bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table...." (WC-V6:44) The authors are unaware of any explanation for the discrepancies, and can only speculate that either Baxter was misquoted twice or he adjusted his testimony to conform with what he might have felt was wanted of him. The mystery was confounded when author Livingstone reported that Baxter described the skull wound as "...a large gaping wound in the occipital area." Livingstone also reported that "(Baxter) could not have been more clear when he rejected the official picture (showing the rear scalp intact)."(Groden & Livingstone, High Treason, 1989, New York, Berkley Books, p. 45)

Baxter's reliability has also been called into question for a comment attributed to him by Dennis Breo, staff writer for JAMA, and Gerald Posner. Baxter apparently supported Breo's suggestion that Charles Crenshaw, MD, author of the recent book, "Conspiracy of Silence", (Crenshaw, CA, Hansen, J, Shaw, G. JFK: Conspiracy of Silence. 1992, New York, Signet) was not in JFK's trauma room. JAMA wrote, "Most of those who know the facts express disgust at Crenshaw's actions and question if he was involved in the care of the President at all... None of the four (interviewed by Breo) recalls ever seeing him at the scene." (Breo, D. L., JAMA, 267:2804-2805). This claim was used by JAMA to support the Warren Commission's reconstruction of the event, and call into question Crenshaw's recollections of JFK's wounds published in his book--recollections that flatly contradicted the Commission's findings. In an interview with author Gerald Posner in 1992, Baxter said, "I don't either (remember that Crenshaw was present in JFK's trauma room)." (Posner, G. Case Closed, p. 312, paper version). Embarrassingly, before the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter, however, Baxter, under oath, listed the physicians present with him in the emergency room with JFK. The first physician he named was Charles Crenshaw. (WC- V6:40)

As if Baxter's credibility had not suffered enough, he reported to author Posner on March 12, 1992, "I never even saw the back of (JFK's) head. The wound was on the right side, not the back." (Posner, Case Closed, p. 312) Baxter would do well to read his own hand-written note, prepared on the day of the assassination, and reproduced legibly in the Warren Report, and read the transcripts of interviews he's given authors before allowing further interviews.

This fact will be explored again in the following chapter. In any case it seems that Baxter is either terribly unreliable or is often misquoted, as seem to be all of Breo's and Posner's "allies". McClelland, disparaged by the other Parkland witnesses used by Breo and Posner, is the only one of these witnesses whose opinion has not seemed to change with the wind.

11) ROBERT GROSSMAN, MD: had just joined the staff of Parkland at the time of the assassination as an Instructor in Neurosurgery. He never testified to the Warren Commission or the HSCA. Authors Groden and Livingstone, however, claim, "He (Grossman) said that he saw two large holes in the head, as he told the (Boston) Globe, and he described a large hole squarely in the occiput, far too large for a bullet entry wound...". (HT-I Groden and Livingstone, p. 51)-& also "Duffy & Ricci, The Assassination of John F. Kennedy--A Complete Book of Facts, p. 207-208.)

12) RICHARD BROOKS DULANEY, MD: was a first year general surgery resident at Parkland Hospital on the day of the assassination. He appeared before the Commission and claimed only, "...he had a large head wound---that was the first thing I noticed." Arlen Specter did not ask him to elaborate and Dulaney did not volunteer any additional details.(WC-V:114). As Groden and Livingston reported, however, Dulaney told journalist Ben Bradlee, Jr., "...Somebody lifted up his head and showed me the back of his head. We couldn't see much until they picked up his head. I was standing beside him. The wound was on the back of his head. On the back side" They lifted up the head and "the whole back-side was gone." (Groden R., Livingston, H., High Treason. 1989 New York, Berkley Books, p.460.)

13) ADOLPH GIESECKE, MD: an assistant professor of anesthesiology at Parkland in 1963 authored a typed summary of his care of Governor Connally on 11-25-63, Warren Commission "Gieske Exhibit #1", (WC-V20:5-7) in which he does not mention JFK's wounds. In Warren Commission testimony he described JFK's head wound as: "...from the vertex to the left ear, and from the brow line to the occiput on the left-hand side of the head the cranium was entirely missing." Specter surprised that Giesecke claimed the left side asked: "That's your recollection?" Giesecke answered: "Right, like I say, I was there a very short time--really." (WC-V:6:72-78) This is the only case of any witness mistaking which side the skull injuries were on. However, despite his error on the laterality, he claimed that the skull defect extended from the occiput to the front of the skull.

14) FOUAD BASHOUR, MD: an associate professor of medicine, cardiology, at Parkland at the time of the assassination. Groden and Livingstone reported, "He was most insistent that the official picture was not representative of the wounds, and he continually laid his hand both on the back of Livingstone's head and his own to show where the large hole was. 'Why do they cover it up?' he repeated numerous times. 'This is not the way it was!' he kept repeating, shaking his head no." (Groden & Livingston, H., High Treason. 1989 New York, Berkley Books, p.45)

15) KENNETH EVERETT SALYER, MD: was an intern at Parkland at the time of JFK's death. In a Warren Commission interview with Arlen Specter, Salyer stated, "...(JFK) had a wound of his right temporal region...I came in on the left side of him and noticed that his major wound seemed to be in his right temporal area, at least from the point of view that I could see him, and other than that--nothing other than he did have a gaping scalp wound-- cranial wound" (Warren Commission-V6:81) Salyer reported to author Aguilar that the wound was right sided but extended both posterior to and anterior to the ear. He repeated a claim made to Robert Groden that the photographs appeared to have been tampered with.

Note: Specter asked Salyer, "To what extent did Dr. Crenshaw participate?"

