Keven Hofeling

Aaron Sharpe wrote: The following is a short video associated with the analysis that physicist John Costella conducted regarding the authenticity of the extant Zapruder film. It explores a plausible explanation for the frozen crowd imagery that you describe, as well as many other anomalies that are present in the extant Zapruder film, consistent with the film technology available in 1963: ___________ 'JFK - THE FAKE ZAPRUDER FILM VIDEO' International School History Teacher | Mar 1, 2022 | https://youtu.be/JVXTvtBfLfE?si=kUUZ6bUyXlzM8yXr "Little known fact in the JFK cover-up - the Zapruder Hoax and how it aided the longstanding cover-up to this day. There is no question that the Zapruder film was a contrived document designed by the CIA/NSA to aid the cover-up." ___________ Aaron Sharpe wrote: The video above 0ffers plausible explanations for the Mary Moorman anomalies in the Zapruder film, such as Moorman standing in the street, and the imagery of the bodies of Mary Moorman and Jean Hill appearing to be larger than the occupants of the Presidential Limousine. An additional issue that the video does not address is the earliest testimony of the Dealey Plaza witnesses closest to the limo at the time of the headshot, who reported that the limo came to a complete stop. I further present the article which follows regarding the testimony of the four motorcycle policemen who were flanking the rear of the limousine, also reporting that it came to a complete stop. ___________ -------------------------------------------------------------- From Vince Palamara's article, ‘Fifty–nine Witnesses: Delay on Elm Street’, Dealey Plaza Echo, vol.3 no.2 (July 1992), pp.1–7. William Newman was adamant that the car stopped. Palamara cites several accounts of interviews with researchers: “the car momentarily stopped and the driver seemed to have a radio or phone up to his ear and he seemed to be waiting on some word. … Then the cars roared off. … I’ve maintained that they stopped. I still say they did. It was only a momentary stop, but … I believe Kennedy’s car came to a full stop after the final shot. Now everywhere that you read about it, you don’t read anything about the car stopping. And when I say ‘stopped’ I mean very momentarily, like they hit the brakes and just a few seconds passed and then they floorboarded and accelerated on … and just for a moment they hesitated and stopped.” http://22november1963.org.uk/did-jfk-limo-stop-on-elm-street -------------------------------------------------------------- From 'An Interview with Assassination Eye Witness Bill Newman', THE DEALEY PLAZA ECHO, Volume 2, March 1992: " and the car momentarily stopped" And then I can remember that when we were on the ground - I'd like to bring this up if I may - looking back over my shoulder I can remember, I believe it was the passenger in the front seat - there were two men in the front seat - had a telephone or something to his ear and the car momentarily stopped. Now everywhere that you read about it, you don't read anything about the car stopping. And when I say "stopped" I mean very momentarily, like they hit the brakes and just a few seconds passed and then they floorboarded and accelerated on." LAW: "But you don't really see that in the Zapruder film." NEWMAN: "No, you don't. But anyway, that's the impression I'm left with." LAW: "Several people said that the car stopped." NEWMAN: "Yes, and then they shot on. You know, through the overpass, the railroad overpass, and that's the last we saw of them." http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/N%20Disk/Newman%20William%20&%20Gayle/Item%2001.pdf -------------------------------------------------------------- From the 11/25/1963 FBI report of interview of Charles F. Brehm: "...BREHM expressed his opinion that between the first and third shots, the President's car only Seemed to move some 10 or 12 feet. It seemed to him that the automobile almost came to a halt after the first shot, but of this he is not certain . After the third shot, the car in which the President was riding increased its speed and went under the freeway overpass and out of his sight...." https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pdf/WH22_CE_1425.pdf -------------------------------------------------------------- From the 11/22/1963 FBI report of interview of Mary Moorman: "...[Mary Moorman] recalls that the President's automobile was moving at the time she took the second picture, and when she heard the shots, and has the impression that the car either stopped momentarily or hesitated and then drove off in a hurry..." https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pdf/WH22_CE_1426.pdf -------------------------------------------------------------- From the 11/22/1963 Dallas County Sheriff's Department report of interview of Jean Hill: "Mary Moorman started to take a picture. We were looking at the president and Jackie in the back seat... Just as the president looked up two shots rang out and I saw the president grab his chest and fell forward across Jackie's lap... There was an instant pause between two shots and the motorcade seemingly halted for an instant. Three or four more shots rang out and the motorcade sped away." https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340264/m1/1/ -------------------------------------------------------------- ___________ ALL FOUR OF THE DALLAS POLICE MOTORCYCLISTS FLANKING THE REAR OF JFK'S LIMOUSINE REPORTED THAT THE LIMO CAME TO A COMPLETE OR NEAR STOP IN DEALEY PLAZA: "... The vagaries of eyewitness testimony are well known, and it might be argued that these police witnesses (as well as the other witnesses who also reported the limousine deceleration) were simply mistaken about what they observed. This seems extremely unlikely, however, because all four of the Dallas police motorcyclists flanking the rear of JFK’s limousine also reported the limousine stopped or slowed...." Donald E. Wilkes, Jr. Professor of Law Emeritus at the University of Georgia School of Law. ------------------------------------------------------------------- "...I will now point to some of the evidence that the limousine did indeed stop or slow down. I pass over similar reports made by civilian spectators and news media people, and limit myself to reports made by police officers in or near Dealey Plaza. Using binoculars, Harry D. Holmes, a federal postal inspector, watched the presidential limousine as it turned from Houston Street and then proceeded down Elm Street from his fifth floor office window in a building two blocks from Dealey Plaza. He testified to the Warren Commission that he heard what sounded like three firecrackers. He saw what he thought was dust coming out of JFK’s head. Then: “The car almost came to a stop.” Earle V. Brown was a Dallas policeman standing on the overpass of the Stemmons Freeway, about 100 yards from Elm Street. Here is an excerpt from his Warren Commission testimony: MR. BROWN: “[T]he first I noticed the car was when it stopped.” MR. BALL (Warren Commission counsel): “Where?” MR. BROWN: After it made the turn [from Houston Street to Elm Street] and when the shots were fired, it stopped.” MR. BALL: “Did it come to a complete stop?” MR. BROWN: “That I couldn’t swear to.” MR. BALL: “It appeared to be slowed down some?” MR. BROWN: “Yes; slowed down.” MR. BALL: “Did you hear the shots?” MR. BROWN: “Yes, sir.” J.W. Foster was a Dallas policeman stationed on the railroad overpass at the corner of Elm, Main and Commerce Streets. In a statement to the FBI made on Mar. 26, 1964, he said: “Immediately after President Kennedy was struck with a second bullet, the car in which he was riding pulled to the curb …” D.V. Harkness was a Dallas policeman standing in Dealey Plaza south of Elm Street. Here is part of his Warren Commission testimony: MR. BELIN (Warren Commission counsel): “What did you do [when you heard the gunshots]?” MR. HARKNESS: “When I saw the first shot and the President’s car slow down to almost a stop—“ MR. BELIN: “When you saw the first shot. What do you mean by that?” MR. HARKNESS: “When I heard the first shot and saw the President’s car almost come to a stop and some of the agents piling off the car, I went back to the intersection to get my motorcycle.” The vagaries of eyewitness testimony are well known, and it might be argued that these police witnesses (as well as the other witnesses who also reported the limousine deceleration) were simply mistaken about what they observed. This seems extremely unlikely, however, because all four of the Dallas police motorcyclists flanking the rear of JFK’s limousine also reported the limousine stopped or slowed. Officer Bobby Hargis was the inside rider at the left rear of the limousine. In his testimony to the Warren Commission he said: “[W]hen President Kennedy straightened back up in the car the bullet hit him in the head, the one that killed him and it seemed like his head exploded, and I was splattered with blood and brain, and kind of bloody water. It wasn’t really blood. And at that time the Presidential car slowed down… I felt blood hit me in the face, and the Presidential car stopped immediately after that and stayed stopped for about half a second, then took off at a high rate of speed.” According to an undated, unpublished transcript of an interview he had with the Dallas Times-Herald, Hargis told the newspaper: “I felt blood hit me in the face, and the presidential car stopped immediately after that and stayed stopped about half a second, then took off at a high rate of speed.” (In a video of a 1995 interview, now on YouTube, you can watch Hargis tell the interviewer: “That guy [the Secret Service agent driving JFK’s limousine] slowed down… [He] slowed down almost to a stop.”) Hargis died in 2014. Officer B.J. Martin was the outside rider at the left rear of the limousine. He told the Warren Commission: “It [the motorcade] slowed down just before we made the turn on Elm Street [from Houston Street].” Officer Martin was later interviewed by researchers Fred Newcomb and Perry Adams and told them, as reported in their unpublished 1974 manuscript Murder from Within, that he observed the limousine stop for “just a moment.” Officer James M. Chaney was the inside rider at the right rear of the limousine. He did not testify before the Warren Commission, but two days after the assassination he was quoted in the Houston Chronicle as stating that the limousine stopped immediately after the first shot. Furthermore, Dallas police officer Marrion L. Baker, a Dallas police motorcyclist who was on Houston Street when the first shot was fired, testified to the Warren Commission that shortly after the assassination he had talked with officer Chaney and that Chaney told him that “from the time the shot rang out, the [limousine] stopped completely, pulled to the left, and stopped.” Officer Baker added: “Several officers said it stopped completely.” When then asked whether he had heard from other Dallas police officers that the limousine had stopped, he testified: “Yes, sir; that it had completely stopped, and then for a moment there, and then they rushed on out to Parkland [Hospital].” Officer Douglas Jackson was the outside rider at the right rear of the limousine. He did not testify before the Warren Commission, but he did tell researchers Newcomb and Adams that “the [limousine] just all but stopped… just a moment.”..." Donald E. Wilkes, Jr. is a Professor of Law Emeritus at the University of Georgia School of Law, where he taught for 40 years. He has published nearly 50 articles in Flagpole magazine on the JFK assassination. Wilkes, Donald E. Jr., "Grassy Knoll Shots? Limousine Slowdown?" (2017). Popular Media. 279. https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/fac_pm/279 https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1284&context=fac_pm ___________ Aaron Sharpe wrote: Doug Horne has revised his opinion on the authenticity of the back-of-the-head autopsy photos and now acknowledges Dr. David Mantik's stereoscopic testing results, which suggest photographic forgery. See following joint interview of Dr. Mantik and Doug Horne for more details: ___________ DOUGLAS HORNE ANNOUNCED THAT HE AGREES WITH DR. DAVID MANTIK’S CONCLUSIONS ABOUT DOCTORED AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHS DURING JOINT INTERVIEW OF HIMSELF AND DR. MANTIK BY BRENT HOLLAND ON DECEMBER 9, 2016 (SEE FOLLOWING TRANSCRIPT OF 46:19 - 49:51 OF INTERVIEW AND NOTE THAT VIDEO IS QUEUED TO RELEVANT PORTION AT 46:19 [ https://youtu.be/Y7Vr0ne96yg?t=2779 ]): Others adhering to the hypothesis about the concealment of JFK's head wound in the back of the head autopsy photographs being accomplished by manipulation of the scalp have changed their minds and concluded instead that the photographs are fraudulent. Dr. David Mantik's stereoscopic testing of the original autopsy photographs at the National Archives on nine separate occasions, which found that there is a soft matte insertion over the occipital-parietal wound in these photos, is a strong indication that the back of the head autopsy photographs have been altered. Doug Horne is among those who have changed their minds as the result of Dr. Mantik's testing. When the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses were first shown the bootleg autopsy photographs, they reacted in shock, and disavowed them. By the time of the 1988 NOVA PBS-TV program ["Who Shot President Kennedy?" https://youtu.be/SL9orid231c ], some of the Parkland doctors who had had some time to find ways to rationalize away the discrepancy between their eye-witness observation and the autopsy photographs, they did exactly that for PBS/Nova, opining that JFK's skull had been manipulated in such a way as to create the false appearance that the back of JFK's head was intact. Dr. David Mantik described it as follows: "...Some have argued that the Parkland physicians have authenticated this photograph, and that we should therefore accept its authenticity. However, what they said was more like this: If the scalp had been stretched in this fashion, then they could not take issue with that photograph. Absent such a peculiar maneuver, however, they were dubious. Their doubt was further accentuated in a very recent documentary: “The Parkland Doctors” [10]. Seven Parkland physicians met to discuss their recollections. They were profoundly troubled by autopsy images of the posterior scalp. To describe these images, they readily used words like “manipulated” and “altered.”..." https://escires.com/articles/Health-1-126.pdf Doug Horne had reached the same conclusion during his tenure with the ARRB. In his book "Inside the ARRB" as well as in his Press Statement of May 15, 2006, Doug Horne expressed doubt about claims that the back of the head autopsy photographs of JFK have been altered to conceal the large avulsive occipital-parietal wound in the back of JFK's head, speculating instead that JFK's scalp had been manipulated in the photos to conceal the back of the head wound. Ten years later after Dr. David Mantik had conducted stereoscopic analysis on the original autopsy photographs at the National Archives on nine separate occasions, and thereby detected that there is a soft matte insert placed over the occipital-parietal wound in the original autopsy photos of the back of JFK's head, Doug Horne announced that he had changed his opinion, and now accepts the evidence that the original autopsy photos of the back of JFK's head are in fact altered. Doug Horne announced his change of opinion during a joint appearance with Dr. David Mantik on Brent Holland's "Night Fright" podcast. The transcript of the relevant dialogue is below, and the video has been queued for you in advance via the following link: ---------------------------------------------- DOUGLAS HORNE ANNOUNCED THAT HE AGREES WITH DR. DAVID MANTIK’S CONCLUSIONS ABOUT DOCTORED AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHS DURING JOINT INTERVIEW OF HIMSELF AND DR. MANTIK BY BRENT HOLLAND ON DECEMBER 9, 2016 (SEE FOLLOWING TRANSCRIPT OF 46:19 - 49:51 OF INTERVIEW AND NOTE THAT VIDEO IS QUEUED TO RELEVANT PORTION AT 46:19 [ https://youtu.be/Y7Vr0ne96yg?t=2779 ]): …BRENT HOLLAND: “…How did they cover up those photos David? How did they, you know, because there is a photo that I use all the time?... Dr. McClelland has made a hand sketch of the back of JFK’s head and he shows approximately where the hole in the back of JFK’s head is, which is the lower right quadrant folks, and there is an autopsy photo that is supposed to be the back of JFK’s head that shows it fully intact. Your speculation on that David? DAVID MANTIK: Well I took along a stereo viewer to the archives to look at these images. The reason I did that is because if that particular area was faked in to cover up a hole, and it was faked in the same way on two partner images, then I would not see a 3-d effect, and that’s exactly what I saw. Robert Groden -- who is much more of a photographic expert than I am – and I have had discussions about that and he tells me exactly the same thing. BRENT HOLLAND: Is that right? Robert Groden show’s in the archive as well folks. Okay, what’s your speculation Doug? DOUGLAS HORNE: Well I now agree with Dr. Mantik. At the time I wrote my book – it was 2009 – I leaned toward the likelihood that the back of the head photos showed intact scalp because a lot of the scalp might have been dramatically re-arranged, ya know, carefully cut away from the cranium, and re-arranged, and just held in place for three minutes while they took pictures to try to prove there was no hole in the back of the head. But I respect what Dr. Mantik did with his stereoscopic viewer, and the problem is that the Review Board didn’t think to do that. And unfortunately, I think Jeremy Gunn and I were in the mode of trusting the HSCA. The HSCA wrote that its photographic consultant panel viewed the autopsy photographs stereoscopically and didn’t notice any problems. DAVID MANTIK: I discussed this particular issue with Robert Groden who was there. He made it very clear to me that Robert Blakey had no idea what stereoscopic viewing was all about… BRENT HOLLAND: Really?! DOUGLAS HORNE: Wow! DAVID MANTIK: …He was totally ignorant about it…. DOUGLAS HORNE: Wow! DAVID MANTIK: …And Robert’s observations totally agreed with mine… BRENT HOLLAND: So there you have corroboration. DAVID MANTIK: …They just, they just made it up. They had to. What else could they do. If they said something else the game would be up. This was a critical juncture to them. They had, they had to make a choice. DOUGLAS HORNE: The whole game of the HSCA was to blame Oswald for all of the wounds. And, uh, they had to admit there had been a frontal shot because the acoustic science forced them into saying that. But they still wanted to have their cake and to eat it too, and so they said Oswald still killed the president and wounded the governor, and that no one else did, and that the shot from the front missed. Robert Blakey is responsible for all that. Him and Michael Baden…” ___________ Dr. David Mantik wrote: ⁠ "...While at the National Archives, I performed stereo viewing of the autopsy photographs [8]. This is possible because each view is represented by two separate photographs, taken close together in time and space. Such a pair is what makes stereo viewing possible. I performed this procedure for the original generation of photographs (4” x 5” transparencies), for the color prints, and also for the black and white copies. I did this for many of the distinct views in the collection. But the bottom line is this: the only abnormal site was the back of the head—it always yielded a 2D image, as if each eye had viewed precisely the same image. Of course, that would have been expected if someone (illicitly in a dark room) had inserted the same image into that anatomic site for each member of the photographic pair. I discussed this issue with Robert Groden, who served as the photographic consultant for the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) during 1976-1979. He concurred with my observations, i.e., only the back of the head looked abnormal during his stereo viewing for the HSCA. ⁠ Although the large posterior hole is often cited as evidence for a frontal shot, a second issue, perhaps equally as important, should not be overlooked: the severe discrepancy between the photographs and the witnesses—all by itself— strongly suggests manipulation of this photograph. In other words, whoever altered this photograph likely recognized that the large posterior defect loudly proclaimed a frontal shot, so much so in fact, that it became critical to cover that hole. ⁠ Pathologist J. Boswell (many decades later) speculated that the scalp had merely been stretched so as to cover the hole. In fact, to have done so, and to have succeeded so seamlessly, would have defeated the sole purpose of the photographs, which presumably was to capture reality. If ever a photograph existed of this large defect, then that one has disappeared. ⁠ Some witnesses do recall seeing such a photograph immediately after the autopsy, and we know (from the autopsy photographer himself) that other autopsy photographs have disappeared. Furthermore, we know from Boswell’s sketch on a skull model, that the bone under this apparently intact scalp was in fact missing [9]. So which is more decisive: missing scalp—or missing bone? Some have argued that the Parkland physicians have authenticated this photograph, and that we should therefore accept its authenticity. However, what they said was more like this: If the scalp had been stretched in this fashion, then they could not take issue with that photograph. Absent such a peculiar maneuver, however, they were dubious. Their doubt was further accentuated in a very recent documentary: “The Parkland Doctors” [10]. ⁠ Seven Parkland physicians met to discuss their recollections. They were profoundly troubled by autopsy images of the posterior scalp. To describe these images, they readily used words like “manipulated” and “altered.”..." ⁠ 'JFK Assassination Paradoxes: A Primer for Beginners' Journal of Health Science & Education | David W. Mantik, MD https://escires.com/articles/Health-1-126.pdf⁠ Mantik DW (2018) JFK Assassination Paradoxes: A Primer for Beginners. J Health Sci Educ 2: 126. ___________ Aaron Sharpe wrote: Exactly, and particularly the twenty-two Parkland Hospital witnesses, as Dr. Gary Aguilar demonstrated, as follows: ___________ ------------------------------------------------ This is a link to Dr. Gary Aguilar's compilation of the earliest testimony of the Parkland AND Bethesda witnesses -- http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm -- and the following chart is in part based upon the the witness accounts outlined in the article by Dr. Gary Aguilar: -------------------------------------------------- DR. GARY AGUILAR'S APPENDIX - TABLES AND FIGURES: https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_tabfig.htm ___________ Aaron Sharpe wrote: I believe we are extremely fortunate that Doug Horne was present at the ARRB and during his tenure there managed to uncover crucial evidence regarding the medical issues and suspected tampering of the Zapruder film. Horne's discoveries concerning NPIC and Hawkeyeworks, in addition to the details he made public after Dino Brugioni came to his attention in 2009, offer a fundamental understanding of the covert process through which the Zapruder film was intercepted and modified by the government. This information was never intended to be disclosed, and we are truly lucky that it came to the surface. Despite making efforts to obtain further details, Horne's requests were rejected by the CIA on the basis that the subject matter pertained to a CIA operation, as Horne elaborates below. ___________ "...“Hawkeyeworks” Explained: After the Homer McMahon interview was released in 1998, JFK researchers loyal to the concept of an authentic Zapruder film that is “ground truth” in the Kennedy assassination downplayed the importance of the “Hawkeyeworks” story, either doubting its existence because there was no documentary proof, or alternately saying that the “Hawkeyeworks” lab was solely dedicated to U-2 and Corona satellite photography. But these critics were wrong on both counts. First, Dino Brugioni, during his 2009 and 2011 interviews with Peter Janney and me, not only confirmed the existence of the state-of-the-art Kodak lab in Rochester used by the CIA for various classified purposes, but confirmed that he visited the place more than once, including once prior to the JFK assassination. (He also confirmed its existence in his recent book, Eyes in the Sky, on page 364.) Second, Dino Brugioni made clear to me, when I interviewed him in July of 2011, that the “Hawkeye Plant” (as he called it) was an enormous state-of-the-art private sector laboratory founded and run by Kodak, which performed far more tasks than “just” Corona satellite and U-2 “special order” film services. He said that the Hawkeye Plant was involved in developing new film products and in manufacturing and testing special film products of all kinds, including new motion picture films, and that it definitely had the capability to process motion pictures. He did not see such equipment himself, but was told by Ed Green, a high-ranking Kodak manager at “Hawkeyeworks” with whom he had a relationship of trust, that the “Hawkeye Plant” could, and did, definitely process motion pictures. When repeatedly questioned about this capability by Peter Janney throughout the 2009 interviews, Brugioni said with great reverence, on several occasions, “They could do anything.”[21] The CIA refused to provide me with any information about “Hawkeyeworks” when the Agency finally responded to my September 12, 2009 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on February 7, 2011. But that was hardly surprising, since over one year earlier, on January 27, 2010, the CIA wrote to me, cautioning: “The CIA Information Act, 50 U.S.C. Section 431, as amended, exempts CIA operational files from the search, review, publication, and disclosure requirements of the FOIA.” What this meant, in rather blunt language, was that if the CIA was running an “op,” such as the alteration of the Zapruder film immediately after JFK’s assassination, then they didn’t have to search for those records or tell me about it, in any way. So the failure by the CIA to answer any of my many questions about “Hawkeyeworks” means literally—nothing. The plain facts are these: (1) the 8 mm (already slit!) camera-original Zapruder film was delivered to NPIC late on Saturday evening, 11/23/63, and the two Secret Service officials who brought it to NPIC for the making of briefing boards left with the film at about 3 AM Sunday morning; and (2) a 16 mm, unslit version of the Zapruder film was returned to NPIC the next night, after dark, on Sunday evening, 11/24/63; and its courier (“Bill Smith”) said it had been processed at “Hawkeyeworks,” and that he had brought it directly to NPIC in Washington, D.C. from Rochester (using the unmistakable code word “Hawkeyeworks”) himself. “Double 8” home movies which have already been slit at the processing facility do not miraculously “reassemble” themselves from two 25-foot strips 8 mm in width, and connected with a splice in the middle, into 16 mm wide unslit double 8 films. A new Zapruder film was clearly created at “Hawkeyeworks” in Rochester, in an optical printer. Bill Smith told the truth when he said the film he carried had been developed there at “Hawkeyeworks;” he lied when he said that it was the camera-original film taken by the photographer in Dallas. If “Hawkeyeworks” truly had the physical capability “to do anything,” as Ed Green informed Dino Brugioni, then all that would have been required that weekend would have been to bring in some experienced personnel—an animator or two, and a visual effects director—experienced in the “black arts” of Hollywood. Those personnel, if not already on-site, employed at “Hawkeyeworks,” could have been brought into Rochester on Saturday, November 23rd, the same day the JFK autopsy photographs were being developed in Washington, D.C. at Naval Photographic Center, Anacostia. The JFK autopsy photos developed on Saturday (per Robert Knudsen’s 1978 HSCA deposition transcript) would have provided the guide for the image alteration necessary on the Zapruder film the next day, on Sunday. The JFK autopsy photos document the massive head wound created by clandestine, post mortem surgery on JFK’s head wounds at Bethesda Naval Hospital, and would have provided a rough guide for the massive head wound in the top and right side of the skull that had to be painted onto selected Zapruder film frames the next day, on Sunday. No such parietal-temporal-frontal wound was seen at Parkland Hospital in Dallas by any of the treatment staff the day Kennedy was shot and treated there, but it had to be added to selected Zapruder film frames, to match the illicit post mortem cranial surgery at Bethesda that was being misrepresented in the autopsy photos as “damage from the assassin’s bullet.”[22] In addition to painting on a false wound, of course, the forgers at “Hawkeyeworks” would have had to obscure—black out—the real exit wound, in the right rear of JFK’s head, that was seen in Trauma Room One at Parkland Hospital. (More on this below.)..." http://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/ ___________ The following is the premier article on the alteration of the Zapruder film by Doug Horne, former Chief Analyst for the Assassination Records Review Board, and author of the five volume "Inside the Assassination Records Review Board." It is well worth the read! --------------------------------------------------------- 'THE TWO NPIC ZAPRUDER FILM EVENTS: SIGNPOSTS POINTING TO THE FILMS ALTERATION' by Douglas P. Horne https://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/