Salyer answered, "Dr. Crenshaw participated about the extent that I did. We were occupied in making sure an I. V. was going and hanging up a bottle of blood." Specter, "Is the--is Dr. Crenshaw a resident?" Salyer: "yes, he is a third-year resident. That's the reason I remember him specifically because we were sort of working there together on that." (Warren Commission, V6:81)

16) PAT HUTTON, RN: a nurse at Parkland who met the limousine and helped to wheel the President into Trauma Room 1 wrote a report soon after claiming, "Mr. Kennedy was bleeding profusely from a wound in the back of his head, and was lying there unresponsive." (Price Exhibit V21 H 216--Emphasis added). While helping with resuscitation efforts a physician asked her to apply a pressure dressing to the head wound, she observed, however, that, "This was no use, however, because of the massive opening in the back of the head." (IBID)

17) DORIS NELSON, RN: was a supervising nurse at Parkland. She was interviewed by Arlen Specter for the Warren Commission and she was neither asked or volunteered information regarding the nature of JFK's wounds. (WC-V6:143-147) As Groden and Livingstone reported, however, journalist Ben Bradlee, Jr. asked her, "Did you get a good look at his head injuries?" Nelson: "A very good look...When we wrapped him up and put him in the coffin. I saw his whole head." Asked about the accuracy of the HSCA autopsy photographs she reacted: "No. It's not true. Because there was no hair back there. There wasn't even hair back there. It was blown away. Some of his head was blown away and his brains were fallen down on the stretcher." (High Treason I. p. 454)

18) SECRET SERVICE AGENT WILLIAM GREER: described the President's wounds upon arrival at Parkland to Arlen Specter of the Warren Commission: "His head was all shot, this whole part was all a matter of blood like he had been hit." Specter, "Indicating the top and right rear side of the head?" Greer: "Yes, sir; it looked like that was all blown off."(WCV2:124)

19) SECRET SERVICE AGENT CLINT HILL: described the wounds he saw at Parkland as, "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 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." (WC--V2:141)

20) NURSE DIANA HAMILTON BOWRON: greeted the limousine with a stretcher. She claimed, "...the back of his head...well, it was very bad--you know..." Arlen Specter failed to elucidate what she meant by the "back of the head" being very bad. (emphasis added) (WC V6:136:) Within 48 hours of the assassination the British press relayed a second hand account from Bowron through her mother: "...there was blood all over this neck and shoulders. There was a gaping wound in the back of his head." (Livingstone, Killing the Truth , p. 180) Author Livingstone corresponded and spoke by phone with Bowron in 1993. He reported that Bowron claimed, "I first saw the large wound in the back of the head in the car. When we were preparing the body for the coffin I had the opportunity to examine it more closely. It was about five inches in diameter and there was no flap of skin covering it, just a fraction of skin along part of the edges of bone. There was, however, some hair hanging down from the top of the head, which was caked with blood, and most of the brain was missing. The wound was so large I could almost put my whole left fist inside." (Livingstone, Killing the Truth, p. 181) She also said, "...The hole was basically almost the size of a saucer, and sort of from the occiput. So there was quite a reasonable amount missing from the top as well." (Livingstone, Killing the Truth, p. 190) When asked her opinion of the nature of the defect in the rear of the skull, Bowron told Livingstone, "Well, to me it was an exit hole." (Livingstone, Killing the Truth, p. 192) Livingstone asked, "Did you see any entry hole in the back of the head?". "I assumed and I still do that that was an exit wound." Bowron answered. ( Killing the Truth , p. 195). Bowron prepared a drawing depicting the skull wound as she saw it for Livingstone which bears a striking similarity to the diagram of the wound prepared by Robert McClelland, MD and agreed to by Paul Peters, MD ( High Treason in group of images following p. 23 in hard cover edition.) It shows a defect squarely in the occiput on the right side; a second diagram depicting the skull from above shows the right rear quadrant of the skull absent with the notation "missing". (Killing the Truth,in images following p. 368)

21) WILLIAM MIDGETT, MD: an Obstetrics and Gynecology resident at Parkland greeted the President's limousine pushing a stretcher. In an interview with Wallace Milam on February 8, 1993, he described JFK's wound as "right parietal" and said it was behind the right ear.

22) DON T. CURTIS, D.D.S.: an oral surgery resident was mentioned in the Warren Report (p.66), but gave no account to the Commission regarding JFK's wounds. Pre-med student, Brad J. Parker, sent Curtis a copy of McClelland's drawing showing a large right-sided defect in the rear of JFK's skull to ask his opinion about it. On October 25, 1994, Curtis wrote Parker. His letter in full read: Dear Mr. Parker, The drawing by Dr. Robert McClelland is essentially my recollection of the wound suffered by John F. Kennedy. Please let me know if you need any further information. Best regards, Don T. Curtis, D.D.S.

Credit: Dr. Gary Aguilar

Fantastic post. And WC apologists and others who claim the autopsy materials are pristine can only theorize that all those doctors and nurses were "mistaken," that in the rush of the moment they could not tell a large wound in the occiput from a large wound above the right ear, that two neurosurgeons and other doctors could not tell cerebellar tissue from other brain tissue, and that it is just an astonishing coincidence that their descriptions of the wound mirror those given by federal agents and medical personnel at the autopsy. It is just preposterous. 

Dr. Mantik has proved by the science of OD measurement that about 70% of the right side of the brain is missing in the autopsy x-rays. OD measurements have also proved that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic and that the odd white patch is a physical impossibility. But WC apologists and a few CTs eject his research, even though not one of them has conducted their own OD measurements.

One typo I noticed in the final paragraph: "essentially by recollection" should be "essential my recollection."

33 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Michael, these arguments have been addressed on my website for 15 years or so. They are just wrong. Most of the witnesses pointing to a "back of the head" wound point to a location far above the cerebellum, for example. (As this leaves the EOP entrance unaccounted for, this indicates two shots to the head, and thus conspiracy.)

The real problem is not that "I won't admit" the autopsy photos are fake, it's that virtually no one in conspiracy land has ever taken the time to figure out what the photos actually show. There is a cadre that is just desperate to believe anything proving a shot from the front, and will twist anything to fit that scenario. But when one steps back and reads up on gunshot wounds to the brain, one realizes that the autopsy report and brain photos are at odds with the single-assassin solution, and strongly suggest the fatal bullet impacted at the top of the head, at the supposed exit.  

Holy cow. These comments make me seriously question the value of your research on the medical evidence. 

Mortician Tom Robinson's drawing of the large rear head wound puts a large part of it in the cerebellum. He was the guy who reassembled the skull. Dr. McClelland and Francis O'Neill likewise produced diagrams that put part of the large rear head wound in the cerebellum. 

Two Parkland neurosurgeons said cerebellum was visible through the large rear head wound. If you choose to believe that they were "mistaken" and could not distinguish cerebellar tissue from the surrounding tissue, you have that right.

If you believe the autopsy photos of the brain are pristine, no wonder you attack Dr. Mantik's research, even though it has been endorsed by nearly all of the pro-conspiracy medical experts in the research community. There is no way those photos are of JFK's brain--they don't even agree with the skull x-rays. 

16 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

This July 2015 comment by the late David Lifton is worth reading, for anyone interested in understanding the bogus blather about alleged posterior JFK skull entry wounds.