What specifically violates forum rules, Mr. Doudna? Please give me a quote or quotes of what I wrote that violates forum rules, and precisely which rule it violates. It's not like I accused Pat Speer or you of being a "stalker," or anything like that, now is it? Pat Speer is a big boy, and can respond to any comments I directed to him all by himself, don't you think? Oh, that's right. I didn't direct any comments to Pat Speer. And I didn't direct any insulting or offensive comments to you either, did I? Now who is the one trying to censor who, Mr. Doudna?

The following is a Facebook post made by Matt Douthit who indicated that David Lifton was his mentor. Matt can be contacted on Facebook via the following link: https://www.facebook.com/matt.douthit.1 https://www.facebook.com/groups/387164721481044/posts/2322006114663552/

Former Bethesda Autopsy Technician James Jenkins: "...JENKINS: "...Now the strange thing about it was at the top of this wound here there was an INCISION in the scalp [Jenkins points to parietal area above occiput on skull model] that went approximately to the coronal suture here [Jenkins demonstrates on skull model]. It went a little past here [Jenkins demonstrates on skull model]. QUESTION: An incision... JENKINS: An incision. QUESTION: ...that you saw? JENKINS: Right, it was actually see... QUESTION: Why would there be an incision? JENKINS: That's a good question. The scalp had, you know, remember all of this area in this portion is fractured [Jenkins points to parietal area on the right side of skull model], okay, to the sagittal suture, which is this suture [Jenkins demonstrates on skull model]. All of this area was fractured now, but it wasn't gone, it was still being kept intact by the scalp. The scalp had rips and tears in it. Along this area [Jenkins points to parietal area on the right side of skull model], it seemed like some of those tears in the scalp had been surgically connected. The little connections to follow fracture line in here [Jenkins demonstrates on skull model]. And that extended to about here [Jenkins points to parietal area on top of skull model]. Okay, you know, that was the same. When Dr. Humes took the wrappings off of the head, there was a secondary wrapping on it that I think, you know, I think was the towel, but the scalp and the whole thing, this was all matted hair, and missing scalp, torn scalp, fatty tissue from beneath the scalp... QUESTION: Which is all normal? JENKINS: Yea, which is all normal. Okay, it had kind of stuck to that secondary layer. So as he was taking it off this area kinda gaped open, but as soon as we separated it from the towel it went back together. Now that is significant for, the fact is you could actually, if you wanted to do that, you could actually lay this skull open. You could actually take your hands and seperate it. So that would have given you access to the brain. QUESTION: Which means? JENKINS: Which... Again, speculation, is that, fact is that you would have had access, you would have had access to the brain before we received it in the morgue..." [See James Jenkins answer at the following link which has been cued up for you https://youtu.be/2U7dXPA_juM?t=1823 ]

You may as well have written: Keven, may I ask what is it you are after with respect to [the flat earthers]? Is it simply about wanting [them] to clean up some wording about [the earth being flat], a style reform? Or do you wish to shut down his arguments from having a place on the table in this forum and in wider discussion? It is generally really no concern to me what the flat earthers do with their arguments, and I suffer from no illusions about my ability to influence their views. What I really care about is the marketplace of ideas, and the availability of sound and valid information about those ideas for those assessing the merits of competing ideas and the supporting evidence for those ideas. Jeffersonian Democratic Theory, influenced by the ideals of the enlightenment, on which it was intended that the American system of governance should be based, held that full knowledge leads to right action, and that without full knowledge, right action is impossible. Propaganda and sophistry are incompatible with right action, and with an effective presentation of valid and sound evidence, the full knowledge necessary to discredit propaganda and sophistry may be acquired, thus allowing that right action may prevail over the darkness of inequity and injustice. Therefore, in my view, and the views of many others, flat earthers and the enablers of political assassinations (and associated obstruction of justice) are incompatible with a free and equitable society, and conscientious citizens should consider it a duty to vigorously oppose their influence upon the marketplace of ideas. You may as well have written: As I understand it the heated controversies over the [question of whether the earth is flat or not due to] apparent conflicts in data and different attempts to resolve and interpret those. Personally, I don't concern myself so much with ideas that can be feasibly argued one way or the other, my concern is with facts and the evidence that supports those facts. I have found that flat earthers and enablers of political assassinations (and associated obstruction of justice) by necessity must misrepresent and distort the supporting evidence for the unsound and invalid beliefs that they advocate, and consistent with my belief that all conscientious citizens have an ethical duty to challenge and refute such distortions and misrepresentations, I conduct myself accordingly. You may as well have written: As I understand it Pat's present position is not that [the earth is as flat as a pancake]. But that [it is flat with mountainous terrain and valleys that make for the illusion that the earth is a sphere] when in fact [the earth is generally flat only with peaks and valleys that the governments of the world are misrepresenting as being spherical]. As set forth above, I am not concerned about the existence of the baseless and irrational arguments of the flat earthers and enablers of political assassinations. What matters to me is the accessibility of competing reliable facts and evidence in the marketplace of ideas. It is important to me to fulfill my duty to vigorously oppose their impact upon others who do not suffer from the same pathology, or delusions, or whatever it may be, of those who seek to lead them away from trustworthy knowledge. My standard for distinguishing truth from falsehoods is based on whether I could convince a jury of my peers of the facts in question, and I operate as if those engaging in the marketplace of ideas are part of that jury of my peers. You may as well have written: That was [the testimony of Greek philosopher Pythagoras, who lived in the 6th century BC, that the earth is a flat, disk-like shape]. Do you seek to make it illegitimate for anyone on this forum to argue in favor of some form of [the explanations of Pythagorus and more contemporary flat-earthers that the earth is flat]? Yes? No? No, I do not aim to make it "illegitimate" for the flat earthers, enablers of political assassinations, or other varieties of irrational persons to advocate their beliefs. I am confident that the majority of participants in the marketplace of ideas have the capacity to assess and evaluate the credibility and weight of competing evidence, and to arrive at sound and valid conclusions. You may as well have written: I realize you do not accept that explanation and you give your reasons and have your views, I understand that. Virtually everyone understands at this point that that there are [huge discrepancies in the evidence that the earth is flat, such as sunrises, sunsets, eclipses and footage of a spherical earth allegedly made by satellites and the like], all of which is disputed and argued. Yes, you are, it appears to me, describing the marketplace of ideas, and the manner in which fraudulent and invalid evidence is discredited within that framework. You may as well have written: The question is whether you are trying to make illegitimate any place for discussion and/or argument in favor of e.g. [the flat earthers own explanations that the earth is flat]. No, as set forth above, I am not attempting "to make [it] illegitimate" for flat earthers, enablers of political assassinations, or other varieties of irrational persons to advocate their beliefs. I am fully confident that the majority of participants in the marketplace of ideas have the capacity to assess and evaluate the credibility and weight of competing evidence, and to arrive at sound and valid conclusions. You may as well have written: Are you trying to shut down [the flat earthers]? No, I am not "trying to shut down" flat earthers, enablers of political assassinations, or other varieties of irrational persons. I am fully confident that the majority of participants in the marketplace of ideas have the capacity to assess and evaluate the credibility and weight of competing evidence, and to arrive at sound and valid conclusions. What matters to me is the accessibility of competing reliable facts and evidence in the marketplace of ideas. It is important to me to fulfill my duty to vigorously oppose their impact upon others who do not suffer from the same pathology, or delusions, or whatever it may be, of those who seek to lead them away from trustworthy knowledge. You may as well have written: This is looking like a vendetta, of trying to shut down [the flat earthers and their] arguments. If that is not correct could you clarify? No, there is a distinction between holding a "vendetta" and "trying to shut down" flat earthers, enablers of political assassinations, or other varieties of irrational persons, and being committed to discrediting their baseless and unsound ideas and supporting evidence in the marketplace of ideas. You may as well have written: Do you seriously believe [the flat earthers are] being knowingly wilfully evil and dishonest? (That notion is truly absurd.) As opposed to simply (in your view) wrong and bullheaded? In my experience, it is exceedingly difficult to ascertain the actual motives and intentions of flat earthers, enablers of political assassinations, and other varieties of irrational persons. I strongly suspect that there are often pathological, or concealed/covert operational explanations for what you describe below as "bullheadedness." When covert operational activities are involved, and they often are when the subject matter involves questions like the flat earth and the true culprits and accessories of political assassinations, I would characterize that as indeed being "willfully evil and dishonest." In such cases, the operatives are unlikely to ever reveal the details of their assignments. Yes, I am indeed familiar with cases in which scholars have become deeply entrenched in their published work and are dedicated to protecting their territory. What you are describing is associated with the phenomenon referred to as "paradigm shifts" by Professor Thomas Kuhn in his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962). However, I would like to differentiate that from situations involving flat earthers, enablers of political assassinations, and other irrational individuals. It does happen, as evidenced by the example of Professor Cass Sunstein, who authored the book Conspiracy Theories in 2008 and was subsequently appointed by President Obama as his propaganda czar, providing intelligence agencies with a blueprint for conducting counterintelligence operations against researchers working to expose the crimes of those intelligence agencies. However, when conspiracy researchers -- of the type I label as "honest brokers" -- later confronted Sunstein about his counterintelligence activities, Sunstein attempted to deny and distance himself from such operations in an attempt to preserve his integrity as an academic. In my view, flat earthers, enablers of political assassinations, and other irrational individuals are seldom professionals with credentials. While there are indeed many credentialed professionals who are covert intelligence assets, these professionals are generally too concerned about safeguarding their credentials and reputations to engage in high-profile intelligence activities such as internet counterintelligence operations. On the contrary, flat earthers, enablers of political assassinations, and other irrational individuals are more frequently individuals involved in counterintelligence activities due to a lack of professional credentials and esteemed academic positions, attempting to compensate for these inadequacies. You may as well have written: All I can say is if your wish is to see [the flat earther's] work silenced, and you were to succeed in that, it would be a loss, and many more good minds than just [those of the flat earthers] would be lost to this forum. And if that is not your purpose I hope you would clarify that. I completely disagree with your assessment of the value of the distortions and propaganda of the flat earthers, enablers of political assassinations, and other irrational individuals, but I would fiercely defend and uphold your right to hold and express that opinion, even though I strongly oppose it.

My posts are intended for people who have worked hard to acquire an understanding of the assassination. With your obsession with JFKA material that appeals to the lamestream, you are obviously not one of these people. Your "hints" are obviously what made you what you are, and are of absolutely no interest to me. I take the intellectual endeavor seriously, and you do not. Case closed.