There weren't any.

I have a related question.

Where is the evidence of a posterior skull shot/entry wound on the Zapruder film?

There is none.

The fatal head shot struck the right upper forehead and blew off the back of JFK's skull (i.e., the occipital Harper fragment.)

Actually, the Zapruder film does contain a very brief sequence that suggests a rear head shot. In Z312, JFK's head starts to move forward, but in Z313 it starts to move backward. 

I think the ever-so-brief forward movement is a remnant of a much more obvious forward movement in the original Zapruder film. 

Recall that several witnesses said JFK was knocked forward. Dan Rather, who saw the original Z film, said the film showed JFK being knocked forward. 

This forward movement, like the limo stop described by dozens of witnesses, was removed from the film (probably at the CIA-contracted photo lab in New York, as Doug Horne has documented). 

Another event missing from the extant Z film is JFK lifting his hand up to his head. Gayle Newman described it. After viewing an apparently different version of the Z film numerous times, William Manchester reported that JFK lifted his hand to his head (The Death of a President, p. 158). Even Jackie said, “And then he sort of did this [indicating], put his hand to his forehead and fell in my lap” (5 H1 80). No movement of this kind is seen in the current version of the film.

 I think this note supports the note that Ruby wrote to his second attorney, wherein he admitted that his claim that he killed Oswald to spare Jackie a trial was false and was fed to him by his first lawyer. 

In the Maddox note, I think Ruby was saying just what he meant regarding his motive: that his reason for shooting Oswald was to silence him. I think his comment about being "framed for the assassination" referred to his being painted as insane at his trial, being double-crossed, and being given the death penalty. I believe he had been led to think that he would get off with a light sentence or even acquitted. 

32 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

I posted a generic model found on the internet where the angle looks like a bullet could conceivably miss the spine.

I forget where I saw this, but on one of the JFK discussion forums, somebody posted a picture of a 3D generic medical model, with a straight line going through and missing the spine (assuming a generously high position for the back wound).

You might be referring to Jerry Organ's bogus graphic, which he based on Lattimer's bogus graphic. The CT scan shows there was no unobstructed path from a C7/T1 wound to the throat wound.

And, again, we now know from the ARRB materials and other sources that on the night of the autopsy, the autopsy doctors were absolutely, positively certain that the back wound had no exit point. They found the end of the back wound's tract. It ended at the lining of the chest cavity. A number of personnel standing near the table could see the probe pushing against the lining of the chest cavity. 

And note that this probing was done after the doctors removed the chest organs and after they positioned the body "every which way" (per Dr. Karnei). Boswell admitted to the ARRB that once they removed the chest organs, they were able to probe the wound. 

I should do a separate thread on the contradictions between the autopsy skull x-rays and the autopsy brain photos, but just to add to my previous reply, I would note that none other than Dr. Humes told JAMA that "two thirds of the right cerebrum had been blown away" (LINK, p. 2798). Yet, no such massive damage to the right cerebrum is seen in the brain photos: they show only a displacement of the right cerebral lobe due to laceration and show only a small loss of brain tissue. 

Dr. Gary Aguilar has noted that the x-rays show much more tissue missing from the cerebrum than is shown missing in the brain photos (LINK).

Dr. Mantik confirmed via OD measurement that only about 30% of the entire right side of the brain is present in the skull x-rays (JFK Assassination Paradoxes, 2022, p. 5).

Recall that Dr. Boswell stated in his HSCA interview that "the brain was so torn up it would not have shown a tract" (Memorandum: Interview with J. Thornton Boswell, HSCA, August 16, 1977, p. 2). However, the brain in the brain photos does not look anything like a brain that was "so torn up"--it has virtually no tissue missing; it has no damage on the left side; and it has only one large disruption on the right side (LINK, Figure 9).

On 5/29/2023 at 2:00 AM, James DiEugenio said:

https://www.amazon.com/JFK-Revisited-Complete-Collection-Blu-ray/dp/B09YMWT9Y8/ref=sr_1_3?crid=1FK2ECUI10DA0&keywords=jfk+revisited&qid=1685339595&sprefix=jfk%2Caps%2C354&sr=8-3

This is incredible, the DVD was at number one its first three weeks in release in July of last year!

Now, 11 months later, its back at number one  for documentaries on Amazon AGAIN.

What this means is that, in all probability, it will achieve what is one definition of a classic.

For one year it was either in the Top Ten, or right around that area.

Remember what Roe said when it came out:  Its going straight to You Tube.😃. LOL. HA HA HA

That is very good news. 

20 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

LOL. I have chapters on a number of unreliable "researchers," including Mantik. If one reads it one will find that many of Mantik's views have changed over the years--some after I'd pointed out his errors--and that many of his statements have been self-contradictory, and just plain bizarre. 

Wow. I think you are exaggerating, to put it mildly. I'll just say that you are in a very tiny minority among pro-conspiracy researchers. Most CTs recognize Dr. Mantik's research as not only superb but historic. I think his response to your critique shows that his research is far superior to yours.

17 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

The scenario you describe would indicate a funnel-shaped brain wound which was largest at the exit at the top of the skull and smallest back at the EOP. No such wound was noted at autopsy or in the photographs. Instead, the report and photos suggest a large trench on the top right side from front to back. This suggests a different scenario entirely. 

P.S. Those pushing an EOP entrance/top of the head exit acknowledge that the angles don't add up, and hold instead that the bullet curved sharply upwards within the skull--something that failed to occur in the WC's tests. Is that your claim? Or do you really believe a bullet fired from the SN and entering the EOP at 313 would exit at the top of the head? 

Yes, I know that JFK's head is tilted somewhat forward in Z313, but, even assuming this frame is the rear-head-shot frame, this would not enable a bullet that entered at the EOP site to miss the cerebellum. Even a bullet traveling at a sharply upward angle could not have done so. I mean, let's get serious.

Dr. Loquvam recognized that no bullet entering at the EOP site could have missed the cerebellum, and that, at the bare minimum, the bullet would have caused serious bleeding. When a bullet tears through brain tissue, it causes damage and bleeding. Dr. Finck, when pressed, admitted this and conceded he could not explain the complete absence of cerebellar damage in the brain photos. 

I guess the problem is that you do not want to admit that the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent. Those photos not only show an intact cerebellum, but they show very little brain matter missing. This is impossible.

First off, the autopsy skull x-rays show a large area of missing brain, on both sides of the skull, in total contradiction to the brain photos. This is a fatal problem that WC apologists have simply ignored. 