And here is some back-of-the-head wound information for you of a substantially more credible nature.... Autopsy photograph authenticity apologists such as David Von Pein and Pat Speer cannot and will not even attempt to contend with evidence that the photographs have been altered. To demonstrate this I am offering the following from Dr. Gary Aguilar, Dr. Cyril Wecht and Rex Bradford. It is one of the better recitations of the existing evidence against authenticity that I am aware of (which I have supplemented with some supporting exhibits). It is an excerpt of a Letter to the Editor rebutting an article* giving the standard mainstream line of nonsense and government lies about the medical evidence in the Kennedy assassination. Both the article and the Letter to the Editor appeared in the medical journal "Neurosurgery" in 2004. *Levy, M. L., Sullivan, D., Faccio, R., Grossman, R. G., Goodrich, J. T., Kelly, P. J., Laws, E. R., & Sturdivan, L. (2004). A neuroforensic analysis of the wounds of President John F. Kennedy: Part 2 - A study of the available evidence, eyewitness correlations, analysis, and conclusions. Neurosurgery, 54(6), 1298-1312. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15157287/ The link to the Letter to the Editor I have excerpted from below: https://websites.umich.edu/~ahaq/correspondence.pdf What I'd be interested in seeing from Mr. Speer and Mr. Von Pein -- as well as any other autopsy photograph authenticity apologists who wish to apply -- is a response that provides answers to the following questions which Doctor Aguilar, Dr. Wecht and Mr. Bradford demonstrated in their Letter to the Editor are the fundamental questions that all apologists who wish to be regarded as intellectually honest must answer (accordingly, I predict that there will be no answers from any apologists that are on point, because the apologists are simply not intellectually honest in any way): What is the explanation as to why coauthor Robert Grossman, and the two FBI agents who were present during the autopsy, rejected the JFK autopsy photographs, if they are authentic? The failure of the photographs to pass a test designed to link them to the autopsy camera is deeply troubling, and just is troubling is that the HSCA lied about this in its Final Report, claiming instead that the Department of Defense could not locate the camera when HSCA documents declassified in the 1990's indicate that the HSCA had received the camera but could not verify that the camera had taken the photographs. Why should we not therefore conclude that the HSCA failed to authenticate the autopsy photographs, why did the HSCA publish such falsehoods about the autopsy camera, and why should all Americans therefore not regard this as calling into question the authenticity and integrity of the autopsy photographs? Given the testimony from the autopsy team regarding autopsy photographs having been taken that are no longer in the extant collection today, how are we to regard the autopsy photographs as authentic when the chain of custody of the photographs has been so fundamentally broken? The consistent misinterpretation of Kennedy's injuries by numerous witnesses at both Parkland and the Bethesda morgue, in claiming a rearward skull wound that is absent in the photographs, is a matter of grave concern. What is a plausible explanation for this glaring inconsistency, particularly considering that the purpose of autopsy photographs is to clarify the nature of the wounds rather than further obscure them? The absence of any witness describing what is visible in the photographs raises doubts about the veracity of the images. How do you account for this discrepancy, and what credible explanation do you have to offer for why no witness corroborates the details depicted in the photographs? What plausible explanation do you have to offer for the conflicts between the witness testimony and the autopsy photographs of the brain, and why should we not entertain the possibility that the brain that was photographed was a substitute brain? "...As we will show, Dr. Humes and several of Dr. Levy’s primary sources adjusted their memories to fit the government’s preferred “lone nut” conclusion. Unfortunately, Dr. Levy nowhere explores this, even in his discussion of the all-important autopsy photographs. Instead, the photos win his endorsement on grounds the HSCA had authenticated them. He sidesteps how incompatible they are with Dr. Gross-man’s description, as well as the fact that Dr. Grossman flatly told the ARRB they didn’t show what he saw. Nor does he explore new evidence uncovered by the ARRB that shows that both government investigators and the autopsy team mishandled this evidence. But before the ARRB knocked the struts out from under them, JFK’s autopsy photographs had offered solid support for the government’s position in the case. Besides the HSCA’s claim it had authenticated them, the autopsy pictures got an additional boost from four members of the autopsy team: Drs. Humes and Boswell, the attending radiologist, Dr. John H. Ebersole and John Stringer, the autopsy photographer. After being allowed to see the grisly stills for the first time in 1966, the four men signed an affidavit [prepared by the U.S. Justice Depart-ment (3, 6), 3. Aguilar G, Cunningham K: How Five Investigations into JFK’s Medical/Autopsy Evidence Got It Wrong (Part II). On-line at: http://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_2.htm. Accessed10/29/04. 6. Aguilar GL,Wecht C. The medical case for conspiracy, in Crenshaw C (ed): Trauma Room One. New York, Paraview Press, 2001, pp 216–217. under whose authority its Bureau, the FBI, had determined there had been no conspiracy] attesting to the fact that the file of JFK’s autopsy photos was complete: “The X-rays and photographs described and listed above include all the X-rays and photographs taken by us during the autopsy, and we have no reason to believe that any other photographs or X-rays were made during the autopsy” (3, 7, 91). 3. Aguilar G, Cunningham K: How Five Investigations into JFK’s Medical/Autopsy Evidence Got It Wrong (Part II). On-line at: http://history-matters.com/essays/ jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_2.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. 7. ARRB Medical Document # 13. On-line at: http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md13/html/Image10.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. 91. Weisberg H: Postmortem: JFK Assassination Cover-up Smashed. Frederick, Harold Weisberg, 1975, p 573 But, in another example of oscillation, members of the team also testified, both before and after signing the dubious document, that photographs they had taken during the autopsy are missing. For example, three years before signing off that the file of autopsy photographs was complete, Dr. Humes had sworn to the Warren Commission that he had taken at least three images that aren’t in the file: two or more images of JFK’s skull and one or more of the interior of his chest. “This [skull]wound then had the characteristics of [a] wound of entrance from this direction through the two tables of the skull, ”Humes testified, “and, incidentally, photographs illustrating this [‘coning’ or ‘beveling’] phenomenon [that show the bullet’s direction] from both the external surface of the skull and from the internal surface were prepared” (86). 86. Warren Commission testimony of Dr. James H. Humes. Warren Commission Hearings, 2H352. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0180b.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. The complete inventory of autopsy photographs housed at the National Archives and examined by authors Wecht and Aguilar through special permission has no such images, nor have any such images ever been described in any official tally of the inventory. A simple oversight? One might be tempted to accept that explanation for the missing photos if the necessity of taking such photos were not so obvious and if Dr. Humes’ recollection had not been independently corroborated by his teammates. One of them was Dr. Pierre Finck, a forensics expert from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, someone who would not have been insensitive to the forensic and legal importance of documenting the fatal wound for the expected trial of the then-living Oswald. He was firm that the photos in the inventory do not include the cranial images he shot. During his formerly suppressed HSCA testimony (unearthed by the ARRB), Dr. Finck read from notes he had apparently written sometime closer to the time of the autopsy. “I help[ed] the Navy photographer to take photographs of the occipital wound (external and internal aspects) [sic]” (48). 48. HSCA interview with Dr. Pierre Finck. HSCA record # 180-10081–10347; agency file # 006165, p 6. On-line at: http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md28/html/Image05.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. As with Dr. Humes, his obvious intent was to capture the tell tale inward beveling at the point of in-shoot on JFK’s cranium, a feature familiar to anyone who has ever shot a BB or a pellet through a pane of glass. Dr. Finck expanded on these notes under oath before the HSCA in 1977. HSCA Counsel: “We have here a black-and-white blowup of that same spot [on the rear of JFK’s scalp]. You previously mentioned that your attempt here was to photograph the . . . crater, I think was the word that you used.” Dr. Finck: “In the bone, not in the scalp, because to determine the direction of the projectile the bone is a very good source of information so I emphasize the photographs of the crater seen from the inside the skull. What you are showing me is soft tissue wound [sic] in the scalp.” A few moments later, the following exchange occurred: Dallas Chief Medical Examiner Charles S. Petty, MD: “If I understand you correctly, Dr. Finck, you wanted particularly to have a photograph made of the external aspect of the skull from the back to show that there was no cratering to the outside of the skull.” Dr. Finck: “Absolutely.” Dr. Petty: “Did you ever see such a photograph?” Dr. Finck: “I don’t think so and I brought with me memorandum referring to the examination of photographs in 1967. . .and as I can recall I never saw pictures of the outer aspect of the wound of entry in the back of the head and inner aspect in the skull in order to show a crater, although I was there asking [the photographer to take] these photographs. I don’t remember seeing those photographs.” Dr. Petty: “All right. Let me ask you one other question. In order to expose that area where the wound was present in the bone, did you have to or did someone have to dissect the scalp off of the bone in order to show this?” Dr. Finck: “Yes. . . the scalp had to be separated from it in order to show in the back of the head the wound in the bone.” (49) 49. HSCA interview with Dr. Pierre Finck, pp 89–90. Agency File 013617. On-line at: http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md30/html/Image21.htm to http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md30/html/Image22.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. There are no photographs of JFK’s skull with the scalp reflected. But both JFK autopsy photographers backed up Drs. Finck and Humes. In 1997, Bethesda’s chief autopsy photographer, John Stringer was asked, “Did you take any photographs of the head after scalp had been pulled down or reflected?” Mr. Stringer answered, “Yes” (12). 12. ARRB deposition of John T. Stringer, July 17, 1996, p 71. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Stringer_7-16-96/html/Stringer_0008b.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. Assistant medical photographer, Floyd Riebe, was asked, “Do you recall whether any pictures were taken from angles very close to the inside of the cranium?” “Yes,” Mr. Riebe replied, “I think Mr. Stringer did that when the body was on its side” (13). 13. ARRB deposition of Mr. Floyd Albert Riebe, May 12, 1997, p 39. On-line at: http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Riebe_5-7-97/html/Riebe_0005a.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. In 1964, Dr. Humes had also testified that, besides the cranial images, “Kodachrome photographs were made of this area in [the apical portion of] the interior of the president’s chest” (81). 81. Warren Commission testimony of Dr. James H. Humes, in Warren Commission Hearings, 2H363. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0186a.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. Despite signing off on the completeness of the photo file in 1966, Dr. Humes told the HSCA the same thing in 1978 that he had told the Warren Commission in 1964. In a suppressed memo regarding a private interview, the HSCA reported that Dr. Humes, “specifically recall[ed] that Kodachrome photographs were taken of the president’s chest” (50). 50. HSCA interview with James H. Humes. HSCA record #180-10081–10347; agency file #006165, p 6. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md19/html/Image06.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. In open testimony Dr. Humes told the HSCA, “I distinctly recall going to great lengths trying to get the interior upper portion of the right thorax illuminated. . .and what happened to that film I don’t know” (46). 46. HSCA testimony of James H. Humes, HSCA, vol 7:253. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0132a.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. Eighteen years later, Dr. Humes told the ARRB much the same thing: “We took one [picture] of the interior of the right side of the thorax. . .and I never saw it. It never—whether it was underexposed or over-exposed or what happened to it, I don’t know” (14). 14. ARRB testimony of James H. Humes, February 13, 1999, p 97. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Humes_2-13-96/html/Humes_0050a.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. Dr. Humes’s fellow signatories independently recalled things the same way. The HSCA reported that Dr. Boswell had said that, “he thought they had photographed ‘the exposed thoracic cavity and lung,’ but doesn’t remember ever seeing those photographs” (59). 59. HSCA interview with Dr. J. Thornton Boswell, p 6, A. Purdy memo. HSCA rec.#180-10093–10430. Agency file # 002071, p 6. ARRB Medical Document # 26. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md26/html/Image05.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. In 1996, Dr. Boswell was asked, “Are there any other photographs that you remember having been taken during the time of the autopsy that you don’t see here?” “The only one that I have a faint memory of was the anterior of the right thorax,” Dr. Boswell replied. “I don’t see it, and haven’t [sic] when we tried to find it on previous occasions, because that was very important because it did show the extra pleural blood clot and was very important to our positioning that wound” (15). 15. ARRB testimony of J. Thornton Boswell, MD, February 26, 1996, p 178. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Boswell_2-26-96/html/Boswell_0089b.htm to http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Boswell_2-26-96/html/Boswell_0090a.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. Similarly, John Stringer told both the HSCA and the ARRB that chest photographs were missing. The HSCA reported that, “Stringer remembers taking at least two exposures of the body cavity” (51). 51. HSCA interview with autopsy photographer, Mr. John Stringer. A. Purdy memo. HSCA rec. # 180-10093–10429. Agency file # 002070, p 12. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md19/html/Image11.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. He testified to the ARRB that “There were some views that we—that were taken that were missing . . . I remember [photographing] some things inside the body that weren’t there [in the file]” (16). 16. ARRB deposition of John T. Stringer, July 16, 1996, p 133. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Stringer_7-16-96/html/Stringer_0014a.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. As with the photos of JFK’s cranial wound, the importance of photographs of the apex of his chest should be emphasized. Besides the clinical value of such images, the autopsy team would not have been blind to the legal importance of documenting the bruise at the apex of JFK’s evacuated chest cavity for both the medical record and expected upcoming trial. Whereas the significance of an incomplete photographic record of JFK’s autopsy should not be understated, two related points bear emphasis. First, the contradictions between their attestation to the completeness of the file of photos in 1966 and their repeated testimonies before and after that date that images are missing does not speak well for the reliability of Dr. Levy’s primary sources. Second, it shows, yet again, that Dr. Levy has overlooked important new evidence. Dr. Levy, however, does not ignore JFK’s autopsy photographs entirely. He endorses them, using “evidence” that suggests he may be unfamiliar with yet another, recent official discovery. Dr. Levy wrote, “The HSCA verified that the postmortem photographs and x-rays in the custody of the National Archives [which show the backside of JFK’s head was undamaged] were authentic. Authentication of the autopsy photographs was essential because of the discrepant descriptions given of the wounds by eyewitnesses at Parkland Memorial Hospital, the doctors present at the autopsy, the Warren Report, and the Clark Panel” (65). 65. Levy ML, Sullivan D, Faccio R, Grossman RG: A neuroforensic analysis of the wounds of President John F. Kennedy: Part 2—A study of the available evidence, eyewitness correlations, analysis, and conclusions. Neurosurgery 54:1298–1312,2004. Indeed, the HSCA said it had authenticated the photographs (43). 43. HSCA vol 7:87. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0049a.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. The images support Dr. Levy’s view the discrepant Dallas doctors were wrong about the gaping hole in the back of JFK’s skull thought by some to be an exit wound. But by the same token, the crystal clear photos also apparently prove that Dr. Grossman was wrong when he described a one inch-wide entrance wound in the middle of JFK’s occipital bone. Dr. Levy seems not to appreciate his and his coauthor’s predicament. He also seems to be unaware of what the ARRB discovered about the HSCA’s process of authentication. The story begins in an inconspicuous footnote that qualified the HSCA’s public claim that from “microscopic” and “stereoscopic” examinations of the photos its experts had confidently concluded that the images were authentic (52, 53). 52. HSCA vol 6:225–226. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0116a.htm to http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0116b.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. 53. HSCA report by Frank Scott entitled, “Report on Autopsy Color Photographs Authenticity.” HSCA vol 7:69–71. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/ jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0040a.htm to http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0041a.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. The footnote only offered the minor caution that the HSCA had encountered a negligible glitch during authentication. It wrote: Because the Department of Defense was unable to locate the camera and lens that were used to take these [autopsy] photographs, the [photographic] panel was unable to engage in an analysis similar to the one undertaken with the Oswald backyard pictures that was designed to determine whether a particular camera in issue had been used to take the photographs that were the subject of inquiry. (54) 54. HSCA vol 6:226, footnote # 1. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0116b.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. Regarding that very sentence, ARRB investigator, Mr. Douglas Horne, wrote, “By late 1997, enough related documents had been located and assembled by the authors to bring into serious doubt the accuracy of the HSCA’s conclusion that ‘the Department of Defense was unable to locate the camera and lens’. . .” (22). 22. ARRB memorandum for file by Mr. Doug Horne entitled, “Unanswered Questions Raised by the HSCA’s Analysis and Conclusions Regarding the Camera Identified by the Navy and the department of Defense as the Camera Used at President Kennedy’s Autopsy,” pp 2–24. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/ jfk/arrb/staff_memos/DH_HscaCamera/html/dh_hscaCamera_0001b.htm. to http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/staff_memos/DH_HscaCamera/html/dh_hscaCamera_0012b.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. Mr. Horne reported that the Navy had sent the HSCA a fact sheet that “strongly reiterates the Navy’s position that the camera provided to the HSCA was indeed the camera used at the autopsy on President Kennedy.” The proof was a suppressed letter to the HSCA from the Assistant Secretary of Defense indicating that the Department of Defense had indeed located, and had in fact already sent to the HSCA, “the only [camera] in use at the National Naval Medical Center in 1963” (22). 22. ARRB memorandum for file by Mr. Doug Horne entitled, “Unanswered Questions Raised by the HSCA’s Analysis and Conclusions Regarding the Camera Identified by the Navy and the department of Defense as the Camera Used at President Kennedy’s Autopsy,” pp 2–24. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/ jfk/arrb/staff_memos/DH_HscaCamera/html/dh_hscaCamera_0001b.htm. to http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/staff_memos/DH_HscaCamera/html/dh_hscaCamera_0012b.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. However the HSCA wasn’t satisfied with the camera the Defense Department had fetched. In a letter asking the Secretary of Defense to look around for another one, HSCA chief counsel, Robert Blakey, explained the problem: [O]ur photographic experts have determined that this camera, or at least the particular lens and shutter attached to it, could not have been used to take [JFK’s]autopsy pictures. (22) 22. ARRB memorandum for file by Mr. Doug Horne entitled, “Unanswered Questions Raised by the HSCA’s Analysis and Conclusions Regarding the Camera Identified by the Navy and the department of Defense as the Camera Used at President Kennedy’s Autopsy,” pp 2–24. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/ jfk/arrb/staff_memos/DH_HscaCamera/html/dh_hscaCamera_0001b.htm. to http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/staff_memos/DH_HscaCamera/html/dh_hscaCamera_0012b.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. Whereas the HSCA reported it could not completely close the loop because the camera was missing, the suppressed record suggests that 1) the loop was closed, 2) the camera was located, and 3) that the HSCA’s own experts determined the camera “could not have been used to take [JFK’s] autopsy pictures.” The HSCA staff elected to withhold this inconvenient information from the public. They also kept it from their own experts on the FPP, including the chairman, Dr. Micheal Baden (personal communication), and one of the authors of this essay [CHW]. And so, as Dr. Levy makes clear, the FPP experts were left to labor under the illusion that the images had passed authentication with flying colors. THE ARRB ON THE DISAPPEARANCE OF THE JFK AUTOPSY CAMERA DURING THE HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS INVESTIGATION: "...4. By late 1997, enough related documents had been located and assembled by the author to bring into serious doubt the accuracy of the HSCA's conclusion (see paragraph 2 above) that "...the Department of Defense was unable to locate the camera and lens...used to take...[the autopsy] photographs." If the HSCA was incorrect in its conclusion that the camera it examined was not the autopsy camera, the implications for what may have happened on November 22-23, 1963 are considerable. In paragraph 5 below, a timeline has been constructed of HSCA activities in the autopsy camera area, referencing appropriate documents assembled by the author, that will explain why a reasonable student of the assassination might conclude that the HSCA reached the wrong conclusion regarding the autopsy camera. [Appropriate documents are attached to this memo as enclosures.] Implications of the HSCA's possibly incorrect analysis of the situation are explored in paragraph 6 below...." "...7. Looking at this problem from another viewpoint, the HSCA report writers (presumably Blakey, Cornwell and Billings) might just as well have said, after receiving John Kester's letter of April 20, 1978, "Because the Navy did provide the camera used at the autopsy, through DOD, for our examination--and our experts have concluded it could not have been used to take the autopsy pictures--the Committee therefore concludes that the official autopsy photographs in the collection at the National Archives were taken by someone other than John Stringer, and that John Stringer's photographs were removed from the collection prior to April 26, 1965." But instead of openly pointing out, in its written report, the possibility of either conclusion being correct, the HSCA apparently assumed the photographs were Stringer's without question, and therefore concluded that the Navy and DOD must have provided the wrong camera to the Committee, in spite of the strong assurances of the Department of Defense that the Graphic View Camera provided for examination in 1978 was the only one used at Bethesda in November, 1963. Perhaps worst of all, the document that would have cast doubt on the seeming certainty of the HSCA's conclusion regarding the camera, the John Kester letter of April 20, I978, was apparently sealed for 50 years by someone on the HSCA staff. In light of the HSCA's deposition of Robert L. Knudsen in August. 1978, in which he indicated with great certainty that he had developed color negatives (vice color positive transparencies) from the autopsy, and a film pack of black-and-white negatives (vice black-and-white negatives from a duplex film holder), and the Committee staff's subsequent decision not to publish or even mention his testimony in its final report, and to seal it for 50 years, one cannot wonder whether some important, high-ranking members of the HSCA staff had a strong disposition against accepting, at face value, indications that there may have been chain-of-custody or authenticity problems with key photographic evidence in the Kennedy assassination, and a predilection in favor of benign explanations for apparent discrepancies in the photographic evidence...." https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=43609#relPageId=1 Dr. Levy thus offers readers outdated and misleading government assurances while ignoring recent government discoveries that undermine those assurances. In doing so, he both boosts the government’s case for a single gunman at the same time he impugns Dallas doctors who described a rearward cranial wound, including, ironically, his co-author Dr. Grossman. The pristine backside of JFK’s scalp is crystal clear in the images except for a tiny wound or spot of blood at the top of JFK’s cranium overlying the right posterior parietal bone. Dr. Grossman has consistently maintained that the higher wound in the photos is not the larger occipital wound he saw. So the images seem to prove that all the Dallas doctors who described rearward cranial damage were wrong. But also proven wrong, as we will show, are many of the autopsy witnesses who agreed with them. The images thus put Dr. Grossman in much the same position as his Dallas associates, and in the same position as the FBI agents who witnessed JFK’s autopsy, Francis O’Neill and James Sibert. For, like Dr. Grossman, Special Agents O’Neill and Sibert told the ARRB there was a rearward cranial wound where none appears in the images: ARRB Counsel Gunn: “I’d like to ask you whether that photograph resembles what you saw from the back of the head at the time of the autopsy?” (Fig. C4) Special Agent Francis O’Neill: “This looks like it’s been doctored in some way (25) 25. ARRB testimony of FBI agent Francis X. O’Neill, 9/12/97, p 158. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Oneill_9-12-97/html/ONeill_0015a.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. . . .I specifically do not recall those—I mean, being that clean or that fixed up. To me, it looks like these pictures have been. . . It would appear to me that there was a—more of a massive wound. . .” (26) 26. ARRB testimony of FBI agent Francis X. O’Neill, 9/12/97, pp 161–162. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Oneill_9-12-97/html/ONeill_0015a.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. Mr. Gunn also asked the other FBI witness who was present, Special Agent James Sibert, a similar question: Counsel Gunn: “Mr. Sibert, does that photograph correspond to your recollection of the back of President Kennedy’s head?" Special Agent James Sibert: “Well, I don’t have a recollection of it being that intact. . . I don’t remember seeing anything that was like this photo. . . I don’t recall anything like this at all during the autopsy. There was much—well, the wound was more pronounced. And it looks like it could have been reconstructed or something, as compared with what my recollection was. . .” ( 28) 28. ARRB testimony of FBI agent James W. Sibert, 9/11/97, p 128. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Sibert_9-11-97/html/Sibert_12b.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. Ironically, in an ARRB interview not mentioned by Dr. Levy, his coauthor Dr. Grossman reacted in almost exactly the same way. The ARRB reported: When shown the Ida Dox drawing of the back of the head autopsy image [Fig. C4], Dr. Grossman immediately opined, “that’s completely incorrect” . . .The entry wound he saw was larger than the small entry wound depicted in the Ida Dox drawing, and lower on the head, well down in the occipital region, near the external occipital protruberance. In fact, Dr. Grossman’s opinion was that the entrance wound he observed on the rear of the skull had passed through the tentorium and the right cerebellum, and he remembered seeing what he believed to be cerebellar tissue through this punched out wound which he interpreted to be one of entrance. (17) 17. ARRB memorandum, February 11, 1998. Directed to: Jeremy Gunn and Tom Samoluk. From: Doug Horne. Subject: Wrapping Up ARRB Efforts to “Clarify the Record” Re: The Medical Evidence in the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, p 11. As Dr. Levy points out, Dr. Grossman now bows to the photographs and concedes that he must have been wrong about cerebellum; that, in other words, evidence from the photographic record of the autopsy, which has problems he was unaware of, trumps his own memory and those of his Dallas colleagues. Thus, perhaps Dr. Levy regards dissecting the conflicts between Dallas and the autopsy photos as less helpful in understanding the true nature of JFK’s injuries than in determining whom to trust—the Dallas witnesses or the witnesses in the morgue. Given the clear advantages of those who witnessed the prolonged post mortem, it is not unreasonable to credit the Bethesda accounts over the discrepant doctors of Dallas. Moreover, the HSCA reported that the autopsy witnesses had uniformly endorsed Kennedy’s autopsy photos, and so all the more reason to reject Parkland. Or so it was once believed. But, as with the “complete” file of autopsy photographs and the HSCA’s authentication claims, records to which Dr. Levy makes no allusion have proven the converse. In referring to the compilation of witness statements that one of the authors prepared (Aguilar), Dr. Levy seems to believe that the autopsy photographs rebut Dallas witnesses regarding JFK’s head wounds and prove those at Bethesda. That is not the case. Nor is that really even the controversy. Infact, both Dallas and Bethesda were in virtually complete agreement that Kennedy had a gaping rearward wound that involved his occiput. Thus, the real controversy is that the images apparently disprove both Bethesda and the Dallas doctors while also disproving Dr. Grossman’s claims. But Dr. Levy’s confusion may be the result of his greater familiarity with the “old” official evidence rather than the “new” official evidence. In 1979 the HSCA did not mince words in resolving the apparent Bethesda/Dallas conflict. It wrote: “Critics of the Warren Commission’s medical evidence findings have found [sic] on the observations recorded by the Parkland Hospital doctors. They believe it is unlikely that trained medical personnel could be so consistently in error regarding the nature of [JFK’s cranial] wound, even though their recollections were not based on careful examinations of the wounds. . .” (55). 55. HSCA vol 7:37. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0024a.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. However, it continued, “In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland doctors are the 26 people present at the autopsy. All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wounds as depicted in the photographs; none had differing accounts . . . it appears more probable that the observations of the Parkland doctors are incorrect” (56). 56. HSCA vol 7:37–39. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0025a.htm to http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0025a.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. This was a devastating rebuke to skeptics who had cited the Dallas doctors in arguing for a different wound, a different bullet trajectory, and perhaps even a different assassin than Oswald. But the proof—the autopsy witnesses’ interviews—was entirely and unjustifiably suppressed. Had it not been for the ARRB’s interest in this area, these interviews might have remained state secrets until 2028, the mandatory declassification date. A surprise lay in wait when they were prematurely unsealed in the mid-1990s. While more than twenty Parkland witnesses said that at least part of JFK’s cranial defect was rearward, it turns out that, despite the HSCA’s claim to the contrary, just as many autopsy witnesses reported the same thing, whether in the suppressed HSCA interviews or in public Warren Commission documents and interviews (4). 4. Aguilar G, Cunningham K: How Five Investigations into JFK’s Medical/Autopsy Evidence Got It Wrong (Part V). On-line at: http://history-matters.com/essays/ jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_5.htm. Accessed10/29/04. For example, after interviewing the commanding officer of the military district of Washington, D.C., Philip C. Wehle, the HSCA’s suppressed record says that, “[Wehle] noted that the wound was in the back of the head so he would not see it because the President was lying face up . . . ” (57). 57. HSCA record #10010042, agency file #002086, p 2. (Autopsy images show a gaping wound on the right side of Kennedy’s head in front of his right ear, where it should have been easy to see with JFK lying face up.) A Ph.D. candidate in pathology in 1963, James C. Jenkins, worked as a lab technologist in JFK’s morgue. The HSCA said that Mr. Jenkins reported, “he saw a head wound in the ‘. . . middle temporal region back to the occipital’” (58). 58. HSCA interview with Mr. James Curtis Jenkins, 8-29-77. JFK Collection, RG 233, Document #002193, p 4. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md65/html/md65_0004a.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. The HSCA also said that another lab technologist, Jan Gail Rudnicki, had reported that the “back-right quadrant of the head was missing” (60). 60. HSCA record #180-10105–10397, agency file number #014461, p 2. Several of the autopsy witnesses, including two FBI agents, prepared diagrams for the HSCA that depicted a cranial defect involving JFK’s occiput (4) (Figs. C5 and C6). These inconvenient diagrams, their accompanying interviews and similar statements by other autopsy witnesses were all suppressed. And the discrepancy with Dallas? Compare these morgue accounts with that of Parkland’s Robert McClelland, M.D. “The right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted,” he told the Warren Commission, “the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half” (84). 84. Warren Commission testimony of Dr. Robert McClelland, in: Hearings, 6H33.On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0022a.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. Or Charles J. Carrico, M.D., who told the Warren Commission that JFK’s cranial defect was “in the posterior skull, the occipital region” (85). 85. Warren Commission testimony of Dr. Charles Carrico, in: Hearings, 3H361. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0185a.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. Virtually all the Dallas doctors and nurses offered similar descriptions. In Dr. Levy’s article, his coauthor dealt with this by dismissing his Parkland colleagues on grounds of imprecision. “Many doctors,” Dr. Grossman explained, “loosely use the term [occipital] to refer to the ‘back fifth of the head’” (65). 65. Levy ML, Sullivan D, Faccio R, Grossman RG: A neuroforensic analysis of the wounds of President John F. Kennedy: Part 2—A study of the available evidence,eyewitness correlations, analysis, and conclusions. Neurosurgery 54:1298–1312,2004. It is difficult to understand how even non-neurosurgeons would have referred to the gaping wound the photos show in front of JFK’s ear as “occipital,” as in, the “back fifth of the head.” But what of perhaps the best witness in Dallas—Parkland’s chairman of neurosurgery, Kemp Clark, M.D., the senior treating physician at Parkland, the man who signed JFK’s death certificate, and Dr. Grossman’s superior on the day of the assassination? The ARRB asked Dr. Grossman about Dr. Clark in 1997. “Repeatedly during the interview,” the ARRB reported, “Dr. Grossman suggested that we interview Dr. Kemp Clark, and said that he felt Dr. Clark’s observations would be more accurate than his, since Dr. Clark had much more experience at that time than he with gunshot wounds to the head and neurosurgery in general” (18). 18. ARRB interview of Dr. Robert Grossman, 3/21/97. ARRB Medical Document #185, p 2. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md185/html/md185_0002a.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. Unacknowledged in Dr. Levy’s report, which accurately reflects Dr. Clark’s descriptions of JFK’s cranial injuries in official documents, is the fact that Dr. Grossman’s superior was just as “loose” with the term “occiput” as were the discrepant Dallas doctors he dismissed. For example, on the day of the assassination, Dr. Clark wrote, “There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region” (87). 87. Warren Commission Exhibit #392, hand-written notes of Kemp Clark dated 11/22/63, in: 17H9–10. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0018a.htm to http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0018b.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. Under oath before the Warren Commission, Dr. Clark further explained that, “This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed” (88). 88. Warren Commission testimony of Kemp Clark, MD, in: Hearings, 6H20. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0015b.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. Whose description are we to accept? There is abundant scientific support for the common sense notion that descriptions given immediately after an event are more likely to be accurate than accounts given years later (37, 67–70). 37. Buckhout R: Eyewitness testimony. Sci Am Dec 1974, pp 23–31.There is even evidence that the human mind is capable of creating false memories (67). 67. Loftus EF: Creating false memories. Sci Am Sept 1997, pp 71–75. 68. Loftus EF: Eyewitness Testimony. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1996. 69. Loftus EF, Doyle JM: Factors determining retention and retrieval of events, in: Eyewitness Testimony: Civil and Criminal. Charlottesville, The Michie Co., 1992, pp 53–83. 70. Marshall J, Marquis KH, Oskamp S: Effects of kind of question and atmosphere of interrogation on accuracy and completeness of testimony. Harvard Law Rev 84:1620–1643, 1971. Given that Dr. Clark recorded his impressions immediately and testified under oath close to the time of the events, whereas Dr. Grossman waited 18 years to give his account to a newspaper reporter, and given that even Dr. Grossman has said that Dr. Clark’s then-greater experience with such wounds confers greater authority to his account, one would have hoped Dr. Levy would have offered better reasons than he has to accept Dr. Grossman’s description and reject the near identical descriptions of Dr. Clark and his Parkland colleagues (Fig. C7). And if Dr. Levy is going to continue to regard JFK’s autopsy photographs as unassailable, he might usefully offer a sensible explanation for 1) why his coauthor and two FBI agents apparently rejected them, 2) why the photos failed a test designed to link them to the autopsy camera, 3) why the autopsy team testified that some images have vanished, 4) why myriad witnesses at both Parkland and the morgue made the same mistake in claiming that Kennedy had a gaping rearward skull wound that is remarkable by its absence in the pictures, and 5) why not a single witness described what is visible in the photographs. Unfortunately, the contradictions in the autopsy evidence do not end here. For while the photographs of Kennedy’s brain seem to be a reasonable match for its measured weight and autopsy description, the images are contradicted by several witness reports from both Parkland and Bethesda, as well as by evidence from the scene of the shooting. Dr. Levy used Dr. John Lattimer’s claim that 70% of JFK’s right cerebral hemisphere was missing as a springboard to succinctly dispatch another important, photography-related controversy: “We should note that some authors have used the term ‘missing’ when referring to the brain which has led to extreme theories of the nature of the injuries,” he wrote. However, he added, the “drawing by Ida Dox (sic) demonstrates a bullet track in the right hemisphere extending from the occipital lobe forward, but the brain was not missing.” There the discussion ended with the reader left to assume that the Dox sketch was accurate and that Dr. Lattimer was not. Unfortunately, Dr. Levy shortchanged his readers by printing the wrong diagram—the HSCA’s depiction of a blasted human skull, not the Ida Dox drawing of an autopsy photograph of JFK’s brain—and by not mentioning the ARRB’s contributions to the controversies involving JFK’s brain, controversies that again pit the autopsy findings and photographs against credible witnesses. But Dr. Lattimer’s estimate was probably based on more than just this HSCA diagram, which faithfully renders photos that show a disruption of JFK’s right cerebrum with little actual loss of mass (Fig. C8). He may have based it on the reports of several key witnesses. In the Journal of the American Medical Association, for example, Dr. Humes reported that, “two thirds of the right cerebrum had been blown away” (35). 35. Breo 😧 JFK’s death: The plain truth from the MDs who did the autopsy. JAMA267:2797-2798, 1992. ARRB Medical Document #22. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md22/html/Image06.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. Dr. Boswell testified that one-half of the right cerebrum was missing (19). 19. ARRB testimony J. Thornton Boswell, College Park, Maryland, 2/26/96. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md241/html/md241_0001a.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. When shown the photographs of JFK’s brain at autopsy, FBI Agent O’Neill told the ARRB in 1997, “The only section of the brain which is missing is this small section over here. To me, that’s not consistent with the way I recall seeing it.” Mr. O’Neill amplified, saying that when JFK’s brain was removed, “more than half of the brain was missing” (24). 24. ARRB testimony of FBI Special Agent Francis O’Neill, pp 116–117. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Oneill_9-12-97/html/ONeill_0011b.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. (See also: Washington Post, 11/10/98, p. A-3.) The assistant autopsy photographer, Mr. Floyd Riebe, recalled things much the same way. When asked by ARRB counsel, “Did you see the brain removed from President Kennedy?” Riebe answered, “What little bit there was left, yes. . . Well, it was less than half of a brain there” (29). 29. ARRB deposition of autopsy photographer, Mr. Floyd Albert Riebe, 5/7/97, pp 43–44. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Riebe_5-7-97/html/Riebe_0005a.htm to http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Riebe_5-7-97/html/Riebe_0005b.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. Finally, the chief of anesthesia at Parkland Hospital, Marion Thomas Jenkins, M.D., reported that Jackie Kennedy had handed him “a large chunk of her husband’s brain tissues” (36) during the resus-citation effort. The Zapruder film shows such a massive jettisoning of tissue from Kennedy’s head that something like what these witnesses reported seems likely to be true. Hence, the brain photographs contradict the prosectors, other credible witnesses, and the Zapruder film. FBI Special Agent Francis O’Neill, who observed the autopsy, rejected the images commenting, quite rightly: “This looks almost like a complete brain” (27). 27. ARRB testimony of FBI Special Agent Francis O’Neill, 9/12/97, p 165. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Oneill_9-12-97/html/ONeill_0015b.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. (See also: Washington Post, 11/10/98, p. A-3.) In rejecting the images, O’Neill was joined by the photographer of record, John Stringer. Stringer claimed that he took images of sections of the brain, which are missing, and that the images in the current file were not taken with the type of camera or type of film he used at that time (20). 20. ARRB testimony of John Stringer, July 16, 1996, pp 216–222. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Stringer_7-16-96/html/Stringer_0021a.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. If Dr. Levy is right to accept the pictures and the brain weight, then what is exploding from JFK’s skull when his head erupts in the Zapruder film? What ejecta caused the “jet effect” that Dr. Levy proposes may have propelled JFK’s head rearward? Officially, virtually nothing, it seems. As intractable as this conflict might seem, an intriguing possible solution was first publicized in a Washington Post article. The November 10, 1998, news headline read: “Archive photos not of JFK’s brain, concludes aide to review board; staff member contends two different specimens were examined” (23). 23. ARRB memorandum for file by Mr. Doug Horne entitled “Questions Regarding Supplementary Brain Examination(s) (sic) Following the Autopsy on President John F. Kennedy,” 8/28/96. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/staff_memos/DH_BrainExams/html/d130_0002a.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. (See also: Washington Post, 11/10/98, p A-3.) The Washington Post report was the first public acknowledgment of an ARRB memo advancing the so-called “two brain” hypothesis of former naval officer and review board staffer, Douglas Horne. After carefully comparing accounts of the appearance of JFK’s brain on the night of the autopsy against photographs disavowed by the photographer which contradicted these accounts, and after comparing incompatible accounts of the timing of the brain examination given by the prosectors and lab personnel, Mr. Horne concluded that two different brains were examined on two different days (22). 22. ARRB memorandum for file by Mr. Doug Horne entitled, “Unanswered Questions Raised by the HSCA’s Analysis and Conclusions Regarding the Camera Identified by the Navy and the department of Defense as the Camera Used at President Kennedy’s Autopsy,” pp 2–24. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/ jfk/arrb/staff_memos/DH_HscaCamera/html/dh_hscaCamera_0001b.htm. to http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/staff_memos/DH_HscaCamera/html/dh_hscaCamera_0012b.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. If Horne is right, the HSCA diagram likely depicts the second brain that was examined, the one that weighed 1500 grams. But this is not the brain that we see exploding in the Zapruder film, not the one missing the “large chunk” Mrs. Kennedy handed Dr. Jenkins. Nor is it the one that Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell, Agent O’Neill, or the photographer, Reibe, said was missing so much mass. In fact, no witness has ever described seeing a JFK brain that looks like the one in the autopsy photographs. Dr. Levy may have his reasons for rejecting Horne’s hypothesis. But because he sets such stock by official sources and analyses, one wishes he had at least acknowledged this intriguing government report, or the coverage of it in the Washington Post, if only for the purpose of refuting it...." ____________ ARRB STAFF MEMO | BY DOUG HORNE | 6/2/1998 'Questions Regarding Supplementary Brain Examination(s) Following the Autopsy on President John F. Kennedy' https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/staff_memos/DH_BrainExams/html/d130_0001a.htm DOUG HORNE, PRESS STATEMENT (15th May 2006) https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKhomeD.htm "...Two Brain Examinations My most remarkable finding while on the Review Board staff, and a totally unexpected one, was that instead of one supplemental brain examination being conducted following the conclusion of President Kennedy’s autopsy, as was expected, two different examinations were conducted, about a week apart from each other. A thorough timeline analysis of available documents, and of the testimony of autopsy witnesses taken by the ARRB, revealed that the remains of President Kennedy’s badly damaged brain were examined on Monday morning, November 25, 1963 prior to the state funeral, and that shortly thereafter the brain was turned over to RADM Burkley, Military Physician to the President; a second brain examination, of a fraudulent specimen, was conducted sometime between November 29th and December 2nd, 1963—and it is the photographs from this second examination that are in the National Archives today. Pertinent Facts Regarding the Two Examinations are as follows: First Brain Exam, Monday, November 25th, 1963 Attendees: Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell, and Navy civilian photographer John Stringer. Events: John Stringer testified to the ARRB that he used both Ektachrome E3 color positive transparency film, and B & W Portrait Pan negative film; both were 4 by 5 inch format films exposed using duplex film holders; he only shot superior views of the intact specimen—no inferior views; the pathologists sectioned the brain, as is normal for death by gunshot wound, with transverse or “coronal” incisions—sometimes called “bread loaf” incisions—in order to trace the track of the bullet or bullets; and after each section of tissue was cut from the brain, Stringer photographed that section on a light box to show the damage. Second Brain Exam, Between November 29th and December 2nd, 1963 Attendees: Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell, Dr. Finck, and an unknown Navy photographer. Events: Per the testimony of all 3 pathologists, the brain was not sectioned, as should have been normal procedure for any gunshot wound to the head—that is, transverse or coronal sections were not made. The brain looked different than it did at the autopsy on November 22nd, and Dr. Finck wrote about this in a report to his military superior on February 1, 1965. The color slides of the brain specimen in the National Archives were exposed on “Ansco” film, not Ektachrome E3 film; and the B & W negatives are also on “Ansco” film, and originated in a film pack (or magazine), not duplex holders. The brain photos in the Archives show both superior and inferior views, contrary to what John Stringer remembers shooting, and there are no photographs of sections among the Archives brain photographs, which is inconsistent with Stringer’s sworn testimony about what he photographed. Further indications that the brain photographs in the Archives are not President Kennedy’s brain are as follows: Two ARRB medical witnesses, former FBI agent Frank O’Neill and Gawler’s funeral home mortician Tom Robinson, both recalled vividly that the major area of tissue missing from President Kennedy’s brain was in the rear of the brain. The brain photos in the Archives do not show any tissue missing in the rear of the brain, only in the top. When former FBI agent Frank O’Neill viewed the Archives brain photographs during his deposition, he said that the photos he was viewing could not be President Kennedy’s brain because when he viewed the removed brain at the autopsy, the damage was so great that more than half of it was gone—missing. He described the brain photos in the Archives as depicting a ‘virtually intact’ brain. Finally, the weight of the brain recorded in the supplemental autopsy report was 1500 grams, which exceeds the average weight of a normal, undamaged male brain. This is entirely inconsistent with a brain which was over half missing when observed at autopsy. Conclusions The conduct of a second brain examination on a fraudulent specimen, and the introduction of photographs of that specimen into the official record, was designed to do two things: (1) eliminate evidence of a fatal shot from the front, which was evident on the brain removed at autopsy and examined on Monday, November 25th, 1963; and (2) place into the record photographs of a brain with damage generally consistent with having been shot from above and behind. Until I discovered that the photographs in the Archives could not be of President Kennedy’s brain, the brain photos had been used by 3 separate investigative bodies—the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller Commission, and the House Select Committee on Assassinations—to support the Warren Commission’s findings that President Kennedy was shot from above and behind, and to discount the expert observations from Parkland hospital in Dallas that President Kennedy had an exit wound in the back of his head. In my opinion, the brain photographs in the National Archives, along with Dr. Mantik’s Optical Densitometry analysis of the head x-rays, are two irrefutable examples of fraud in this case, and call into question the official conclusions of all prior investigations. [For those who wish detailed verification of this hypothesis, the 32-page research paper on this subject that I completed in 1998 will be made available at the end of this press conference.]..." https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKhomeD.htm