Two, we know that a large amount of brain matter was blown into the limousine and onto the limousine's trunk, and was also blown toward two of the trailing patrolmen and toward the follow-up car. Brain matter splattered onto the windshields of the patrolmen's motorcycles and onto the hood and windshield of the follow-up car. WC apologists usually ignore this fact when defending the virtually intact brain seen in the autopsy brain photos.

Three, numerous witnesses who saw the brain, both at Parkland and Bethesda, said that a large amount of brain was missing.

Four, two Parkland neurosurgeons reported that the cerebellum was damaged and bleeding and was visible through the large defect. You can easily confirm via a Google search that cerebellar tissue is easy to distinguish from other brain tissue. The neurosurgeons' accounts are corroborated by massive eyewitness testimony (see below).

Five, we have literally dozens of witnesses, from three different locations, who reported seeing a large rear head wound through which the cerebellum would have been visible, i.e., a wound that included a sizable part of the occiput. 

On 6/11/2022 at 6:56 PM, Micah Mileto said:

This point of argument came out in 1998, and I still haven't seen any debunking of it, or even a whole online discussion about it. I google image searched "ct scan axial section t1 first thoracic vertebra" and it looks like every other scan shows a result similar to the above - the official trajectory would have the bullet crashing into the spine. Is there something I'm missing? Why isn't there more discussion of this argument which claims to be scientific proof of a conspiracy?

There is this anatomical argument, and, as Pat Speer has argued, the official bullet trajectory would have also hit the first rib and ruptured the major blood vessels. This simple issue of anatomy doesn't seem like it should be as ambiguous as it seems to be on the internet.

Dr. John Nichols made a similar point years earlier. There is simply no way a bullet could have entered at C7 (or T1) and exited the throat without smashing through the spine. 

Add to this the fact that we now know that on the night of the autopsy, the autopsy doctors established that the back wound had no exit point, and many witnesses in the room saw them establish this and heard Finck acknowledge it. That's why the first two versions of the autopsy report said nothing about a bullet exiting the throat.

And then there is the fact that any bullet exiting the slits under JFK's collar would have had to go through the tie, but there is no hole through the tie, and the small nick on the tie knot (made by a nurse who was hurriedly cutting away JFK's clothing) is not on either edge of the tie knot. 

The SBT is the modern version of the story of the emperor's new clothes. Any objective, candid person can see that it is utter nonsense, but there are those who cannot bring themselves to admit it. 

It is worth noting that when the HSCA FPP asked Humes about the red spot that the panel identified as the rear head entry wound, Humes insisted there was no wound at the location:

          Dr HUMES. No. 1, I can assure you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point there was no defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I don't know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don't I just don't know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of entrance. (7 HSCA p. 254/000200)

It is also worth noting that Dr. Finck confirmed that the rear head entry wound was in the occipital bone in his 1/25/65 memo to General Blumberg:

          I examined the wounds. The scalp of the back of the head showed a small laceration, 15 x 6 cm. Corresponding to this lesion. I found a through-and-through wound of the occipital bone, with a crater visible from the inside of the cranial cavity. This bone
wound showed no crater when viewed from outside the skull. On the basis of this pattern of the occipital bone perforation, I stated that the wound in the back of the head was an entrance. (Memo to General Blumberg, The Autopsy of President Kennedy: Summary, 1/25/65, p. 1)

Yet, the extant autopsy skull x-rays do not show a single bullet fragment anywhere near the EOP entry site, much less a trail of fragments going from the EOP up to the area of the right orbit. Equally strange, the autopsy report makes no mention of the very obvious high fragment trail seen on the skull x-rays. 

10 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

If the bullet entered at the eop, then it would have entered at the junction between the cerebellum and the upper portion of the brain. It would have travelled in between that gap. Then when you consider that the cavitation of a bullet tract does not occur until the bullet is someway in the body, perhaps 6 inches, then you could have a situation where the bullet entered at the eop, slid in between the cerebellum and the upper portion of the brain, no significant damage occured there until about 6 inches into the head when the cavitation caused by the bullet expanded as it does tearing up brain tissue at a point about 6 inches into Kennedys head.

Really? Seriously? I suggest Googling "cerebellum" and "external occipital protuberance," and keep in mind that a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window would have been traveling at a downward angle of 15 degrees. 

The pathologists said the wound was 2.5 cm (0.99 inch) to the right of and "slightly" above the EOP. As Dr. Loquvam noted, and as Dr. Finck acknowledged, a bullet entering at this site would have damaged cerebellar tissue.  

Of course, another problem with a supposedly undamaged cerebellum is that a Parkland neurosurgeon, Dr. Kemp Clark, who examined JFK's head, reported that the large head wound exposed the cerebellum and that cerebellar tissue was extruding from the wound because the wound included part of the occiput:

          Two external wounds, one in the lower third of the anterior neck, the other in the occipital region of the skull, were noted. . . .

          There was a large wound in the right occipital-parietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring. . . .  There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound. (Summary report of Dr. Kemp Clark, 11/22/63, pp. 1-2, CE 392)

Yet, the alleged autopsy brain photos don't even show any pre-mortem bleeding of the cerebellum, as Dr. Loquvam noted. 

Keep in mind, also, that cerebellar tissue is easy to distinguish from the surrounding tissue because it has a very different appearance.

Dr. Clark's report of damaged cerebellar tissue exposed by a large wound in the right-rear part of the skull is supported by numerous witnesses. For example:

Dr. Malcolm Perry:

          I looked at the head wound briefly by leaning over the table and noticed that the parietal occipital head wound was largely avulsive and there was visible brain tissue and some cerebellum seen. . . . (7 HSCA 302, interview with Purdy 1-11-78)

Tom Robinson, the mortician who reassembled JFK's skull after the autopsy:

          . . . . a large, open head wound in the back of the president's head, centrally located right between the ears, where the bone was gone, as well as some scalp. . . . (Meeting Report, ARRB, 6/21/96, p. 001486)

Dr. Charles Carrico:

          . . . attempt to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue. . . . (Admission note of Dr. Charles Carrico, 11/22/63, pp. 1-2, CE 392)

Dr. Marion T. Jenkins:

          There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound. (Statement of Dr. Marion T. Jenkins, 11/22/63, p. 2, CE 392)

Dr. Paul Peters:

          It was pointed out that an examination of the brain had been done. . . .

          We saw the wound of entry in the throat and noted the large occipital wound. . . .

          I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput. . . . (6 H 70-71)

Dr. Ronald Jones:

          He had a large wound in the right posterior side of the head.... There was a large defect in the back side of the head as the President lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted next with the brain and with a tremendous amount of clot and blood. (6 H 53-54)

Dr. Gene Akin:

         The back of the right occipital-parietal portion of his head was shattered with brain substance extruding. . . .  I assume the right occipital-parietal region was the exit, so to speak, that he had probably been hit on the other side of the head, or at least tangentially in the back of the head. . . . (6 H 65, 67)

We could go on for several pages. We could quote Secret Service agents who saw the body en route to Parkland, at Parkland, and at the autopsy, one of whom was sent to Bethesda for the express purpose of recording the president's wounds. We could quote the nurse who packed the head wound with gauze. We could quote the funeral worker at Parkland who had his hands on the back of JFK's head as he helped put the body into the casket and could feel the large defect in the rear of the skull. We could quote FBI agents who were at the autopsy.

And, please, let's don't hear the silly claim that all these people all suffered some astonishing hallucination and/or couldn't tell the difference between a large wound in the occiput and a wound above the right ear. Please. Any rational, honest person knows that claim is drivel.

On 5/27/2023 at 9:08 AM, Adam Johnson said:

Hi Michael, 

Perhaps you've never heard of the late Gary Mack....

Gary Mack, curator of The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza and an authority on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, died Wednesday. He was 68.

He had been suffering a “rare and aggressive” form of cancer, according to his wife, Karin Strohbeck, with whom he lived in Arlington.

Mack, who once influenced a congressional inquiry on the JFK assassination, joined the museum in 1994 after a career in radio and television. He had long professed a belief, or at least a suspicion, that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone in killing the president.

“As conspiracy theorists like to say, you’re either a lone-nutter or a CT — conspiracy theorist,” Mack once said.

Despite Mack’s “CT” leanings, those who believe Oswald acted alone were among Mack’s staunchest admirers. They respected his open-mindedness and the fact that he embarked, often aggressively, on detailed missions to debunk conspiracy theories as the best way of reaching the truth.

"I doubt if anybody anywhere knew more details about all aspects of the JFK assassination and aftermath than Gary," said Hugh Aynesworth, author of November 22, 1963: Witness to History. Aynesworth is among those who believe Oswald acted alone.

Mack helped unravel “some of the more ridiculous offerings,” Aynesworth said. “His work at The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza was beyond exemplary and will be sorely missed. Within hours of his death, I had three phone calls from European newsmen who were stunned and planning coverage.”

Gerald Posner, a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in writing perhaps the definitive book on the assassination, Case Closed, said he had known Mack for 23 years.

“He was always a remarkable source of information about the case and a wise guide who helped me avoid the many investigative pitfalls and black holes of JFK’s murder,” Posner said. “That we did not agree on the role and sole culpability of Oswald did not prevent him from always finding the time in his otherwise busy schedule to answer my many queries. His top priority was simply searching for the truth in the case.”

Dave Perry, a former insurance adjuster and one of Mack’s closest friends, collaborated often in debunking theories.

With Perry’s help, Mack proved in the early 1990s that a story naming a deceased Dallas police officer as the grassy knoll gunman was bogus. A young man named Ricky White said he could prove that his late father, Roscoe White, had fired the final, fatal shot as part of a conspiracy. Aynesworth later credited Mack and Perry with one of the more important put-downs in the history of assassination research, saying, “Dave and Gary disemboweled the Ricky White story.”

Many credited Mack with knowing more basic facts about Kennedy’s death than anyone.

“It’s not that he’s academically, archivally trained,” the late Jeff West, then the Sixth Floor director, said in 1999. “It’s just that his expertise is amazing. Somebody can bring in a shoe box of old photographs, and just by looking at them, he can tell you the time, the location and who the people are in the pictures. He has so much in his head, I’d like to figure out a way to download his head. Gary’s knowledge of the subject is nothing short of encyclopedic.”

Mack’s reputation extended well beyond Dallas.

G. Robert Blakey, chief counsel and staff director of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, credited Mack with playing a key role in putting together evidence that, in 1979, prompted the committee to conclude with a “95 percent or greater” degree of probability that a conspiracy existed. The finding had to do with recordings found in old Dallas police files. Mack came up with the theory that the assassination might have been recorded by Dallas police and brought it to Blakey’s attention.

Although it remains controversial and was later rebutted by the National Academy of Sciences, Mack’s idea led to this: A recording taken from a microphone strapped to an officer’s motorcycle in Dealey Plaza and transferred to a Dictabelt machine at police headquarters indicated there were four shots fired at the president, according to the acoustic sound study conducted by the House committee.

That prompted the committee to conclude that, of the four shots fired, three came from behind and one from the grassy knoll — which missed. If four shots were fired, the committee reasoned, there had to have been two gunmen.

The Warren Commission concluded that only three shots were fired and that all came from the $12.95 Mannlicher-Carcano mail-order rifle owned by Oswald and found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository building.

The best lesson he ever learned about the assassination, Mack said, “is not to get locked into anything. … There’s a lot of nonsense out there. Part of our job is to clear away some of that stuff and get some straight answers.”

Born in Oak Park, Ill., Mack was given the name Lawrence Alan Dunkel. During his days as a disc jockey, he changed his name to Gary Mack at the request of a radio station program manager, who felt it would be catchier.

Mack is survived by his wife; a sister, Susan Coleman of Las Vegas; a son, Stephen Dunkel of Arlington, Va.; and his grandchildren, Nolan and Violet Dunkel. Details on services are pending.

AJ.

I know all about Gary Mack. I dealt with him in the early 2000s. I found him to be dishonest and unreliable. He once accidentally included me as a recipient on a revealing email that he sent to some fellow officials at the Sixth Floor Museum regarding my effort to get the museum to offer more anti-WC books in its bookstore. Among other things, his email made it clear that he had no intention of having the bookstore offer a balanced selection of books on the JFK case, even though most of the books published on the subject rejected the WC's claims. When I replied to his email and called him out on its contents, he declined to reply and would never deal with me again. 