In your own roundabout way, you are describing the principle of charity as applied to formal and informal debate, but that is not the way you have actually conducted yourself toward others -- such as Dr. McClelland and Dr. Mantik -- now is it? You have taken a systematic scorched earth warfare approach toward them and others, impugning their work, their qualifications and who they are as human beings. I've even had a taste of that in the form of your "stalker" allegations in return for exposing your fabrications about Jerrol Custer's ARRB testimony. Yet you expect charity in return?

The role that John Hunt played in Dr. Mantik's findings about the Harper Fragment is that Hunt unearthed X-Rays of the Harper Fragment at the National Archives which he supplied to Dr. Mantik, and which played a fundamental role in Mantik moving the Harper Fragment from his previous placement of it to the middle of the occiput. The other cast of characters, Randy Robertson, Joe Riley, Lawrence Angel, Pat Speer and others didn't have access to those X-Rays, and therefore didn't include them in their analyses.

You are deflecting. Where is your good long list of all the "experts" who agree with you and disagree with Dr. Mantik's findings? ___________ You evidently haven't noticed, but I have been defending a number of people who you have unjustly libeled and maligned. And I'm sure a number of people on this forum have seen you make this claim that "the vast majority of "experts"" agree with your views about the Harper Fragment, F-8, autopsy photo and X-ray alteration, etc. Okay, name these professionals, Mr. Speer. Give me a good long list. Once upon a time when you pulled this particular stunt on Milicent Cranor, the following is how she responded: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22534-david-mantik-responds-to-pat-speer/?do=findComment&comment=321679 "Not one forensic radiologist has come forward to REBUT Mantik's findings either. Now why is that? Rebuttal of conspiracy theorists -- whether valid or not -- is always encouraged, even rewarded, by the establishment. As most of us know, the opposite is true of those who support it. I know of three diagnostic radiologists who find much of Mantik's work persuasive - but they would never go public on such a touchy subject. By "touchy subject" I mean the alteration of X-rays. This is far more threatening to the Bad Guys than research disproving the Lone Nut Theory. Consider the purpose of the Lone Nut scenario: surely it is to deflect attention away from the real culprits. This deflection is now being accomplished by seemingly credible alternate scenarios that embrace conspiracy - but none likely to lead back to those responsible." Milicent Cranor Echoes here of a "limited hangout"...

You evidently haven't noticed, but I have been defending a number of people who you have unjustly libeled and maligned. And I'm sure a number of people on this forum have seen you make this claim that "the vast majority of "experts"" agree with your views about the Harper Fragment, F-8, autopsy photo and X-ray alteration, etc. Okay, name these professionals, Mr. Speer. Give me a good long list. Once upon a time when you pulled this particular stunt on Milicent Cranor, the following is how she responded: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22534-david-mantik-responds-to-pat-speer/?do=findComment&comment=321679 "Not one forensic radiologist has come forward to REBUT Mantik's findings either. Now why is that? Rebuttal of conspiracy theorists -- whether valid or not -- is always encouraged, even rewarded, by the establishment. As most of us know, the opposite is true of those who support it. I know of three diagnostic radiologists who find much of Mantik's work persuasive - but they would never go public on such a touchy subject. By "touchy subject" I mean the alteration of X-rays. This is far more threatening to the Bad Guys than research disproving the Lone Nut Theory. Consider the purpose of the Lone Nut scenario: surely it is to deflect attention away from the real culprits. This deflection is now being accomplished by seemingly credible alternate scenarios that embrace conspiracy - but none likely to lead back to those responsible." Milicent Cranor Echoes here of a "limited hangout"...