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) did not refute the HSCA acoustical evidence. Far from it. The NAS panel did not even address all of the evidence that supports the acoustical evidence. In fact, if you read the NAS report with care, you discover that they admitted, in a very oblique manner, that by their own calculations there was only a 22.3% chance that the impulse identified as the grassy knoll shot was not a gunshot from the knoll. The panel also admitted--again, very obliquely--that their own calculations showed that there was only a 7% chance that the powerful locational movement correlations between the dictabelt gunshot impulses and the test-firing gunshots were the result of chance. (LINK)

There is now wide agreement in the research community that the rear head entry wound was slightly above the external occipital protuberance (EOP), just as stated in the autopsy report. Even Dr. Larry Sturdivan now argues that the EOP site is correct, and that the alleged cowlick entry site, which is nearly 4 inches above the EOP site, is invalid. Dr. Joseph Riley and Dr. David Mantik, among others, have written extensively on the evidence for the EOP site and against the cowlick site, and I agree that the EOP site is correct.

However, here is the problem: If you believe the autopsy photos of the brain are genuine, you must reject the EOP entry site. Why? Because the brain photos show no damage to the cerebellum, not even in the immediate area behind the EOP entry site. The photos do not even show any bleeding in the cerebellar tissue near the EOP site. Thus, if the brain photos are genuine, there is no way that a bullet could have entered the skull at the EOP site.

This problem was brought to light when Dr. Pierre Finck was interviewed by the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel (FPP). The FPP was trying to get Finck to endorse the cowlick entry site. Finck adamantly refused to do so. After several exchanges on the entry site, FPP member Dr. George Loquvam confronted Finck with the fact that the alleged autopsy photos of the brain show no damage to cerebellar tissue, i.e., no damage to the cerebellum. Loquvam then asked Finck how a bullet could have entered the EOP without damaging cerebellar tissue.

Loquvam probably had no idea that he was treading on dangerous ground because he was pointing out a brazen contradiction between the autopsy report and the autopsy photos of the brain.

Anyway, in his first response to Loquvam’s crucial question, Finck floated the strange argument that a bullet could have entered at the EOP without damaging brain tissue and without even causing any hemorrhaging (bleeding). Loquvam was incredulous at this response and asked, “You can have wounds in the brain without a missile track slug tearing through brain tissue?” Finck could not explain this contradiction and replied that he could not answer the question. Let us read this crucial exchange:

          Dr. Loquvam. If a missile had entered at this point, would it have entered the posterior cranial vault and produced subarachnoid hemorrhage in the cerebellar hemisphere?

          I have pointed to color picture No. 43 at the point of entrance that Dr. Finck is saying the entrance is and I am referring to the four color photographs of the brain in which I see no subarachnoid hemorrhage other than postmortem.

          My question is, if this is the point of entrance, isn't that at the level of the posterior cranial vault where the cerebellar hemispheres lie and would we not see subarachnoid hemorrhage if a slug had torn through there?

          Dr. Finck. Not necessarily because you have wounds without subarachnoid hemorrhage.

          Dr. Loquvam. You can have wounds in the brain without a missile track slug tearing through brain tissue?

          Dr. Finck. I don't know. I cannot answer your question. (HSCA Medical Panel Meeting transcript, March 11, 1978, p. 97)

The problem was that Finck did not dare blurt out that the brain photos could not be accurate, that the brain shown in those photos could not be JFK’s brain.

Doug Horne, among other scholars, has detailed the evidence that shows that there is simply no way the brain in the alleged autopsy brain photos could be JFK’s brain.

DH Memo: Questions Regarding Supplementary Brain Examination(s) (history-matters.com)

The evidence for this finding is so strong that even George Lardner of the Washington Post has taken it seriously:

Washingtonpost.com: JFK Assassination Report

17 hours ago, Stu Wexler said:

If I recall the high (cowlick) entry has 3 pieces of evidence cited in favor of it beyond the red spot.

1) The high fragment trail

2) The 6.5mm roundish metallic fragment in the vicinity 

3) The radiating fracture pattern near #2.

I know there are many problems with #2--  I got Sturdivan to expose one of them. Pat has an alternative explanation for #2 as I recall, but I would really want at least one forensic radiologist to confirm it. Sturdivan raised questions about #3 but that fracture pattern helped convince some of the top forensic pathologists and radiologists of the high wound.  

I do not know what to make of any of it. Randy Robertson believes two rear shots, right?  But there is also good reason to believe in a frontal shot. And all of it (the contradictions) seem to suggest tampering as being possible however much that would normally .

Stu

The high fragment trail does not extend to the supposed cowlick entry site. That trail is concentrated in the right frontal region and dissipates toward the back of the head without reaching the alleged entry site. 

There is no 6.5 mm metal fragment on the skull x-rays. OD measurements prove that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic. There is a small genuine fragment within the image of the 6.5 mm object. The object is a ghosted image that was placed over the small genuine fragment. 

There are actually two small fragments on the back of the head, one in the outer table of the skull and the other between the galea and the outer table. 

Keep in mind that the autopsy report says nothing about the 6.5 mm object, even though it is the largest and most obvious fragment-like object on the skull x-rays, and there's no way the pathologists could have confused it with the 7 x 2 mm fragment, which they removed.

No FMJ bullet could have deposited the back-of-head fragments. FMJ bullets do not behave in this manner. It is instructive that the HSCA FPP could not cite a single example of an FMJ bullet depositing one fragment, much less two, in or just below the outer table of the skull at or near the entry site. 

The radiating fracture pattern does not establish the cowlick entry site, as several experts have explained. 

And we have to keep asking two damning questions: Why does the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report not appear on the skull x-rays? Why did the autopsy doctors say nothing about the high fragment trail in the autopsy report? A first-year medical student would not have made the impossible blunder of mistaking the high fragment trail for a trail that started at the EOP. 

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I have a whole chapter on Mantik's findings. Many of his current claims are "corrections" after I pointed out problems with his earlier claims. 

A few, not many, are corrections based on problems that you noted. 

Microsoft Word - SpeerCritique.docx (themantikview.org)

On 5/22/2023 at 11:30 AM, Pat Speer said:

I discuss the shooting re-enactments and what they demonstrate here: https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4g-thoughts-on-shots-and-the-curtain-rod-story

Pat, this is a great article. I have added a link to it on the Articles and Videos page of my JFK website (LINK). 

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I wasn't purposely "missing the point." I used an analogy to explain why Allen Lowe said what he did, but I strengthened the source of the analogy to make my point clear. Apparently you didn't get it.

So what I am going to do is repeat my analogy, but this time use the exact words you say Allen Lowe did, "praised Trump." (I won't use the other word, "supported Trump," there are people who hate Trump but support him for office nevertheless because they are Republicans.)

Here's my updated analogy:

If someone praised Donald Trump, I'd say that that person's judgement isn't trustworthy.

If someone else excoriated Ronald Reagan, I'd again say that that person's judgement isn't trustworthy.

Now tell me, did I say those things because I am a rabid partisan?

If I did, then I would have to be both rabid left-wing and rabid right-wing simultaneously. Since I cannot be both, then there must be another reason for my not trusting the opinions of those two people. The reason I don't trust them has nothing to do with my political leanings. It has everything to do with the opinions of those two being the opposite of the dozens of scholars who participated in presidential polls and rated Trump near the very bottom and Reagan near the top.

Look, let's just boil this down to basics. Our exchange started after I responded to Allen Lowe's attack on Memet, in which Lowe expressed doubt about the value of Memet's upcoming JFKA documentary because he regards Memet as "extremely untrustworthy" based on Memet's support of Trump. I said and still say that such a comment shows extreme partisan bias, but you said and still say that it does not. 

One clear difference between us is that you will draw a sweeping conclusion about a person's judgment if they opine that Reagan was one of our worst presidents or if they opine that Trump was one of our best presidents. I would never draw such a broad, summary conclusion about a person's judgment based on either of those statements.

I would disagree with that attack on Reagan and with that praise of Trump. I would say that the person who expressed those views was wrong. But, I would not jump to the sweeping conclusion that their judgment was unreliable, much less that they were "extremely untrustworthy."

We'll agree to disagree.

Just to be clear, I have no idea if Prouty was a plant, an infiltrator, etc., and I am not saying he was. I believe it is possible that he was, but that's as far as I would go. It's a possibility. However, I think it's more likely that he was simply a fraud, an oddball, and a publicity seeker. 

If the plotters had wanted to plant an infiltrator in the research community who would do enormous damage to the case for conspiracy, they could not have found anyone who could have done a better job than Prouty did (and is still doing through those who continue to defend him and who use him as a source). 

11 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Dr. Michael Chesser's analysis of the skull X-rays has now proven that the fatal bullet caused a right frontal entry wound--consistent with the obvious violent, retrograde motion of JFK's head, and the retrograde propulsion of the occipital skull fragment that was blasted behind the limo.

   Basic Newtonian physics+Parkland witness testimony.

   The skull exit wound was occipital.

    Not to mention that a bullet fired from a Carcano in the TSBD blew off the right half of a cadaver's face.  

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

I've met Mike a couple of times, and he's a nice guy. But he's not a forensic radiologist and as of yet no forensic radiologists have supported his (and Mantik's) interpretation of the x-rays.  So, one can't rightly aay he's proved anything, Not yet anyhow. 

Incidentally, Dr. Douglas Ubelaker, one of the ARRB's forensic experts, said that the damage pattern in the scalp and bone suggests a front-to-rear shot, with a shot coming from the front or right front:

          The damage pattern (displacement of scalp and bone) evident when viewing the photos showing the right side of the head and right shoulder (#s 5 6 26 27 and 28) and the photos showing the superior view of the head (#s 7 8 9 10 32 33 34 35 36 and 37) is suggestive of a head wound resulting from a bullet traversing from front-to-rear from the front or right front. . . . (Meeting Report, ARRB, 1/26/96, p. 2)

Anyway, regarding Chesser and Mantik, we're not just talking about interpretation but mutually corroborating sets of optical density (OD) measurements. 

True, Chesser is not a forensic radiologist, but he is a neurologist. Many neurologists are just as skilled at reading x-rays as radiologists. Neurologists sometimes do their own x-ray readings without consulting with a radiologist. 

The ARRB's forensic radiologist, Dr. John Fitzpatrick, confirmed Dr. Mantik's finding that the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray has no corresponding image on the lateral x-rays, which is a physical impossibility if the x-rays are pristine. Mantik had already confirmed the absence of a corresponding image on the lateral x-rays via OD measurements. 

Fitzpatrick also agreed with Mantik's finding that the x-rays show frontal bone missing all the way to the hairline (or, to put it another way, that the frontal bone is intact only up to the hairline). Yet, the HSCA FPP claimed that the frontal bone was intact all the way back to the coronal suture (HSCA Exhibit F-66). 

Fitzpatrick indicated to Doug Horne that he saw no importance in Mantik's OD measurements. When Mantik politely attempted to get Fitzpatrick to explain why he felt this way, Fitzpatrick declined to do so. Due to the historic and disturbing implications of Mantik's OD measurements, his peers have so far declined to offer substantive commentary on them in writing. 

However, Dr. Arthur G. Haus, who was then the chief medical physicist at Kodak, proof-read Mantik's original article on his OD measurements of the autopsy skull x-rays. 

The science of OD measurement is recognized and well established. As both a physicist and a radiation oncologist, Dr. Mantik is highly qualified to perform OD measurements. He uses them frequently in his medical practice as a radiation oncologist. 

5 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

In Figure 2 of the paper below is a gelatin block shot with an FMJ bullet from a rifle. All the fragments are only located scattered across the diameter of the temporary cavity and behind it i.e. in the direction of the bullet exit, and large fragments are located on both sides of the cavity.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jan-Kromeier/publication/236934203_The_varying_size_of_exit_wounds_from_center-fire_rifles_as_a_consequence_of_the_temporary_cavity/links/00b7d51aae58848a31000000/The-varying-size-of-exit-wounds-from-center-fire-rifles-as-a-consequence-of-the-temporary-cavity.pdf?origin=publication_detail

Could something like this potentially explain the fragment trail? In other words, is it possible that a bullet entered the EOP, partially fragmented, then the semi-intact bullet reached maximum yaw around the inner table of the top JFK’s skull so the large exit wound occurred within the plane of the temporary cavity - which could potentially explain its unusually large size and the scalp defects -  and the fragments were scattered across the diameter of the temporary cavity with the remaining fragments flying out of the limo, leaving a line of fragments across the very top of JFK’s skull? 

Since the gelatin blocks were not encased in any substance similar to skull bone, the test discussed in the paper can't tell us much about JFK's head wounds and the autopsy skull x-rays. 

The problems posed by the EOP entry wound include the following:

-- There is no way that a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window could have entered at the EOP site and then caused the exit wound described in the autopsy report. The bullet would have struck at a downward angle of 15 degrees. JFK would have had to be leaning far forward, about 60 degrees forward, to make the trajectory work, but the Zapruder film shows he was not leaning that far forward.