Unbelievable... What we are seeing here is Mr. Speer responding to being called out for disseminating disinformation by disseminating more disinformation. Speer has been schooled on his malevolent assaults on the reputation of Dr. Robert McClelland by myself and many others over the span of a decade, and yet he just disseminates the same libelous and unconscionable attacks as if he just launched those attacks yesterday. The following is from me and Sandy Larsen's recent attempt to bring to Speer's attention a few basic well-known facts about his libelous claims about Dr. McClelland: ___________ About ten years ago, Dr. Gary Aguilar schooled Mr. Speer on the circumstances that led to Dr. Robert McClelland mistakenly reporting that President Kennedy had died as the result of a gunshot wound "of" the left temple, and Sandy Larsen just a week or so ago more succinctly and very effectively schooled him again by presenting the following in a post as exhibits: ___________ Exhibit 2 It was getting late in the evening, Dallas time, but before I ended the interview. I reminded Dr. McClelland of the fact that in his Parkland Hospital admission note at 4:45 p.m. on the day of the assassination, he had written that the president died "from a gunshot wound of the left temple." "Yes," he said, "that was a mistake. I never saw any wound to the president's left temple. Dr. Jenkins had told me there was a wound there, though he later denied telling me this. (Vincent Bugliosi, "Reclaiming History." p. 406) Exhibit 3 "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) ___________ Sandy has recently written the following summary of the circumstances that led to Dr. McClelland's "left temple" mistake, and the aftermath which has resulted in much confusion: ___________ When Dr. McClelland arrived at the operating room, Dr. Marion Jenkins and several other doctors were already attending to President Kennedy. Dr. McClelland asked Dr. Jenkins where Kennedy's wounds were. Jenkins pointed to what he thought was a small entrance wound on the left temple. Later, McClelland got a good view of the gaping wound on the back of Kennedy's head. (According to his testimony before the Warren Commission.) So McClelland thought there were two wounds. Some time later, Dr. Jenkins changed his mind about there being a small wound on the left temple, and he denied ever thinking so to Gerald Posner. And in fact, he blamed McClelland for ever thinking there was a wound there. Jenkins told Posner that he had been busy operating a breathing bag with his right hand and checking for a pulse on Kennedy's left temple, with a finger on his other hand. According to Jenkins, McClelland mistakenly thought that he was pointing to a small wound on the left temple. McClelland never understood why Jenkins denied showing him where the left-temple wound was. Had he (or if he) ever read Case Closed, he would have seen why. He would have seen that Jenkins was a bald-face l.i.a.r. ___________ Mr. Speer raises all kinds of issues about Dr. McClelland's first day Admission Note, claiming that McClelland omitted mention of the large avulsive back of the head wound with extruded macerated cerebellar tissue, that McClelland's phrasing in the Note that President Kennedy died "from a gunshot wound [OF] the left temple" means that Dr. McClelland was aware of only one large wound that McClelland mistakenly placed at the left rather than the right temple (as Speer essentially alleges about all of the back-of-the-head wound witnesses), and that McClelland's lack of specificity about the back-of-the-head wound constituted medical malpractice, and ultimately means that McClelland didn't see the large avulsive back-of-the-head wound at all. In post after post Speer rails on about how if we all read medical journals like he claims he does, that we would know that the use of the word "of" instead of "to" the left temple automatically means that McClelland was referring to one wound only. What Mr. Speer either doesn't know or won't tell you is that during the time period that McClelland attended medical school, it was very common in the medical profession to describe bullet wounds by use of the word "of," as in a bullet wound "of" the brain. See a 1942 article via the following link for an example of the use of the word "of" in the medical phraseology of the era: 'GUNSHOT WOUNDS OF THE BRAINREPORT OF TWO UNUSUAL COMPLICATIONS; BIFRONTAL PNEUMOCEPHALUS AND LOOSE BULLET IN THE LATERAL VENTRICLE': https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/article-abstract/545730 Contrary to Speer's claim, Dr. McClelland's first day Admittance Note (See below) clearly notes that there were two wounds, "a massive gunshot wound of the head," AND "a gunshot wound of the left temple." We know this because none of the doctors who filed Admittance Notes along with Dr. McClelland's reported frontal wounds of the left or the right temple, much less a large frontal wound. Instead, their Admittance Notes contain terms like "back of the head,""occipital," "posterior," and "cerebellum" to describe the large head wound. Thus, McClelland's reference to a "massive" gunshot wound to the head necessarily denotes the large back-of-the-head wound reported by the other doctors, and the none of them reported the left temple wound that McClelland mistakenly reported (See COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 392: APPENDIX VIII - MEDICAL REPORTS FROM DOCTORS AT PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, DALLAS, TEXAS: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/jfkinfo/app8.htm As for Speer's allegation that McClelland's lack of specificity about the back-of-the-head wound constituted medical malpractice, inspection of the Admittance Notes of the other doctors reveals that they too, in varying ways, were brief and abbreviated. These Parkland doctors were simply reporting the brief resuscitation efforts of the trauma team, and the death of the President. Speer takes the matter out of context by expecting that McClelland should have written an autopsy report, or exercised the degree of specificity that would be expected for a patient about to go into surgery or receive further treatment. This point is made abundantly clear by the much greater specificity of the reports concerning Governor Connelly which are also included in Commission Exhibit No. 392. Mr. Speer's allegations that McClelland's admittance Note constitutes medical malpractice are arguably libelous, and I am forced to wonder whether he waited until after McClelland's death to make them. The honorable thing for Mr. Speer to do would be to scrub his social media of these allegations and to immediately publicly apologize to Dr. McClelland's family. We shall see... And utterly ridiculous is the notion that Dr. McClelland didn't see the wounds that day. With all of the accounts by many other witnesses in half a dozen investigations, McClelland's whereabouts and actions during the attempt to resuscitate President Kennedy that day in Trauma Room One are probably the most well documented in the history of medicine. Mr. Speer insults our intelligence by suggesting otherwise. ___________ PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ADMISSION NOTE DATE AND HOUR Nov. 22, 1963 4:45 P.M. DOCTOR: Robert N. McClelland Statement Regarding Assassination of President Kennedy At approximately 12:45 PM on the above date I was called from the second floor of Parkland Hospital and went immediately to the Emergency Operating Room. When I arrived President Kennedy was being attended by Drs Malcolm Perry, Charles Baxter, James Carrico, and Ronald Jones. The President was at the time comatose from a massive gunshot wound of the head with a fragment wound of the trachea. An endotracheal tube and assisted respiration was started immediately by Dr. Carrico on Duty in the EOR when the President arrived. Drs. Perry, Baxter, and I then performed a tracheotomy for respiratory distress and tracheal injury and Dr. Jones and Paul Peters inserted bilateral anterior chest tubes for pneumothoracis secondary to the tracheomediastinal injury. Simultaneously Dr. Jones had started 3 cut-downs giving blood and fluids immediately, In spite of this, at 12:55 he was pronounced dead by Dr. Kemp Clark the neurosurgeon and professor of neurosurgery who arrived immediately after I did. The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple. He was pronounced dead after external cardiac message failed and ECG activity was gone. COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 392: APPENDIX VIII - MEDICAL REPORTS FROM DOCTORS AT PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, DALLAS, TEXAS: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/jfkinfo/app8.htm LINKS TO ORIGINAL DOCUMENT: PAGE 1: https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0019a.htm PAGE 2: https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0019b.htm ___________ Such updates and revisions are common in the learned professions, particularly in matters involving such things as time of death, and given Acting White House Press Secretary Malcolm Perry's public announcement that President Kennedy had died as the result of a bullet that "entered the right temple," it could have been a Journal editor who changed it from the left temple to the right temple. You are grasping at straws. Dr. McLelland probably grew tired of having to explain the origins of the drawing from Thompson's book and decided just to ratify it instead, but I disagree that this has sinister implications of the variety Mr. Speer is trying to sell us. Incidentally, there is an actual McClelland drawing that he sketched in TMWKK, which is as follows: I have recently enhanced Dr. McClelland's drawing using standard editing software (which you will see below I am not at all masterful at using), and the results were surprising to me, as it does differ significantly from the 'Six Seconds in Dallas' sketch. In my view, the utility of that sketch has always been as an APROXIMATION of the location of the BOH wounds, and not so much as to its specific dimensions, given the variation between the various witness sketches, human memory being what it is and is not. Because we have been deprived of the genuine BOH autopsy photographs showing the actual large avulsive wound (which John Stringer in 1972 assured David Lifton he did indeed take), we are relegated to having to accept a general approximation of the wound, which just has to meet certain criteria, such as being behind JFK's right ear, and being low enough to account for the extruding macerated cerebellum, which to McClelland's credit the drawing from the Thompson book does meet. The BOH sketch Dr. McClelland made by his own hand in TMWKK is as follows: Dr. McClelland frequently gave of his valuable time and wisdom to JFK researchers, as in the following example of notes he made for researcher and author, Vince Palamara, concerning the extant Zapruder film: What is particularly interesting is that when some researchers confronted Dr. McClelland about the Grand Canyon sized discrepancy between the drawing from the Thompson book and the depictions of the back-of-the-head wound in the extant Zapruder film, McClelland was unable to offer any explanation. Dr. Paul Peters, on the other hand, when confronted with the same question was more bold with his answer: ___________ PAUL PETERS, MD: "...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)..." http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm ___________ These reactions of McClelland and Peters highlight a much underappreciated fact about the headwound depictions in the extant Zapruder film which is that President Kennedy's forehead is shown as being completely blown away, so much so that in Z-335 and Z-337 we are seeing the First Ladies pink shoulder pad exactly where the Presidents forehead should be: Conversely, Zapruder film authenticity apologists, like Mr. Speer, when confronted with the same discrepancy routinely respond that it is just an "optical illusion," and that JFK's forehead is tucked away behind the "blob" object being depicted as hanging down from JFK's head. But upon close inspection, it is undeniable that we are indeed seeing a huge cavernous wound in JFK's forehead, about the size of a grapefruit, in the Zapruder film frames leading up to Z-335 which none of the witnesses at Dealey Plaza, Parkland Hospital, and the Bethesda autopsy ever reported, as can be seen in the following selected frames which have been highlighted only to provide emphasis: More than anything else, it was Mr. Speer's allegation that Dr. McClelland "presumably" sought to profit from the assassination by selling his notes and drawings of President Kennedy's large avulsive back-of-the-head wound that inspired the creation of this particular thread on the Education Forum. The allegation is both defamatory and unconscionable, and if Speer had any evidence to support it you can be assured he would be shouting it from the rooftops. And I once again implore Mr. Speer to scrub his social media of this scandalous allegation and to immediately issue a public apology to the McClelland family. Dr. McClelland was a devoted servant of the public good, and he and his family deserve better than this...

A situation similar to what you are delineating for Mr. Speer also confronts him with regard to the other topic he addressed in the post to which you are responding, that being Dr. David Mantik's placement of the Harper Fragment in occipital bone on the back of JFK's head. Mr. Speer wrote: As with the occipital-parietal wound witnesses, Speer trivializes Dr. Mantik's placement of the Harper Fragment in occipital bone by maligning Mantik's position by articulating that position uncharitably, or in most instances, scarcely at all. Instead, he sets forth country bumkin platitudes intermixed with instances of the ad hominem fallacy and guilt by association fallacy, as in his repetitive recitations of Fetzer anecdotes. For the sake of those who are unfamiliar, Dr. Mantik has deduced that the Harper Fragment was derived from occipital bone, as demonstrated in the following illustration: Just as Speer is loath to accurately recite the voluminous testimonial evidence in support of the occipital-parietal wound, he never recites the multi-faceted explanation of WHY Dr. Mantik places the Harper Fragment in occipital bone. It is not clear whether he even knows what data Mantik relies upon, since he offers nothing but seeming satirical parodies of same, possibly because his animus toward Mantik is legion, given a handful of encounters he has had with Mantik that should have humbled him, but evidently humiliated him instead. At Section 6 of his 2015 book, "JFK's Head Wounds: A Final Synthesis-and a New Analysis of the Harper Fragment," Dr. Mantik sets forth 15 indicators of an occipital origin for the Harper Fragment: As with the mass of testimonial evidence in support of the occipital-parietal wound, it is obvious from the above recitation of Mantik's 15 indicators that Speer repeatedly contends not with Mantik's scientific quantitative data but with straw men and fallacious anecdotes more designed to libel and malign Doctor Mantik than anything else. Speer, for example, claims that Randy Robertson and Joe Riley have refuted Mantik, but neglects to divulge that Mantik has authored persuasive rebuttals of their critiques, and has demonstrated that Robertson and Riley either have not seen or have declined to address probative evidence such as the X-Rays of the Harper Fragment uncovered by John Hunt at the National Archives, and the biological landmarks visible in the original F-8 photographs at the National Archives that provide the correct orientation of the skull, which has also been corroborated by Dr. Michael Chesser during his own sojourn to the Archives. MICHAEL CHESSER'S CORROBORATION OF BIOLOGICAL LANDMARKS IN F-8 ABOVE Basically, all that Speer has to offer as his pathetic attempt to refute Dr. Mantik's placement of the Harper Fragment is his claim that the accounts of the back-of-the-head witnesses -- who Speer claims not to believe anyway -- do not support a Harper Fragment placement in the middle of the back of JFK's head. But Dr. McClelland's sketch of the occipital-parietal wound, sketched by his own hand during the filming of the first episode of The Men Who Killed Kennedy in 1988, reflects that it was a jagged wound that went higher into the upper back of the head than acknowledged by others, and it is not hard to imagine, as pointed out by Sandy Larsen in the previous post, that the Harper Fragment could have been blown out of the back of President Kennedy's head with scalp remaining in place over the midpoint of the back of the head: Further supporting this scenario is the account of mortician Tom Robinson who described using a piece of rubber to seal a hole in the middle of the back of President Kennedy's head which he sketched as follows for the ARRB: In short, while Mr. Speer specializes in fallacious anecdotes and pernicious attacks upon the reputations of honorable and reputable professionals (such as Dr. Robert McClelland and Dr. David Mantik), the adherence of those very professionals to the scientific method and the principles of charity have clearly carried the day in all respects...

Michael has provided you with an answer to this, but I thought you might appreciate this more concise statement of Dr. Chesser's position on the Harper Fragment being occipital bone which he provided as an addendum to an article entitled "The (JFK) Windmills of Pat Speer." https://assassinationofjfk.net/jfk-windmills-pat-speer/ ADDENDUM: Michael Chesser, MD March 8, 2016 My review of the x-rays and the scalp retraction photograph leads me to the following conclusions: There is a dark area on the AP x-ray, inferior to the left lambdoid suture, with sharp demarcation, which can only be explained by missing occipital bone. This skull defect extends to the left of midline in the upper portion of the occipital bone, and has an outline which is consistent with the Harper fragment. I could not see the right lambdoid suture on the AP x-ray, and this indicates bone loss at least involving the right occipital-parietal junction. The AP x-ray also reveals a dark area inferior and lateral to the orbit on the right side, compared with the left, indicating loss of bone/brain substance in the temporal and occipital region. On the lateral x-ray the lower occipital skull appears disrupted, with jagged fragments. Dr. Mantik’s OD data confirm missing bone in various regions of the occipital bone. I agree with Dr. Mantik’s placement of the Harper fragment. If the three Dallas pathologists were living I would ask them about the features which were visible on the bone fragment which led them to this conclusion. They were looking at a portion of the skull of the President, and I don’t believe that they came to a hasty conclusion, and they must have seen clear features which localized to the occipital bone. The central occipital skull defect seen on the scalp retraction photograph, and the outline of the dark area on the AP x-ray both point toward the Harper fragment’s localization to this area. I believe that the central (extending to the left) occipital skull defect is separate from the exit wound identified by the Parkland and Bethesda personnel. The right occipital wound was described as missing overlying scalp and meninges. I think that the area of the Harper fragment was most likely an area in which there was an overlying flap of scalp. It is also possible that these defects were partially contiguous, with the region of the Harper fragment covered by the scalp. https://assassinationofjfk.net/jfk-windmills-pat-speer/

And the following are the calculations Dr. Gary Aguilar has provided as to the odds that the cover-up adherents are wrong about their contention that all the Parkland Hospital and Bethesda autopsy witnesses were wrong that JFK's large avulsive head wound was located in the occipital-parietal region of the right side of the back of his head... "...If, as has been argued, the error rate in the determination of entrance from exit in single, perforating wounds is 37% among emergency physicians (Randall T. Clinicians' forensic interpretations of fatal gunshot wounds often miss the mark. JAMA. 1993; 269:2058- 2061), and, accepting for the sake of argument that the determining of the location of a skull defect is as troublesome as determining entrance from exit in perforating bullet wounds (it should not be, of course), the likelihood of error by 44 witnesses from two facilities is 1 divided by 2 to the 44th power, or 1 in 4,294,967,296. The likelihood that 44 of 44 erroneous witnesses would agree (excepting Giesecke and Salyer) among themselves to the same "wrong" location is considerably less than 1 divided by 2 to the 44th power. Critics of the Warren Commission's conclusions are chary to embrace such odds and are troubled that loyalists seem to be unaware of this problem." JOHN F. KENNEDY'S FATAL WOUNDS: THE WITNESSES AND THE INTERPRETATIONS FROM 1963 TO THE PRESENT by Gary L. Aguilar, MD San Francisco, California, August, 1994 http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm DR. GARY AGUILAR'S APPENDIX - TABLES AND FIGURES: https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_tabfig.htm

You may think your "eyes give you the answer" in that hazy still from a badly degraded version of the Zapruder film, but what do your eyes think when you see more clearly that the extant Zapruder film is depicting a cantaloupe sized crater in JFK's forehead that none of the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses ever reported? The situation is such that by the end of the Zapruder film headshot sequence at Z-335 and Z-337 we are seeing the First Lady's pink shoulder pad where we should be seeing JFK's forehead and face. Long before it was possible for all of us to digitally analyze these images in our own homes researcher Harrison Livingstone was staring at Z-335 and Z-337 in bewilderment, wondering how in light of the voluminous witness testimony to the contrary, Z-335 and Z-337 could be authentic... ------------------------------------------------------------------- HARRISON LIVINGSTONE ON "THE BLOB": Harrison Livingstone writes: "If the [Zapruder] film shows a huge wound to the right side of the face, as it does, then all the witnesses who saw the dying or dead President and all the autopsy photographs are wrong. Common sense tells us they can't all be wrong (Livingstone, High Treason 2, 362).... "Common sense, therefore, tells us that the film is wrong. That it is a fake." (Ibid.).... He continues, "I have long wondered about a large apparent effusion of brain matter or flesh that spills from the right side of the face and temple region just after the President receives a shot to the head. . . . The material spewing forth from the head appears to stick out several inches and be about half a foot wide. It is spread all across the face. One would assume that it is an exploded face or brain, and it cannot be an optical illusion from reflections of sunlight off Jackie's hat and from the small flap of bone that evidently opens up at that point, as Groden has led us to believe. . . . (Ibid.).... "We see a small flap of bone with scalp attached on the right side of the head in some of the autopsy photographs but not in others. Trouble with the flap is, it changes orientation in relation to the rest of the head as the camera moves around the head. And it does not exist at all in the autopsy photograph of the right side of the head. There is a bat-wing-shaped structure on the head in the general area, but much too large to be the flap, and in the wrong place (Ibid.).... "Groden claims that Mrs. Kennedy closed up the alleged flap on the way to the hospital, where it was not seen. But the autopsy staff say the flap we see in the picture is not in the right place either, or did not exist at all" (Ibid., 363-65).... Livingstone quotes Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman: ". . . I saw nothing in his face to indicate an injury, whether the shot had come through or not. He was clear" (Ibid., 365, citing 2 H 82).... Livingstone goes on, "There are many other statements that there was no damage at all to any part of the President's face, and none to the contrary" (Ibid.). He is correct: From Dealey Plaza to Parkland to Bethesda to the White House, where family members privately viewed the body, not a single person noted any damage to the face except a cracked supraorbital ridge, which caused the right eye to protrude slightly.... "Corresponding to the gigantic wound in the right front of the face and forehead-temple area is a total loss of bone in the X-ray alleged to be of President Kennedy's head. We know that this would be impossible without the face being blown away, if it represents a shot from behind. If the bone had fallen in during transport to Bethesda, it would show somewhere in the X-rays. It does not. If it had fallen in, the face would have fallen in with the body on its back, and there is no sign of the bone anywhere in the skull. The face shows no sign of being unsupported by bone, and in fact looks perfectly undamaged. No doctor I have spoken to said that a face would remain normal if the underlying bone was gone (Ibid.).... "The missing bone in the skull X-rays has to represent a blow-out of the face, which did not in fact happen (Ibid.).... If the exit wound was in the rear of the head, where most eyewitnesses place it, or at the top or side of the head, as the autopsy photographs would indicate, then we should see "the blob coming out there if the [Zapruder] film was on the up and up, and not on the face, as we now see it in the film (Ibid.).... "It is my opinion, therefore, that the Zapruder film has some animated special effects: The large effusion we see sticking out from the head is painted in for those few frames before the head falls into Jackie's lap" (Ibid., pp. 365-66). (He later clarified that he didn't mean it was painted *directly* onto the film [Livingstone, Killing Kennedy, 159]).... ". . . We see the strange blob for more than twenty-five frames, far too long for it to be any sort of defect in the film. . . . it cannot be an artifact, because it is quite clear and distinctive for those twenty-five frames (High Treason 2, 366).... "What is not clear and distinctive is the President's head, which seems to disintegrate and disappear by the time it is drawn into Jackie's lap. In one frame there is no face or head at all to the right of the line extending upward from the President's ear, and I see Jackie clearly to the right of and beyond the ears, where the rest of the head should be" (Ibid.).... Not one frame -- two: 335 and 337, cf. color photo insert in High Treason 2; or Groden's The Killing of a President, pp. 38-39 and 188-89.... Livingstone speculates that "the purpose of this special effect is to encourage the idea in Earl Warren's head that the President was shot from behind" (High Treason 2, 366).... Look closely at color reproductions of frames 335 and 337 (it's nearly impossible to discern in black and white unless you already know what you're looking for). Page 38 of The Killing of a President has a gigantic blow-up of 337. Mentally draw a line straight up from the middle of Kennedy's ear; on the left is the back of his head; on the right is the pink sleeve of Jacqueline Kennedy's left arm where JFK's face should be. The "blob" also obscures the entire lower right of his face. Same thing for 335. Look closely -- is that John F. Kennedy's face's? IS there a face in these frames? Or is there only a shadow across the front of Jackie's dress, curving along a contour that almost approximates the shape of a face?.... And it's not just those two frames -- those are just the only two *clear* frames. All of the surrounding frames, however blurry, show that the President's face -- the entire front half of his head -- is missing. The edge of the front half also sometimes appears to be strangely blacked out.... Was the President's face actually blown away? Not only is this contrary to every single word of the eyewitness testimony; not only is it contrary to every other piece of photographic evidence (and I would not exclude the autopsy X-rays); not only is it contrary to any and all conclusions the government has put forth -- neither the autopsy report, the Warren Commission, the HSCA, nor anyone has concluded that the entire front half of Kennedy's head was blown off.... Not a single witness of the dozens and dozens who saw JFK's body in between Dealey Plaza and the time he was buried reported anything seriously wrong with the face -- much less that it was gone, as it appears in these frames.... Josiah Thompson, also looking at badly degraded stills from the Zapruder film, attempted to rationalize the authenticity of the film as well... ---------------------------------------------------------------- DOUG HORNE CALLS OUT JOSIAH THOMPSON OVER THE CATASTROPHIC ANTERIOR HEAD WOUND DEPICTED BY THE ZAPRUDER FILM WHICH MUST BE FRAUDULENT: "...BUT WHAT I DID HAVE A PROBLEM WITH WAS WHAT JOSIAH THOMPSON WAS SAYING ABOUT Z-FILM IMAGES FROM FRAME 328 THROUGH 337. He showed many slides depicting how the top of JFK's head is apparently missing, and where you can actually see Jackie Kennedy's shoulder (in the pink Chanel suit) through what appears to be a huge golf-type "divit" of missing cranium in the top of JFK's skull. It was easy to see how Tink had connected the dots: "The Z-film shows a huge portion of the top of the head missing, just like the autopsy photos, so therefore the Z-film is authentic." ⁠ But wait---Tink was clearly dodging an important issue: the same day treatment notes, and same-day and same-weekend statements to the media, of the Parkland doctors and nurses. NONE OF THEM MENTIONED ANY DAMAGE TO THE TOP OR RIGHT SIDE OF THE HEAD IN 1963. In 1964 when they all testified under oath, only one Parkland witness, Dr. Giesecke, mentioned damage to the top of the head and side of the head, and he said it was the top and left side of the head (the wrong side). His testimony is so anomalous that it can, and should be, discarded. Just go back and read the same-day treatment notes from the Warren Report, and the sworn testimony of all of the other Parkland doctors and nurses from 1964. They repetitively and definitively describe a wound in the BACK OF THE HEAD, not the top or right side of the head, using these phrases: "posterior; occipital, occipital-parietal; and occipital-temporal" (which is still behind the right ear if you check the skull drawings in an anatomy text). Jackie Kennedy told the Warren Commission in her testimony: "From the front there was nothing," indicating she could see no damage to her husband's head when looking at JFK from the front. Presumably she saw him from the front when he was removed from the limousine at Parkland, and also observed him lying supine on the gurney inside Trauma Room One. When Jeremy Gunn and I interviewed nurse Audrey Bell and Dr. Crenshaw in 1997, face-to-face, and specifically asked them if they saw any damage at Parkland to the top or right side of President Kennedy's head, they emphatically said "no," and looked at us like we were crazy. Dr. Ronald Jones volunteered to the ARRB under oath in August of 1998 that he saw no evidence of missing bone in the top of the head, nor did he see bones protruding from the right side of the head. His clear intent was to impugn the bootleg autopsy photos that he had seen in many books, as not representing what he saw in Trauma Room One. In a recent article Dr. Don Teal Curtis, another Parkland witness, was quoted as saying the autopsy photographs do not accurately depict the damage to President Kennedy's head that he saw in Trauma Room One; he specified that the head wound he saw was strictly posterior, not superior. Here is the link to that article: http://www.myplainview.com/canyon/news/article_f6555d0a-48c4-11e3-bbd1-001a4bcf887a.html ⁠ Finally, the four Parkland doctors who saw cerebellum protruding from the head wound onto the treatment cart have provided compelling evidence that the head wound they observed was in THE BACK OF THE HEAD, NOT THE TOP. Cerebellum could only have been protruding from the wound if that wound was in the back of the head, vice the top, as shown in the Z-film. ⁠ Furthermore, Josiah Thompson knows this. He published medical illustrator Philip Johnson's depiction of the damage described by Dr. McClelland in his book in 1967. It shows no visible damage to the top of the head or to the right side. And I am confident that in 1966 and 1967 he read the same-day treatment notes, and the sworn Warren Commission testimony, of the members of the Parkland emergency room treatment staff who attempted to save JFK's life. Beginning in 1998, the Parkland Hospital wound sketches drawn for the ARRB by nurse Audrey Bell, and Dr. Charles Crenshaw---both depicting a wound localized to only the right rear quadrant of the head, thus confirming the 1967 drawing approved by Dr. McClelland---have been available to the public via the JFK Records Collection, and have been published in more than one book. So he is intentionally dodging the issue, which I do not at all respect. This is egregious and inexplicable behavior for someone who was both a philosophy professor, and a "private eye." He should have raised the issue himself and declared his position. Does Josiah Thompson believe the remarkably consistent wound descriptions of the Parkland doctors and nurses, or not? Did he think we were all so stupid that we would not think of this just because we were so captivated by his own line of reasoning? Tink is a smart man; I'm sure he was aware of this major weakness in his continuing argument for Z-film authenticity. He was just attempting to dodge it. Buy the Lancer recording of his lecture, and see for yourself. ⁠ Ask yourself this: "What is more likely, that the Zapruder film is an authentic and unaltered film, and therefore matches what is seen in two thirds of the autopsy photos---and that ALL the Parkland doctors and nurses were either lying, or were wrong, and consistently wrong, in the same way? Or that the Parkland doctors and nurses were all correct and telling the truth, and that the Zapruder film was altered at Hawkeyeworks on 11/24/63 in an attempt to make it "match" the autopsy photos developed on 11/23/63---the day before the film went to Hawkeyeworks---autopsy photos which depict the results of clandestine, illicit, post-mortem surgery performed at Bethesda Naval Hospital to remove from JFK's body all evidence of shots fired from the right front?"..." ⁠ 'JOSIAH THOMPSON AND ROLLIE ZAVADA AT JFK LANCER: A CRITICAL REPORT' by Douglas P. Horne, author of Inside the Assassination Records Review Board ⁠https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10709.html

Autopsy photograph authenticity apologists such as @Pat Speer and @David Von Pein cannot and will not even attempt to contend with evidence that the photographs have been altered. To demonstrate this I am offering the following from Dr. Gary Aguilar, Dr. Cyril Wecht and Rex Bradford. It is one of the better recitations of the existing evidence against authenticity that I am aware of (which I have supplemented with some supporting exhibits). It is an excerpt of a Letter to the Editor rebutting an article* giving the standard mainstream line of nonsense and government lies about the medical evidence in the Kennedy assassination. Both the article and the Letter to the Editor appeared in the medical journal "Neurosurgery" in 2004. *Levy, M. L., Sullivan, D., Faccio, R., Grossman, R. G., Goodrich, J. T., Kelly, P. J., Laws, E. R., & Sturdivan, L. (2004). A neuroforensic analysis of the wounds of President John F. Kennedy: Part 2 - A study of the available evidence, eyewitness correlations, analysis, and conclusions. Neurosurgery, 54(6), 1298-1312. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15157287/ The link to the Letter to the Editor I have excerpted from below: https://websites.umich.edu/~ahaq/correspondence.pdf What I'd be interested in seeing from Mr. Speer and Mr. Von Pein -- as well as any other autopsy photograph authenticity apologists who wish to apply -- is a response that provides answers to the following questions which Doctor Aguilar, Dr. Wecht and Mr. Bradford demonstrated in their Letter to the Editor are the fundamental questions that all apologists who wish to be regarded as intellectually honest must answer (accordingly, I predict that there will be no answers from any apologists that are on point, because the apologists are simply not intellectually honest in any way): What is the explanation as to why coauthor Robert Grossman, and the two FBI agents who were present during the autopsy, rejected the JFK autopsy photographs, if they are authentic? The failure of the photographs to pass a test designed to link them to the autopsy camera is deeply troubling, and just is troubling is that the HSCA lied about this in its Final Report, claiming instead that the Department of Defense could not locate the camera when HSCA documents declassified in the 1990's indicate that the HSCA had received the camera but could not verify that the camera had taken the photographs. Why should we not therefore conclude that the HSCA failed to authenticate the autopsy photographs, why did the HSCA publish such falsehoods about the autopsy camera, and why should all Americans therefore not regard this as calling into question the authenticity and integrity of the autopsy photographs? Given the testimony from the autopsy team regarding autopsy photographs having been taken that are no longer in the extant collection today, how are we to regard the autopsy photographs as authentic when the chain of custody of the photographs has been so fundamentally broken? The consistent misinterpretation of Kennedy's injuries by numerous witnesses at both Parkland and the Bethesda morgue, in claiming a rearward skull wound that is absent in the photographs, is a matter of grave concern. What is a plausible explanation for this glaring inconsistency, particularly considering that the purpose of autopsy photographs is to clarify the nature of the wounds rather than further obscure them? The absence of any witness describing what is visible in the photographs raises doubts about the veracity of the images. How do you account for this discrepancy, and what credible explanation do you have to offer for why no witness corroborates the details depicted in the photographs? What plausible explanation do you have to offer for the conflicts between the witness testimony and the autopsy photographs of the brain, and why should we not entertain the possibility that the brain that was photographed was a substitute brain? "...As we will show, Dr. Humes and several of Dr. Levy’s primary sources adjusted their memories to fit the government’s preferred “lone nut” conclusion. Unfortunately, Dr. Levy nowhere explores this, even in his discussion of the all-important autopsy photographs. Instead, the photos win his endorsement on grounds the HSCA had authenticated them. He sidesteps how incompatible they are with Dr. Gross-man’s description, as well as the fact that Dr. Grossman flatly told the ARRB they didn’t show what he saw. Nor does he explore new evidence uncovered by the ARRB that shows that both government investigators and the autopsy team mishandled this evidence. But before the ARRB knocked the struts out from under them, JFK’s autopsy photographs had offered solid support for the government’s position in the case. Besides the HSCA’s claim it had authenticated them, the autopsy pictures got an additional boost from four members of the autopsy team: Drs. Humes and Boswell, the attending radiologist, Dr. John H. Ebersole and John Stringer, the autopsy photographer. After being allowed to see the grisly stills for the first time in 1966, the four men signed an affidavit [prepared by the U.S. Justice Depart-ment (3, 6), 3. Aguilar G, Cunningham K: How Five Investigations into JFK’s Medical/Autopsy Evidence Got It Wrong (Part II). On-line at: http://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_2.htm. Accessed10/29/04. 6. Aguilar GL,Wecht C. The medical case for conspiracy, in Crenshaw C (ed): Trauma Room One. New York, Paraview Press, 2001, pp 216–217. under whose authority its Bureau, the FBI, had determined there had been no conspiracy] attesting to the fact that the file of JFK’s autopsy photos was complete: “The X-rays and photographs described and listed above include all the X-rays and photographs taken by us during the autopsy, and we have no reason to believe that any other photographs or X-rays were made during the autopsy” (3, 7, 91). 3. Aguilar G, Cunningham K: How Five Investigations into JFK’s Medical/Autopsy Evidence Got It Wrong (Part II). On-line at: http://history-matters.com/essays/ jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_2.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. 7. ARRB Medical Document # 13. On-line at: http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md13/html/Image10.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. 91. Weisberg H: Postmortem: JFK Assassination Cover-up Smashed. Frederick, Harold Weisberg, 1975, p 573 But, in another example of oscillation, members of the team also testified, both before and after signing the dubious document, that photographs they had taken during the autopsy are missing. For example, three years before signing off that the file of autopsy photographs was complete, Dr. Humes had sworn to the Warren Commission that he had taken at least three images that aren’t in the file: two or more images of JFK’s skull and one or more of the interior of his chest. “This [skull]wound then had the characteristics of [a] wound of entrance from this direction through the two tables of the skull, ”Humes testified, “and, incidentally, photographs illustrating this [‘coning’ or ‘beveling’] phenomenon [that show the bullet’s direction] from both the external surface of the skull and from the internal surface were prepared” (86). 86. Warren Commission testimony of Dr. James H. Humes. Warren Commission Hearings, 2H352. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0180b.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. The complete inventory of autopsy photographs housed at the National Archives and examined by authors Wecht and Aguilar through special permission has no such images, nor have any such images ever been described in any official tally of the inventory. A simple oversight? One might be tempted to accept that explanation for the missing photos if the necessity of taking such photos were not so obvious and if Dr. Humes’ recollection had not been independently corroborated by his teammates. One of them was Dr. Pierre Finck, a forensics expert from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, someone who would not have been insensitive to the forensic and legal importance of documenting the fatal wound for the expected trial of the then-living Oswald. He was firm that the photos in the inventory do not include the cranial images he shot. During his formerly suppressed HSCA testimony (unearthed by the ARRB), Dr. Finck read from notes he had apparently written sometime closer to the time of the autopsy. “I help[ed] the Navy photographer to take photographs of the occipital wound (external and internal aspects) [sic]” (48). 48. HSCA interview with Dr. Pierre Finck. HSCA record # 180-10081–10347; agency file # 006165, p 6. On-line at: http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md28/html/Image05.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. As with Dr. Humes, his obvious intent was to capture the tell tale inward beveling at the point of in-shoot on JFK’s cranium, a feature familiar to anyone who has ever shot a BB or a pellet through a pane of glass. Dr. Finck expanded on these notes under oath before the HSCA in 1977. HSCA Counsel: “We have here a black-and-white blowup of that same spot [on the rear of JFK’s scalp]. You previously mentioned that your attempt here was to photograph the . . . crater, I think was the word that you used.” Dr. Finck: “In the bone, not in the scalp, because to determine the direction of the projectile the bone is a very good source of information so I emphasize the photographs of the crater seen from the inside the skull. What you are showing me is soft tissue wound [sic] in the scalp.” A few moments later, the following exchange occurred: Dallas Chief Medical Examiner Charles S. Petty, MD: “If I understand you correctly, Dr. Finck, you wanted particularly to have a photograph made of the external aspect of the skull from the back to show that there was no cratering to the outside of the skull.” Dr. Finck: “Absolutely.” Dr. Petty: “Did you ever see such a photograph?” Dr. Finck: “I don’t think so and I brought with me memorandum referring to the examination of photographs in 1967. . .and as I can recall I never saw pictures of the outer aspect of the wound of entry in the back of the head and inner aspect in the skull in order to show a crater, although I was there asking [the photographer to take] these photographs. I don’t remember seeing those photographs.” Dr. Petty: “All right. Let me ask you one other question. In order to expose that area where the wound was present in the bone, did you have to or did someone have to dissect the scalp off of the bone in order to show this?” Dr. Finck: “Yes. . . the scalp had to be separated from it in order to show in the back of the head the wound in the bone.” (49) 49. HSCA interview with Dr. Pierre Finck, pp 89–90. Agency File 013617. On-line at: http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md30/html/Image21.htm to http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md30/html/Image22.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. There are no photographs of JFK’s skull with the scalp reflected. But both JFK autopsy photographers backed up Drs. Finck and Humes. In 1997, Bethesda’s chief autopsy photographer, John Stringer was asked, “Did you take any photographs of the head after scalp had been pulled down or reflected?” Mr. Stringer answered, “Yes” (12). 12. ARRB deposition of John T. Stringer, July 17, 1996, p 71. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Stringer_7-16-96/html/Stringer_0008b.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. Assistant medical photographer, Floyd Riebe, was asked, “Do you recall whether any pictures were taken from angles very close to the inside of the cranium?” “Yes,” Mr. Riebe replied, “I think Mr. Stringer did that when the body was on its side” (13). 13. ARRB deposition of Mr. Floyd Albert Riebe, May 12, 1997, p 39. On-line at: http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Riebe_5-7-97/html/Riebe_0005a.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. In 1964, Dr. Humes had also testified that, besides the cranial images, “Kodachrome photographs were made of this area in [the apical portion of] the interior of the president’s chest” (81). 81. Warren Commission testimony of Dr. James H. Humes, in Warren Commission Hearings, 2H363. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0186a.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. Despite signing off on the completeness of the photo file in 1966, Dr. Humes told the HSCA the same thing in 1978 that he had told the Warren Commission in 1964. In a suppressed memo regarding a private interview, the HSCA reported that Dr. Humes, “specifically recall[ed] that Kodachrome photographs were taken of the president’s chest” (50). 50. HSCA interview with James H. Humes. HSCA record #180-10081–10347; agency file #006165, p 6. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md19/html/Image06.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. In open testimony Dr. Humes told the HSCA, “I distinctly recall going to great lengths trying to get the interior upper portion of the right thorax illuminated. . .and what happened to that film I don’t know” (46). 46. HSCA testimony of James H. Humes, HSCA, vol 7:253. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0132a.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. Eighteen years later, Dr. Humes told the ARRB much the same thing: “We took one [picture] of the interior of the right side of the thorax. . .and I never saw it. It never—whether it was underexposed or over-exposed or what happened to it, I don’t know” (14). 14. ARRB testimony of James H. Humes, February 13, 1999, p 97. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Humes_2-13-96/html/Humes_0050a.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. Dr. Humes’s fellow signatories independently recalled things the same way. The HSCA reported that Dr. Boswell had said that, “he thought they had photographed ‘the exposed thoracic cavity and lung,’ but doesn’t remember ever seeing those photographs” (59). 59. HSCA interview with Dr. J. Thornton Boswell, p 6, A. Purdy memo. HSCA rec.#180-10093–10430. Agency file # 002071, p 6. ARRB Medical Document # 26. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md26/html/Image05.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. In 1996, Dr. Boswell was asked, “Are there any other photographs that you remember having been taken during the time of the autopsy that you don’t see here?” “The only one that I have a faint memory of was the anterior of the right thorax,” Dr. Boswell replied. “I don’t see it, and haven’t [sic] when we tried to find it on previous occasions, because that was very important because it did show the extra pleural blood clot and was very important to our positioning that wound” (15). 15. ARRB testimony of J. Thornton Boswell, MD, February 26, 1996, p 178. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Boswell_2-26-96/html/Boswell_0089b.htm to http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Boswell_2-26-96/html/Boswell_0090a.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. Similarly, John Stringer told both the HSCA and the ARRB that chest photographs were missing. The HSCA reported that, “Stringer remembers taking at least two exposures of the body cavity” (51). 51. HSCA interview with autopsy photographer, Mr. John Stringer. A. Purdy memo. HSCA rec. # 180-10093–10429. Agency file # 002070, p 12. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md19/html/Image11.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. He testified to the ARRB that “There were some views that we—that were taken that were missing . . . I remember [photographing] some things inside the body that weren’t there [in the file]” (16). 16. ARRB deposition of John T. Stringer, July 16, 1996, p 133. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Stringer_7-16-96/html/Stringer_0014a.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. As with the photos of JFK’s cranial wound, the importance of photographs of the apex of his chest should be emphasized. Besides the clinical value of such images, the autopsy team would not have been blind to the legal importance of documenting the bruise at the apex of JFK’s evacuated chest cavity for both the medical record and expected upcoming trial. Whereas the significance of an incomplete photographic record of JFK’s autopsy should not be understated, two related points bear emphasis. First, the contradictions between their attestation to the completeness of the file of photos in 1966 and their repeated testimonies before and after that date that images are missing does not speak well for the reliability of Dr. Levy’s primary sources. Second, it shows, yet again, that Dr. Levy has overlooked important new evidence. Dr. Levy, however, does not ignore JFK’s autopsy photographs entirely. He endorses them, using “evidence” that suggests he may be unfamiliar with yet another, recent official discovery. Dr. Levy wrote, “The HSCA verified that the postmortem photographs and x-rays in the custody of the National Archives [which show the backside of JFK’s head was undamaged] were authentic. Authentication of the autopsy photographs was essential because of the discrepant descriptions given of the wounds by eyewitnesses at Parkland Memorial Hospital, the doctors present at the autopsy, the Warren Report, and the Clark Panel” (65). 65. Levy ML, Sullivan D, Faccio R, Grossman RG: A neuroforensic analysis of the wounds of President John F. Kennedy: Part 2—A study of the available evidence, eyewitness correlations, analysis, and conclusions. Neurosurgery 54:1298–1312,2004. Indeed, the HSCA said it had authenticated the photographs (43). 43. HSCA vol 7:87. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0049a.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. The images support Dr. Levy’s view the discrepant Dallas doctors were wrong about the gaping hole in the back of JFK’s skull thought by some to be an exit wound. But by the same token, the crystal clear photos also apparently prove that Dr. Grossman was wrong when he described a one inch-wide entrance wound in the middle of JFK’s occipital bone. Dr. Levy seems not to appreciate his and his coauthor’s predicament. He also seems to be unaware of what the ARRB discovered about the HSCA’s process of authentication. The story begins in an inconspicuous footnote that qualified the HSCA’s public claim that from “microscopic” and “stereoscopic” examinations of the photos its experts had confidently concluded that the images were authentic (52, 53). 52. HSCA vol 6:225–226. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0116a.htm to http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0116b.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. 53. HSCA report by Frank Scott entitled, “Report on Autopsy Color Photographs Authenticity.” HSCA vol 7:69–71. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/ jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0040a.htm to http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0041a.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. The footnote only offered the minor caution that the HSCA had encountered a negligible glitch during authentication. It wrote: Because the Department of Defense was unable to locate the camera and lens that were used to take these [autopsy] photographs, the [photographic] panel was unable to engage in an analysis similar to the one undertaken with the Oswald backyard pictures that was designed to determine whether a particular camera in issue had been used to take the photographs that were the subject of inquiry. (54) 54. HSCA vol 6:226, footnote # 1. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0116b.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. Regarding that very sentence, ARRB investigator, Mr. Douglas Horne, wrote, “By late 1997, enough related documents had been located and assembled by the authors to bring into serious doubt the accuracy of the HSCA’s conclusion that ‘the Department of Defense was unable to locate the camera and lens’. . .” (22). 22. ARRB memorandum for file by Mr. Doug Horne entitled, “Unanswered Questions Raised by the HSCA’s Analysis and Conclusions Regarding the Camera Identified by the Navy and the department of Defense as the Camera Used at President Kennedy’s Autopsy,” pp 2–24. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/ jfk/arrb/staff_memos/DH_HscaCamera/html/dh_hscaCamera_0001b.htm. to http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/staff_memos/DH_HscaCamera/html/dh_hscaCamera_0012b.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. Mr. Horne reported that the Navy had sent the HSCA a fact sheet that “strongly reiterates the Navy’s position that the camera provided to the HSCA was indeed the camera used at the autopsy on President Kennedy.” The proof was a suppressed letter to the HSCA from the Assistant Secretary of Defense indicating that the Department of Defense had indeed located, and had in fact already sent to the HSCA, “the only [camera] in use at the National Naval Medical Center in 1963” (22). 22. ARRB memorandum for file by Mr. Doug Horne entitled, “Unanswered Questions Raised by the HSCA’s Analysis and Conclusions Regarding the Camera Identified by the Navy and the department of Defense as the Camera Used at President Kennedy’s Autopsy,” pp 2–24. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/ jfk/arrb/staff_memos/DH_HscaCamera/html/dh_hscaCamera_0001b.htm. to http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/staff_memos/DH_HscaCamera/html/dh_hscaCamera_0012b.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. However the HSCA wasn’t satisfied with the camera the Defense Department had fetched. In a letter asking the Secretary of Defense to look around for another one, HSCA chief counsel, Robert Blakey, explained the problem: [O]ur photographic experts have determined that this camera, or at least the particular lens and shutter attached to it, could not have been used to take [JFK’s]autopsy pictures. (22) 22. ARRB memorandum for file by Mr. Doug Horne entitled, “Unanswered Questions Raised by the HSCA’s Analysis and Conclusions Regarding the Camera Identified by the Navy and the department of Defense as the Camera Used at President Kennedy’s Autopsy,” pp 2–24. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/ jfk/arrb/staff_memos/DH_HscaCamera/html/dh_hscaCamera_0001b.htm. to http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/staff_memos/DH_HscaCamera/html/dh_hscaCamera_0012b.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. Whereas the HSCA reported it could not completely close the loop because the camera was missing, the suppressed record suggests that 1) the loop was closed, 2) the camera was located, and 3) that the HSCA’s own experts determined the camera “could not have been used to take [JFK’s] autopsy pictures.” The HSCA staff elected to withhold this inconvenient information from the public. They also kept it from their own experts on the FPP, including the chairman, Dr. Micheal Baden (personal communication), and one of the authors of this essay [CHW]. And so, as Dr. Levy makes clear, the FPP experts were left to labor under the illusion that the images had passed authentication with flying colors. THE ARRB ON THE DISAPPEARANCE OF THE JFK AUTOPSY CAMERA DURING THE HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS INVESTIGATION: "...4. By late 1997, enough related documents had been located and assembled by the author to bring into serious doubt the accuracy of the HSCA's conclusion (see paragraph 2 above) that "...the Department of Defense was unable to locate the camera and lens...used to take...[the autopsy] photographs." If the HSCA was incorrect in its conclusion that the camera it examined was not the autopsy camera, the implications for what may have happened on November 22-23, 1963 are considerable. In paragraph 5 below, a timeline has been constructed of HSCA activities in the autopsy camera area, referencing appropriate documents assembled by the author, that will explain why a reasonable student of the assassination might conclude that the HSCA reached the wrong conclusion regarding the autopsy camera. [Appropriate documents are attached to this memo as enclosures.] Implications of the HSCA's possibly incorrect analysis of the situation are explored in paragraph 6 below...." "...7. Looking at this problem from another viewpoint, the HSCA report writers (presumably Blakey, Cornwell and Billings) might just as well have said, after receiving John Kester's letter of April 20, 1978, "Because the Navy did provide the camera used at the autopsy, through DOD, for our examination--and our experts have concluded it could not have been used to take the autopsy pictures--the Committee therefore concludes that the official autopsy photographs in the collection at the National Archives were taken by someone other than John Stringer, and that John Stringer's photographs were removed from the collection prior to April 26, 1965." But instead of openly pointing out, in its written report, the possibility of either conclusion being correct, the HSCA apparently assumed the photographs were Stringer's without question, and therefore concluded that the Navy and DOD must have provided the wrong camera to the Committee, in spite of the strong assurances of the Department of Defense that the Graphic View Camera provided for examination in 1978 was the only one used at Bethesda in November, 1963. Perhaps worst of all, the document that would have cast doubt on the seeming certainty of the HSCA's conclusion regarding the camera, the John Kester letter of April 20, I978, was apparently sealed for 50 years by someone on the HSCA staff. In light of the HSCA's deposition of Robert L. Knudsen in August. 1978, in which he indicated with great certainty that he had developed color negatives (vice color positive transparencies) from the autopsy, and a film pack of black-and-white negatives (vice black-and-white negatives from a duplex film holder), and the Committee staff's subsequent decision not to publish or even mention his testimony in its final report, and to seal it for 50 years, one cannot wonder whether some important, high-ranking members of the HSCA staff had a strong disposition against accepting, at face value, indications that there may have been chain-of-custody or authenticity problems with key photographic evidence in the Kennedy assassination, and a predilection in favor of benign explanations for apparent discrepancies in the photographic evidence...." https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=43609#relPageId=1 Dr. Levy thus offers readers outdated and misleading government assurances while ignoring recent government discoveries that undermine those assurances. In doing so, he both boosts the government’s case for a single gunman at the same time he impugns Dallas doctors who described a rearward cranial wound, including, ironically, his co-author Dr. Grossman. The pristine backside of JFK’s scalp is crystal clear in the images except for a tiny wound or spot of blood at the top of JFK’s cranium overlying the right posterior parietal bone. Dr. Grossman has consistently maintained that the higher wound in the photos is not the larger occipital wound he saw. So the images seem to prove that all the Dallas doctors who described rearward cranial damage were wrong. But also proven wrong, as we will show, are many of the autopsy witnesses who agreed with them. The images thus put Dr. Grossman in much the same position as his Dallas associates, and in the same position as the FBI agents who witnessed JFK’s autopsy, Francis O’Neill and James Sibert. For, like Dr. Grossman, Special Agents O’Neill and Sibert told the ARRB there was a rearward cranial wound where none appears in the images: ARRB Counsel Gunn: “I’d like to ask you whether that photograph resembles what you saw from the back of the head at the time of the autopsy?” (Fig. C4) Special Agent Francis O’Neill: “This looks like it’s been doctored in some way (25) 25. ARRB testimony of FBI agent Francis X. O’Neill, 9/12/97, p 158. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Oneill_9-12-97/html/ONeill_0015a.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. . . .I specifically do not recall those—I mean, being that clean or that fixed up. To me, it looks like these pictures have been. . . It would appear to me that there was a—more of a massive wound. . .” (26) 26. ARRB testimony of FBI agent Francis X. O’Neill, 9/12/97, pp 161–162. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Oneill_9-12-97/html/ONeill_0015a.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. Mr. Gunn also asked the other FBI witness who was present, Special Agent James Sibert, a similar question: Counsel Gunn: “Mr. Sibert, does that photograph correspond to your recollection of the back of President Kennedy’s head?" Special Agent James Sibert: “Well, I don’t have a recollection of it being that intact. . . I don’t remember seeing anything that was like this photo. . . I don’t recall anything like this at all during the autopsy. There was much—well, the wound was more pronounced. And it looks like it could have been reconstructed or something, as compared with what my recollection was. . .” ( 28) 28. ARRB testimony of FBI agent James W. Sibert, 9/11/97, p 128. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Sibert_9-11-97/html/Sibert_12b.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. Ironically, in an ARRB interview not mentioned by Dr. Levy, his coauthor Dr. Grossman reacted in almost exactly the same way. The ARRB reported: When shown the Ida Dox drawing of the back of the head autopsy image [Fig. C4], Dr. Grossman immediately opined, “that’s completely incorrect” . . .The entry wound he saw was larger than the small entry wound depicted in the Ida Dox drawing, and lower on the head, well down in the occipital region, near the external occipital protruberance. In fact, Dr. Grossman’s opinion was that the entrance wound he observed on the rear of the skull had passed through the tentorium and the right cerebellum, and he remembered seeing what he believed to be cerebellar tissue through this punched out wound which he interpreted to be one of entrance. (17) 17. ARRB memorandum, February 11, 1998. Directed to: Jeremy Gunn and Tom Samoluk. From: Doug Horne. Subject: Wrapping Up ARRB Efforts to “Clarify the Record” Re: The Medical Evidence in the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, p 11. As Dr. Levy points out, Dr. Grossman now bows to the photographs and concedes that he must have been wrong about cerebellum; that, in other words, evidence from the photographic record of the autopsy, which has problems he was unaware of, trumps his own memory and those of his Dallas colleagues. Thus, perhaps Dr. Levy regards dissecting the conflicts between Dallas and the autopsy photos as less helpful in understanding the true nature of JFK’s injuries than in determining whom to trust—the Dallas witnesses or the witnesses in the morgue. Given the clear advantages of those who witnessed the prolonged post mortem, it is not unreasonable to credit the Bethesda accounts over the discrepant doctors of Dallas. Moreover, the HSCA reported that the autopsy witnesses had uniformly endorsed Kennedy’s autopsy photos, and so all the more reason to reject Parkland. Or so it was once believed. But, as with the “complete” file of autopsy photographs and the HSCA’s authentication claims, records to which Dr. Levy makes no allusion have proven the converse. In referring to the compilation of witness statements that one of the authors prepared (Aguilar), Dr. Levy seems to believe that the autopsy photographs rebut Dallas witnesses regarding JFK’s head wounds and prove those at Bethesda. That is not the case. Nor is that really even the controversy. Infact, both Dallas and Bethesda were in virtually complete agreement that Kennedy had a gaping rearward wound that involved his occiput. Thus, the real controversy is that the images apparently disprove both Bethesda and the Dallas doctors while also disproving Dr. Grossman’s claims. But Dr. Levy’s confusion may be the result of his greater familiarity with the “old” official evidence rather than the “new” official evidence. In 1979 the HSCA did not mince words in resolving the apparent Bethesda/Dallas conflict. It wrote: “Critics of the Warren Commission’s medical evidence findings have found [sic] on the observations recorded by the Parkland Hospital doctors. They believe it is unlikely that trained medical personnel could be so consistently in error regarding the nature of [JFK’s cranial] wound, even though their recollections were not based on careful examinations of the wounds. . .” (55). 55. HSCA vol 7:37. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0024a.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. However, it continued, “In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland doctors are the 26 people present at the autopsy. All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wounds as depicted in the photographs; none had differing accounts . . . it appears more probable that the observations of the Parkland doctors are incorrect” (56). 56. HSCA vol 7:37–39. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0025a.htm to http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0025a.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. This was a devastating rebuke to skeptics who had cited the Dallas doctors in arguing for a different wound, a different bullet trajectory, and perhaps even a different assassin than Oswald. But the proof—the autopsy witnesses’ interviews—was entirely and unjustifiably suppressed. Had it not been for the ARRB’s interest in this area, these interviews might have remained state secrets until 2028, the mandatory declassification date. A surprise lay in wait when they were prematurely unsealed in the mid-1990s. While more than twenty Parkland witnesses said that at least part of JFK’s cranial defect was rearward, it turns out that, despite the HSCA’s claim to the contrary, just as many autopsy witnesses reported the same thing, whether in the suppressed HSCA interviews or in public Warren Commission documents and interviews (4). 4. Aguilar G, Cunningham K: How Five Investigations into JFK’s Medical/Autopsy Evidence Got It Wrong (Part V). On-line at: http://history-matters.com/essays/ jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_5.htm. Accessed10/29/04. For example, after interviewing the commanding officer of the military district of Washington, D.C., Philip C. Wehle, the HSCA’s suppressed record says that, “[Wehle] noted that the wound was in the back of the head so he would not see it because the President was lying face up . . . ” (57). 57. HSCA record #10010042, agency file #002086, p 2. (Autopsy images show a gaping wound on the right side of Kennedy’s head in front of his right ear, where it should have been easy to see with JFK lying face up.) A Ph.D. candidate in pathology in 1963, James C. Jenkins, worked as a lab technologist in JFK’s morgue. The HSCA said that Mr. Jenkins reported, “he saw a head wound in the ‘. . . middle temporal region back to the occipital’” (58). 58. HSCA interview with Mr. James Curtis Jenkins, 8-29-77. JFK Collection, RG 233, Document #002193, p 4. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md65/html/md65_0004a.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. The HSCA also said that another lab technologist, Jan Gail Rudnicki, had reported that the “back-right quadrant of the head was missing” (60). 60. HSCA record #180-10105–10397, agency file number #014461, p 2. Several of the autopsy witnesses, including two FBI agents, prepared diagrams for the HSCA that depicted a cranial defect involving JFK’s occiput (4) (Figs. C5 and C6). These inconvenient diagrams, their accompanying interviews and similar statements by other autopsy witnesses were all suppressed. And the discrepancy with Dallas? Compare these morgue accounts with that of Parkland’s Robert McClelland, M.D. “The right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted,” he told the Warren Commission, “the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half” (84). 84. Warren Commission testimony of Dr. Robert McClelland, in: Hearings, 6H33.On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0022a.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. Or Charles J. Carrico, M.D., who told the Warren Commission that JFK’s cranial defect was “in the posterior skull, the occipital region” (85). 85. Warren Commission testimony of Dr. Charles Carrico, in: Hearings, 3H361. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0185a.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. Virtually all the Dallas doctors and nurses offered similar descriptions. In Dr. Levy’s article, his coauthor dealt with this by dismissing his Parkland colleagues on grounds of imprecision. “Many doctors,” Dr. Grossman explained, “loosely use the term [occipital] to refer to the ‘back fifth of the head’” (65). 65. Levy ML, Sullivan D, Faccio R, Grossman RG: A neuroforensic analysis of the wounds of President John F. Kennedy: Part 2—A study of the available evidence,eyewitness correlations, analysis, and conclusions. Neurosurgery 54:1298–1312,2004. It is difficult to understand how even non-neurosurgeons would have referred to the gaping wound the photos show in front of JFK’s ear as “occipital,” as in, the “back fifth of the head.” But what of perhaps the best witness in Dallas—Parkland’s chairman of neurosurgery, Kemp Clark, M.D., the senior treating physician at Parkland, the man who signed JFK’s death certificate, and Dr. Grossman’s superior on the day of the assassination? The ARRB asked Dr. Grossman about Dr. Clark in 1997. “Repeatedly during the interview,” the ARRB reported, “Dr. Grossman suggested that we interview Dr. Kemp Clark, and said that he felt Dr. Clark’s observations would be more accurate than his, since Dr. Clark had much more experience at that time than he with gunshot wounds to the head and neurosurgery in general” (18). 18. ARRB interview of Dr. Robert Grossman, 3/21/97. ARRB Medical Document #185, p 2. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md185/html/md185_0002a.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. Unacknowledged in Dr. Levy’s report, which accurately reflects Dr. Clark’s descriptions of JFK’s cranial injuries in official documents, is the fact that Dr. Grossman’s superior was just as “loose” with the term “occiput” as were the discrepant Dallas doctors he dismissed. For example, on the day of the assassination, Dr. Clark wrote, “There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region” (87). 87. Warren Commission Exhibit #392, hand-written notes of Kemp Clark dated 11/22/63, in: 17H9–10. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0018a.htm to http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0018b.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. Under oath before the Warren Commission, Dr. Clark further explained that, “This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed” (88). 88. Warren Commission testimony of Kemp Clark, MD, in: Hearings, 6H20. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0015b.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. Whose description are we to accept? There is abundant scientific support for the common sense notion that descriptions given immediately after an event are more likely to be accurate than accounts given years later (37, 67–70). 37. Buckhout R: Eyewitness testimony. Sci Am Dec 1974, pp 23–31.There is even evidence that the human mind is capable of creating false memories (67). 67. Loftus EF: Creating false memories. Sci Am Sept 1997, pp 71–75. 68. Loftus EF: Eyewitness Testimony. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1996. 69. Loftus EF, Doyle JM: Factors determining retention and retrieval of events, in: Eyewitness Testimony: Civil and Criminal. Charlottesville, The Michie Co., 1992, pp 53–83. 70. Marshall J, Marquis KH, Oskamp S: Effects of kind of question and atmosphere of interrogation on accuracy and completeness of testimony. Harvard Law Rev 84:1620–1643, 1971. Given that Dr. Clark recorded his impressions immediately and testified under oath close to the time of the events, whereas Dr. Grossman waited 18 years to give his account to a newspaper reporter, and given that even Dr. Grossman has said that Dr. Clark’s then-greater experience with such wounds confers greater authority to his account, one would have hoped Dr. Levy would have offered better reasons than he has to accept Dr. Grossman’s description and reject the near identical descriptions of Dr. Clark and his Parkland colleagues (Fig. C7). And if Dr. Levy is going to continue to regard JFK’s autopsy photographs as unassailable, he might usefully offer a sensible explanation for 1) why his coauthor and two FBI agents apparently rejected them, 2) why the photos failed a test designed to link them to the autopsy camera, 3) why the autopsy team testified that some images have vanished, 4) why myriad witnesses at both Parkland and the morgue made the same mistake in claiming that Kennedy had a gaping rearward skull wound that is remarkable by its absence in the pictures, and 5) why not a single witness described what is visible in the photographs. Unfortunately, the contradictions in the autopsy evidence do not end here. For while the photographs of Kennedy’s brain seem to be a reasonable match for its measured weight and autopsy description, the images are contradicted by several witness reports from both Parkland and Bethesda, as well as by evidence from the scene of the shooting. Dr. Levy used Dr. John Lattimer’s claim that 70% of JFK’s right cerebral hemisphere was missing as a springboard to succinctly dispatch another important, photography-related controversy: “We should note that some authors have used the term ‘missing’ when referring to the brain which has led to extreme theories of the nature of the injuries,” he wrote. However, he added, the “drawing by Ida Dox (sic) demonstrates a bullet track in the right hemisphere extending from the occipital lobe forward, but the brain was not missing.” There the discussion ended with the reader left to assume that the Dox sketch was accurate and that Dr. Lattimer was not. Unfortunately, Dr. Levy shortchanged his readers by printing the wrong diagram—the HSCA’s depiction of a blasted human skull, not the Ida Dox drawing of an autopsy photograph of JFK’s brain—and by not mentioning the ARRB’s contributions to the controversies involving JFK’s brain, controversies that again pit the autopsy findings and photographs against credible witnesses. But Dr. Lattimer’s estimate was probably based on more than just this HSCA diagram, which faithfully renders photos that show a disruption of JFK’s right cerebrum with little actual loss of mass (Fig. C8). He may have based it on the reports of several key witnesses. In the Journal of the American Medical Association, for example, Dr. Humes reported that, “two thirds of the right cerebrum had been blown away” (35). 35. Breo 😧 JFK’s death: The plain truth from the MDs who did the autopsy. JAMA267:2797-2798, 1992. ARRB Medical Document #22. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md22/html/Image06.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. Dr. Boswell testified that one-half of the right cerebrum was missing (19). 19. ARRB testimony J. Thornton Boswell, College Park, Maryland, 2/26/96. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md241/html/md241_0001a.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. When shown the photographs of JFK’s brain at autopsy, FBI Agent O’Neill told the ARRB in 1997, “The only section of the brain which is missing is this small section over here. To me, that’s not consistent with the way I recall seeing it.” Mr. O’Neill amplified, saying that when JFK’s brain was removed, “more than half of the brain was missing” (24). 24. ARRB testimony of FBI Special Agent Francis O’Neill, pp 116–117. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Oneill_9-12-97/html/ONeill_0011b.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. (See also: Washington Post, 11/10/98, p. A-3.) The assistant autopsy photographer, Mr. Floyd Riebe, recalled things much the same way. When asked by ARRB counsel, “Did you see the brain removed from President Kennedy?” Riebe answered, “What little bit there was left, yes. . . Well, it was less than half of a brain there” (29). 29. ARRB deposition of autopsy photographer, Mr. Floyd Albert Riebe, 5/7/97, pp 43–44. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Riebe_5-7-97/html/Riebe_0005a.htm to http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Riebe_5-7-97/html/Riebe_0005b.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. Finally, the chief of anesthesia at Parkland Hospital, Marion Thomas Jenkins, M.D., reported that Jackie Kennedy had handed him “a large chunk of her husband’s brain tissues” (36) during the resus-citation effort. The Zapruder film shows such a massive jettisoning of tissue from Kennedy’s head that something like what these witnesses reported seems likely to be true. Hence, the brain photographs contradict the prosectors, other credible witnesses, and the Zapruder film. FBI Special Agent Francis O’Neill, who observed the autopsy, rejected the images commenting, quite rightly: “This looks almost like a complete brain” (27). 27. ARRB testimony of FBI Special Agent Francis O’Neill, 9/12/97, p 165. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Oneill_9-12-97/html/ONeill_0015b.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. (See also: Washington Post, 11/10/98, p. A-3.) In rejecting the images, O’Neill was joined by the photographer of record, John Stringer. Stringer claimed that he took images of sections of the brain, which are missing, and that the images in the current file were not taken with the type of camera or type of film he used at that time (20). 20. ARRB testimony of John Stringer, July 16, 1996, pp 216–222. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Stringer_7-16-96/html/Stringer_0021a.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. If Dr. Levy is right to accept the pictures and the brain weight, then what is exploding from JFK’s skull when his head erupts in the Zapruder film? What ejecta caused the “jet effect” that Dr. Levy proposes may have propelled JFK’s head rearward? Officially, virtually nothing, it seems. As intractable as this conflict might seem, an intriguing possible solution was first publicized in a Washington Post article. The November 10, 1998, news headline read: “Archive photos not of JFK’s brain, concludes aide to review board; staff member contends two different specimens were examined” (23). 23. ARRB memorandum for file by Mr. Doug Horne entitled “Questions Regarding Supplementary Brain Examination(s) (sic) Following the Autopsy on President John F. Kennedy,” 8/28/96. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/staff_memos/DH_BrainExams/html/d130_0002a.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. (See also: Washington Post, 11/10/98, p A-3.) The Washington Post report was the first public acknowledgment of an ARRB memo advancing the so-called “two brain” hypothesis of former naval officer and review board staffer, Douglas Horne. After carefully comparing accounts of the appearance of JFK’s brain on the night of the autopsy against photographs disavowed by the photographer which contradicted these accounts, and after comparing incompatible accounts of the timing of the brain examination given by the prosectors and lab personnel, Mr. Horne concluded that two different brains were examined on two different days (22). 22. ARRB memorandum for file by Mr. Doug Horne entitled, “Unanswered Questions Raised by the HSCA’s Analysis and Conclusions Regarding the Camera Identified by the Navy and the department of Defense as the Camera Used at President Kennedy’s Autopsy,” pp 2–24. On-line at: http://history-matters.com/archive/ jfk/arrb/staff_memos/DH_HscaCamera/html/dh_hscaCamera_0001b.htm. to http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/staff_memos/DH_HscaCamera/html/dh_hscaCamera_0012b.htm. Accessed 10/29/04. If Horne is right, the HSCA diagram likely depicts the second brain that was examined, the one that weighed 1500 grams. But this is not the brain that we see exploding in the Zapruder film, not the one missing the “large chunk” Mrs. Kennedy handed Dr. Jenkins. Nor is it the one that Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell, Agent O’Neill, or the photographer, Reibe, said was missing so much mass. In fact, no witness has ever described seeing a JFK brain that looks like the one in the autopsy photographs. Dr. Levy may have his reasons for rejecting Horne’s hypothesis. But because he sets such stock by official sources and analyses, one wishes he had at least acknowledged this intriguing government report, or the coverage of it in the Washington Post, if only for the purpose of refuting it...." ____________ ARRB STAFF MEMO | BY DOUG HORNE | 6/2/1998 'Questions Regarding Supplementary Brain Examination(s) Following the Autopsy on President John F. Kennedy' https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/staff_memos/DH_BrainExams/html/d130_0001a.htm DOUG HORNE, PRESS STATEMENT (15th May 2006) https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKhomeD.htm "...Two Brain Examinations My most remarkable finding while on the Review Board staff, and a totally unexpected one, was that instead of one supplemental brain examination being conducted following the conclusion of President Kennedy’s autopsy, as was expected, two different examinations were conducted, about a week apart from each other. A thorough timeline analysis of available documents, and of the testimony of autopsy witnesses taken by the ARRB, revealed that the remains of President Kennedy’s badly damaged brain were examined on Monday morning, November 25, 1963 prior to the state funeral, and that shortly thereafter the brain was turned over to RADM Burkley, Military Physician to the President; a second brain examination, of a fraudulent specimen, was conducted sometime between November 29th and December 2nd, 1963—and it is the photographs from this second examination that are in the National Archives today. Pertinent Facts Regarding the Two Examinations are as follows: First Brain Exam, Monday, November 25th, 1963 Attendees: Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell, and Navy civilian photographer John Stringer. Events: John Stringer testified to the ARRB that he used both Ektachrome E3 color positive transparency film, and B & W Portrait Pan negative film; both were 4 by 5 inch format films exposed using duplex film holders; he only shot superior views of the intact specimen—no inferior views; the pathologists sectioned the brain, as is normal for death by gunshot wound, with transverse or “coronal” incisions—sometimes called “bread loaf” incisions—in order to trace the track of the bullet or bullets; and after each section of tissue was cut from the brain, Stringer photographed that section on a light box to show the damage. Second Brain Exam, Between November 29th and December 2nd, 1963 Attendees: Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell, Dr. Finck, and an unknown Navy photographer. Events: Per the testimony of all 3 pathologists, the brain was not sectioned, as should have been normal procedure for any gunshot wound to the head—that is, transverse or coronal sections were not made. The brain looked different than it did at the autopsy on November 22nd, and Dr. Finck wrote about this in a report to his military superior on February 1, 1965. The color slides of the brain specimen in the National Archives were exposed on “Ansco” film, not Ektachrome E3 film; and the B & W negatives are also on “Ansco” film, and originated in a film pack (or magazine), not duplex holders. The brain photos in the Archives show both superior and inferior views, contrary to what John Stringer remembers shooting, and there are no photographs of sections among the Archives brain photographs, which is inconsistent with Stringer’s sworn testimony about what he photographed. Further indications that the brain photographs in the Archives are not President Kennedy’s brain are as follows: Two ARRB medical witnesses, former FBI agent Frank O’Neill and Gawler’s funeral home mortician Tom Robinson, both recalled vividly that the major area of tissue missing from President Kennedy’s brain was in the rear of the brain. The brain photos in the Archives do not show any tissue missing in the rear of the brain, only in the top. When former FBI agent Frank O’Neill viewed the Archives brain photographs during his deposition, he said that the photos he was viewing could not be President Kennedy’s brain because when he viewed the removed brain at the autopsy, the damage was so great that more than half of it was gone—missing. He described the brain photos in the Archives as depicting a ‘virtually intact’ brain. Finally, the weight of the brain recorded in the supplemental autopsy report was 1500 grams, which exceeds the average weight of a normal, undamaged male brain. This is entirely inconsistent with a brain which was over half missing when observed at autopsy. Conclusions The conduct of a second brain examination on a fraudulent specimen, and the introduction of photographs of that specimen into the official record, was designed to do two things: (1) eliminate evidence of a fatal shot from the front, which was evident on the brain removed at autopsy and examined on Monday, November 25th, 1963; and (2) place into the record photographs of a brain with damage generally consistent with having been shot from above and behind. Until I discovered that the photographs in the Archives could not be of President Kennedy’s brain, the brain photos had been used by 3 separate investigative bodies—the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller Commission, and the House Select Committee on Assassinations—to support the Warren Commission’s findings that President Kennedy was shot from above and behind, and to discount the expert observations from Parkland hospital in Dallas that President Kennedy had an exit wound in the back of his head. In my opinion, the brain photographs in the National Archives, along with Dr. Mantik’s Optical Densitometry analysis of the head x-rays, are two irrefutable examples of fraud in this case, and call into question the official conclusions of all prior investigations. [For those who wish detailed verification of this hypothesis, the 32-page research paper on this subject that I completed in 1998 will be made available at the end of this press conference.]..." https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKhomeD.htm