-- The wound makes it impossible to explain the two small bullet fragments on the back of the skull (one of which is inside the ghosted image of the 6.5 mm object), since both fragments are several inches above the EOP and are on the outer table of the skull. 

-- There is no way that a bullet entering the EOP site at downward angle of 15 degrees could have created the high fragment trail now seen on the skull x-rays. 

-- The extant skull x-rays show no bullet fragments at or near the EOP site, yet the autopsy doctors insisted there was a fragment trail that started at the EOP and went slightly upward to a point just above the right eye (the right orbit). 

A key point to keep in mind is that when the autopsy doctors reviewed the autopsy materials for five hours in early 1967, they wrote a report about their review, and in that report they reaffirmed that the autopsy report's EOP entry point was correct. They even said that four of the autopsy photos proved this location was correct. I quote:

          The autopsy report states that a lacerated entry wound measuring 15 by 6 mm (0.59 by 0.24 inches) is situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm (1 inch) laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance (a bony protuberance at the back of the head). . . . Photographs Nos. 15, 16, 42, and 43 show the location and size of the wound, and establish that the above autopsy data were accurate (Attestation of Examination of Autopsy Photographs and Radiographs, 1/26/67, p. 3)

However, in a fascinating omission, the autopsy doctors did not mention the EOP-to-right-orbit fragment trail described in the autopsy report. Humes discussed this fragment trail in detail in his WC testimony (2 H 353-354). Needless to say, a fragment trail from the EOP to the right orbit would be powerful evidence that a bullet struck near the EOP and ranged slightly upward. Yet, oddly enough, after reviewing the autopsy materials for five hours, the autopsy doctors said nothing about this fragment trail in their review report, even though they were clearly trying to defend their autopsy findings. So, they either inexplicably failed to mention a key piece of evidence for their claims about the head shot or that key piece of evidence was no longer on the skull x-rays.  

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

I believe one of the current en vogue lone assassin theories on the head wounds is that the bullet entered the EOP, lost stability/fragmented, then curved through the skull and exploded out of the top/front/right of JFK’s head due to the temporary cavity. Larry Sturdivan is the main proponent of this theory, but he explains the fragment trail by saying that the fragments leaked towards the top of JFK’s head with blood flow, which seems like a stretch - and I don’t think he has any evidence at all to support that. I also think that Sturdivan claims that the temporary cavity occurred before the bullet exit, which runs into problems with the size of the exit wound and missing scalp, as Pat Speer has pointed out. 

In Figure 2 of the paper below is a gelatin block shot with an FMJ bullet from a rifle. All the fragments are only located scattered across the diameter of the temporary cavity and behind it i.e. in the direction of the bullet exit, and large fragments are located on both sides of the cavity.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jan-Kromeier/publication/236934203_The_varying_size_of_exit_wounds_from_center-fire_rifles_as_a_consequence_of_the_temporary_cavity/links/00b7d51aae58848a31000000/The-varying-size-of-exit-wounds-from-center-fire-rifles-as-a-consequence-of-the-temporary-cavity.pdf?origin=publication_detail

Could something like this potentially explain the fragment trail? In other words, is it possible that a bullet entered the EOP, partially fragmented, then the semi-intact bullet reached maximum yaw around the inner table of the top JFK’s skull so the large exit wound occurred within the plane of the temporary cavity - which could potentially explain its unusually large size and the scalp defects -  and the fragments were scattered across the diameter of the temporary cavity with the remaining fragments flying out of the limo, leaving a line of fragments across the very top of JFK’s skull? 

I have no idea, but I think it’s helpful to try to understand exactly what would need to happen for the WC head shot scenario to actually work, even if that requires making assumptions you don’t necessarily agree with - like the autopsy photos being totally genuine, etc. If it’s not possible it’s not possible - and I have plenty of doubts - but wound ballistics is obscenely complicated so I’m just trying to be thorough. 

Yes, Sturdivan attempts to deal with the impossible trajectory posed by the EOP site by theorizing that the bullet, after supposedly entering the skull at a 15-degree downward angle, magically made a sharp right turn and also veered upward to exit the upper-front part of the right parietal bone (The JFK Myths, p. 180, Figure 54).

I suspect that Sturdivan knows better. He must know that not one of the bullets fired into skulls in the WC's wound ballistics tests veered so dramatically. 

I find it interesting that Sturdivan says nothing about the fact that the fragment trail described in the autopsy report is not seen in the skull x-rays, and that the autopsy report fails to mention the high fragment trail seen in the skull x-rays.

43 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

The EOP entrance is right where the doctors said it was. It's just hard to make out in the photos, seeing as they failed to shave the hair. But it's there, alright, and is readily visible in gifs combining the color and b and w back of the head photos. 

Here it is in a still. 

Now look at that location in the gif. 

 

P.S. This is discussed in great detail in Chapter 13 at patspeer.com, which also features a large blow-up of the gif above. 

https://www.patspeer.com/chapter13solvingthegreatheadwoundmyster

Pat, I agree completely that the pathologists were correct about the location of the rear head entry wound (which is one reason the absence of a low fragment trail on the skull x-rays is so problematic). In connection with this, it should be noted that the ARRB forensic pathologists--Dr. Fitzpatrick, Dr. Ubelaker, Dr. Kirschner--said the skull x-rays showed no evidence of an entrance wound in the cowlick area. Moreover, Dr. Ubelaker said that the photos of the back of the head support the EOP entry site, not the cowlick site. 

Dr. Ubelaker was “surprised that the HSCA had determined the red spot in the back-of-the-head photos was the entry wound on President Kennedy’s head.” He added,

          “The red spot in the upper part of the photo near the end of the ruler does not really look like a wound. The red spot looks like a spot of blood--it could be a wound but probably isn't. The white spot which is much lower in the picture near the hairline could be a flesh wound and is much more likely to be a flesh wound than the red spot higher in the photograph.”

Interestingly, this is exactly what the three autopsy doctors argued when several of the HSCA FPP members tried to pressure them to repudiate the EOP site and endorse the cowlick entry site. (Humes finally and very reluctantly did endorse the cowlick site, but later repudiated it and returned to his original position.)

Even Dr. Larry Sturdivan eventually came around to the position that the EOP entry site is correct. 

All of this brings us back to the question at hand: Why is the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report nowhere to be seen on the extant skull x-rays? 

A related question is, Why does the autopsy report say nothing about the obvious, clear high fragment trail seen on the extant skull x-rays?