Why do you persist in ignoring the fact that the HSCA authentication is fraudulent Mr. Von Pein? The HSCA authentication of the autopsy photographs and x-rays is tainted due to the fraudulent conduct of the HSCA with regard to its Forensic Pathology Panel (as well as the American public). In the section of its Final Report concerning the authenticity of the autopsy photographs and x-rays the HSCA wrote: "Critics of the Warren Commission's medical evidence findings have found (sic) on the observations recorded by the Parkland Hospital doctors They believe it is unlikely that trained medical personnel could be so consistently in error regarding the nature of the wound, even though their recollections were not based on careful examinations of the wounds ... In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland doctors are the 26 people present at the autopsy. All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wound as depicted in the photographs; none had different accounts... it appears more probable that the observations of the Parkland doctors are incorrect." (HSCA, Vol. 7, p. 37-39) The statement is supported by reference to "Staff interviews with persons present at the autopsy." When the ARRB released the staff interviews referenced by the HSCA its authentication report that the committee had classified "tip secret" for fifty years, it was quickly discovered that the Bethesda witnesses had actually confirmed the presence of a large avulsive rear defect in JFK's skull, consistent with the Parkland witnesses' accounts, and they had also provided written and verbal descriptions of the rear defect to the HSCA, and even drew diagrams, all of which were suppressed by the HSCA. Dr. Gary Aguilar later wrote of this sad sordid episode, as well as the 1995 COPA conference at which some of the HSCA staff members were confronted about it, as follows: "...Once-secret documents, made public in the 1990s, show that the HSCA misrepresented both what the autopsy witnesses told the Warren Commission as well as what they had told the HSCA. Rather than contradicting Parkland witnesses that there was a rear defect in JFK's skull, the suppressed interviews reveal that the Bethesda witnesses corroborated them. They not only described a rear defect to HSCA in writing and verbally, they also drew diagrams of a defect in the rear of Kennedy’s skull, which the HSCA had also suppressed. ⁠ By falsely representing the data, including its own interviews, HSCA writers inaccurately portrayed autopsy witnesses as refuting the Dallas witnesses who in fact they had corroborated. (See Table 2) Had it not been for the Oliver Stone-inspired JFK Review Board, public access to these inconvenient interviews and diagrams, which had no national security value whatsoever, was to have been restricted for 50 years, until 2028. ⁠ This stunning suppression of contradictory evidence, which as we shall see included withholding it from the very medical experts responsible for conducting the HSCA’s analyses of autopsy and other medical evidence, is by itself sufficient reason to call into question the HSCA’s entire medical position.... ⁠ In 1994, HSCA counsel Purdy spoke at a public conference hosted by the Coalition on Political Assassinations (COPA) in Washington D.C. During his presentation, he explained that he had searched in vain for signs of conspiracy in JFK’s autopsy evidence. When these suppressed statements and diagrams depicting JFK’s rearward skull damage were projected in slide form before the entire audience, Purdy backed down. After all, his signature was plainly visible at the bottom of most of the documents. ⁠ In retreat, he conceded he was “unhappy” the HSCA had reported, “All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wounds as depicted in the photographs; none had differing accounts... .” Purdy was quick to add, however, that he hadn’t written the statement, and that he didn’t know who had. ⁠ The report in which these HSCA misstatements appears is prefaced with the following statement: “Materials submitted for this report by the committee’s forensic pathology panel were compiled by HSCA staff members Donald A. Purdy, Jr. and T. Mark Flanagan.”[288] ⁠ Perhaps Mr. Purdy’s denial is factual because neither Purdy nor Flanagan actually furnished the writer of the false passage with the damning interviews. If that is the case, however, the writer’s comment – “All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated …” – makes little sense. ⁠ More enlightening about this episode, however, were the comments of HSCA forensic consultants, Michael Baden, MD and Cyril Wecht, MD, JD, who were also present with Purdy on the podium. Despite their positions as the HSCA’s medical consultants, neither Baden nor Wecht had ever seen this important autopsy evidence. Purdy hadn’t let his own autopsy experts know about any of these autopsy witnesses. ⁠ That assumes, of course, that it was the lowly counsel Purdy who made the decision to keep key consultants in the dark, a decision so beyond his authority it seems unlikely he would have made it alone. In testimony before the ARRB, Purdy stated he in fact did not make that decision. Robert Blakey had.[289] ⁠ So on the mystery of who authored the falsehoods about the autopsy witnesses, one must therefore not discount the possibility that chief counsel, Robert Blakey, might have played a role. Although Blakey specifically denied to author Aguilar writing this unfactual section of the report (as did perhaps the one other possible choice, Richard Billings), it is not impossible to imagine that Blakey might himself have written this section to help keep the lid securely fastened over the revelations of the autopsy witnesses he had apparently already hidden from his medical consultants." ⁠ ⁠http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_5.htm The following is the video of the segment of the 1995 COPA conference described by Dr. Aguilar: 1995 COPA CONFERENCE AT WHICH ANDY PURDY AND MICHAEL BADEN WERE CONFRONTED WITH THE HSCA'S BOH FRAUD Thus, according to Michael Baden and Cyril Wecht, the HSCA had also withheld this important medical evidence of the posterior head wound from the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel, thereby forcing the Forensic Pathology Panel to rely exclusively upon the so-called "official" Autopsy Protocol and associated autopsy photographs and x-rays themselves, which are incomplete, of questionable provenance, dubious authenticity, and inadmissible in any judicial proceeding. Even before the committee's fraudulent conduct was exposed, the HSCA itself in Addendum A to the section of the Final Report devoted to the authenticity of the autopsy photographs and X-rays acknowledged the evidentiary deficiencies of the materials: Finally, as you can see in the final paragraph above, the HSCA Board of Anthropology Consultants wrote that they "did not concern [them]selves with the description and location of the wounds or of their nature and significance, since this was clearly the responsibility of the forensic pathology consultants," and the forensic pathologists never performed such a wound analysis! Incidentally, a dissent to the authenticity report by Robert Groden -- who was a photographic consultant to the HSCA -- was published by the HSCA: Said report is interesting to me for three reasons: First, Groden reported that "[i]n later generations of [the autopsy] photographs, a large degree of contrast buildup becomes apparent at the line's edge and the line becomes clearly defined" indicated alteration of the back-of-the-head photos; secondly, Groden described the soft matte edge insertion process by which he believed those photos had been altered; and third, Groden submitted an attachment to his report attesting to the importance of the witness of testimony of the medical professionals who reported the occipital-parietal wound (which is ironic, considering the HSCA's suppression of witness statements). That report, in relevant part, is as follows: VII. REPORT ON ISSUES RELATING TO THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE AUTOPSY X-RAYS AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF PRESIDENT JOAN F. KENNEDY During the public hearings in September, witnesses from the com- mittee's scientific panels stated that in their opinion the autopsy pho- tographs and X-rays of President Kennedy were genuine, citing such evidence as the fact that the film used was produced in 1963. The importance of the photographs and X-rays cannot be over- estimated. Every scientific panel-photographic, medical, acoustics. ballistics, N.A.A., et cetera-all depend upon the autopsy materials for their testing and conclusions. The basic conclusions from all except the acoustics panel is that two shots struck the President from behind. On the surface it would seem that the autopsy materials bear out that conclusion. That, however, may not be the case. There is evidence that raises grave questions about the authenticity of the items being relied upon by the select committee and its panels. Moreover, there is medical data in the photos and X-rays which is apparently being ignored. 1. THE PROBLEM OF AUTHENTICITY The fact that the HSCA panels have been unable to establish in- authenticity of these items may not reflect their authenticity but rather the skill with which they were forged. In considering the matter of authenticity of some of the autopsy photographs, my main concern is that of the large head exit wound and its exact and general location as described by the vast majority of trained medical personnel at Parkland Hospital and reported by many of the Dallas witnesses. The main issue here is that such a wound may have been photographically eradicated from the only visual record of the President's body following the assassination via the simple technique of photo-compositing. If done with care, this would be undetectable. On this point, some of the photo panel's tests would be meaning- less. For example, one test the panel claims proves authenticity is that the film in evidence was manufactured in 1963. It seems that if any one were to plot the forging of these pictures that they would not wait until the film used in the other (genuine) autopsy photo- graphs would be out of date, and that they would certainly use the same film that would have been originally used in the entire autopsy series. All this test proves is that the forgeries could have been pro- duced in late 1963 or early 1964. For the record, my visual inspection of the autopsy photographs and X-rays reveals evidence of forgery in four of the photographs Color chromes No. 42 and No. 43 showing the rear of the head and No. 15 and No. 16 which appear to be the same shots in black and white (made from black and white duplicate negatives of No. 42 and No. 43). Within the circumference of the President's head, there is an irreg- ular line. Within this line the hair appears black and wet. On the outside of the line it is auburn and completely dry. In later genera- tions of these photographs, a large degree of contrast buildup becomes apparent at the line's edge and the line becomes clearly defined. This phenomenon is characteristic of crop lines in matte insert processes used for retouching and recompositioning of photographs. It is my opinion that these two photographs are forgeries, com- posites manufactured to eliminate evidence of an exit wound in the rear of the President's head. The onlv method I am aware of that could have been used to create these composites is known as "soft edge matte insertion." (See attachment 1.) The question of the authenticity of these particular photographs is crucial because of the large volume of evidence indicating that at least one shot struck the President in the head from the front, causing an exit wound at the rear of the skull. The problem is that this wound, seen by so many in Dallas, does not appear in the autopsy photographs and X-rays. The most reliable descriptions were those from the Parkland doctors on the day of the murder. Doctors Clark, Jones, Perry, Baxter, Akin, McClelland, and Nurses Hutton, Bowron, and several others all de- scribe that same wound in great detail, and all place it at the same point in the rear of the President's head in the area of the occipital bone. Many said cerebellar tissue protruded from a large avulsive exit wound. This too indicates a lower rear head exit wound. A partial list of the many eyewitnesses who describe this wound is included as attachment 2 to this memo. It seems highly improbable that all these witnesses were mistaken. Furthermore, the descriptions of the eyewitnesses who saw Ken- nedy's head wound at Parkland are corroborated by those who saw the bullet impact upon the head in Dealey Plaza. Secret Service Agent Clint Hill saw a piece of the President's skull fly from the President's head and travel toward the rear-left of the car. Mrs. Kennedy attempted to pick up this piece (and indeed from a recently declassified portion of her Warren Commission testimony we can see that she may have picked up a section of skull) and tried to hold it onto the rear of her husband's head. The next day Billy Harper found a piece of bone in Dealey Plaza. Originally, the "Harper" fragment was identified by a qualified pa- thologist as a section of occipital bone. In addition, there is photographic evidence of a shot exiting from the rear of the President's head. Zapruder film frames No. 335 and No. 337 clearly show the result of the head shot. They are the clearest two frames showing the Presi- dent after the head explosion. I have examined and measured the contours of the President's head on Zapruder film frames 335 and 337. The rear of the President's head, in these frames, shows his hair pushed upward and away from the scalp. That indicates the bones underneath were avulsed outward. This matches the description of the wound provided by Dr. McClel- land who said the bones at the rear of the head were "sprung open." (See attachment 2 for full quote and other descriptions of this wound.) Conclusions The Dallas observations indicating a rear exit hole cannot be easily dismissed. These accounts were provided by trained medical personnel. It defies belief that so many people, viewing the President from dif- ferent angles at different times, should all describe the same wound condition and position. My own examination of the autopsy photo- graphs of the rear of the head shows a sharp contrast buildup along an irregular line at the rear of President Kennedy's head. This con- trast buildup could be the result of a photocompositing process where- by another photograph was superimposed on the back of President Kennedy's head, thus eliminating evidence of that exit wound. Based upon my observation of that contrast buildup, and the Dallas medical observations indicating there was a wound there, it is my opinion, as a photo-consultant to the House select committee, that these photo- graphs are forgeries.... ATTACHMENT 1: SOFT EDGE MATTE INSERTION Given the present nature of these photographs, the only method that I am aware of that could have been used to alter them is called soft edge matte insertion. The technique uses a black and white masking process and this is how it works: An original 4 x 5 photograph; that is, transparency would be taken showing the rear of JFK's head with the exit wound in the center (in this case two, No. 42 and No. 43) . Using one at a time, it is pin reg- istered and placed in a photographic enlarger along with a pin registered piece of 4 x 5 black and white film called a registered black core matte. This is clear film with a black center in a specific area over the area on the original transparency to be eliminated. The clear fades quickly to the black, not a sharply defined edge, hence the term "soft edge." This "sandwich" is then projected onto another piece of 4 x 5 Ektrachrome transparency film. In this case. the result so far would be the rear of the President's head with a large blank, black area in the rear. This new piece of film is then put in a light tight container. At this point, another transparency of the back of another head, this one with an entrance bullet hole and hair that matches J.F.K.'s head photographed to the same size, is pin registered with a clear core matte which is a piece of black film tapering to a clear center. This is a con- tact film print of the black core matte and fits exactly in register with the original transparency and the black core matte. This new "sandwich" is then projected in register onto the par- tially exposed Ektachrome. Now the photograph is complete. The final result is what appears to be the rear of the President's head with a small wound of entry near the top. The same thing is done to the other original in register and the result is a pair of virtually undetectable forgeries of the finest possible quality. The technique would allow the integrity of stereo views. ATTACHMENT 2: REFERENCES TO AN OCCIPITAL HEAD WOUND OF EXIT IN WARREN REPORT (PART OF CE 392, APPENDIX VIII, PP. 516-530) Kemp Clark-"Two external wounds, one in the lower third of the anterior neck, the other in the occipital region of the skull, were noted." (p. 517) "There was a large wound in the right occipito parietal region * * * both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were ex- truding from the wound" (p. 518). Charles Carrico-"Dr. Jenkins attempted to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue via pads instituted" (p. 520). Malcolm Perry-"A large wound of the right posterior cranium was noted * * *" (p. 521). Charles Baxter-"* * * the right temporal and occipital bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table * * * (p. 523). Kemp Clark (handwritten at 4 :15 p.m.)-"There was a large wound beginning in the right occipital extending into the parietal region" 525). M. T. Jenkis-"There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital) causing a great defect in the skull plate * * * even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound" (p. 530). Dr. John Ebersole (taped interview with Gil Delaney, Lancaster Intelligencer-Journal) + (a.), March 8, 1978-"knew shot came 42-370 0 - 79 - 20 from the back or side because the back of his head was blown off." (Ebersole now says he was misquoted.) In an interview with Art Smith, Chester, Pa ., Ebersole said the back of the skull was intact "except for maybe three small fragments." Dr. Ronald Jones-"What appeared to be an exit wound in the pos- terior portion of skull," (61156). Dr. Perry-"A large avulsive injury of the right occipital area (61111). Dr. Charles Baxter-"A large gaping wound in the back of the skull * * * literally the right side of his head was blown off" (61140-41). Dr. McClelland-"As I took the position at the head of the table I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been blasted. It had been shattered apparently, by the force of the shot so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its 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" (61133). Nurse Pat Hutton-"Pressure bandage was no use * * * because of the massive opening on the back of the head." Dr. Gene Akins-"Back of the right occipital parietal portion of his head was shattered, with brain substance protruding" (61165). Dr. Clark-"* * * 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" (6H20). Dr. Peters-"We saw the wound of entry in the throat and noted the large occipital wound" (6H71). Diana Bowron-Parkland Hospital nurse. [Warren Commission testimony follows:] BOWRON, DIANA - TESTIMONY before Warren Commission: These are some of the most relevant excerpts from the testimony of Parkland hospital nurse Diana Bowron who was the first trained medical person to observe the President upon arrival at Parkland hospital and observed the President face down in the car. She looked directly at the wound of exit in the rear of the President's head. TESTIMONY OF DIANA HAMILTON BOWRON The testimony of Diana Hamilton Bowron was taken at 2 :05 p.m ., on March 2-1, 1001, at Parkland Memorial Hospital, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Arlen Spec- ter, assistant counsel of the President's Commission, Mr . Specter. And what, to a general way, did you observe with respect to President Kennedy's condition? Miss BOWRON. He was moribund-he was lying across Mrs . Kennedy's knee and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other side of the car I saw the condition of his head. Mr. Specter. You saw the condition of his what? Miss Bowron. The back of his head. Mr. Specter: And what was that condition? Miss Bowron. Well, it was very bad you know. Mr. Specter. How many holes slid you see? Miss Bowron. I just saw one large hole. Mr. Specter. Did yon see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole? Miss Bowron. No, sir. Mr. Specter. Did you notice any other wound on the President's body? Miss Bowron. No, sir. Mr. Specter. And what action did you take at that time, if any? Miss Bowron. I helped to lift his head and Mrs. Kennedy pushed me away and lifted his head herself onto the cart and so I went around back to the cart and walked off with it. We ran oil with it to the trauma room and she ran beside us. And an excerpt from a newspaper article labled as "Bowron exhibit No . 3. in Warren Commission volume #19. Diana, who was trained at Hope Hospital, Salford, said:- "I realised who the man in the car was as soon as I Saw Jackie Kennedy. Mr. Kennedy was slumped forward in his seat and so was Mr. Connally." https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pdf/HSCA_Vol6_5_GrodenComments.pdf Dr. David Mantik's spectrographic testing of the "original" autopsy photographs subsequently confirmed Groden's suspicion that the back-of-the-head photos had been altered via the soft matte edge insertion process he had described to the HSCA, as indicated by Mantik in the following video: Thus and therefore, contrary to your conclusion that the HSCA Final Report "proves that ALL of the witnesses who said there was a huge blow-out wound at the rear of Kennedy's head were dead wrong" for "all time," it is in truth the descriptions of Dr. McClelland and some fifty other witnesses as to the existence of the large avulsive wound in the occipital-parietal region of the right side of the back of President Kennedy's head that are in fact true. Furthermore, you don't seem to understand how disputes about questionable photographic and X-ray evidence are resolved in the real world. This is the process by which fraudulent photographs -- like the JFK back-of-the-head autopsy photograph -- are excluded from evidence (except to prove fraud) in American courtrooms... FRE 402 HEARING RESULTING IN FINDING THAT AUTOPSY MATERIALS ARE INADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE -- EXCEPT TO PROVE FRAUD: The evidentiary dispute about whether the autopsy photographs were authenticated or are fraudulent -- as well as the Autopsy Protocol and X-rays [and the Zapruder film would also be subject to a similar legal process]) would result in a 402 evidentiary hearing pursuant to the Federal Rules of Evidence where members of the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel would be subjected to cross examination about the voluminous medical evidence they were denied by the HSCA; Robert Groden (photographic consultant to the HSCA) and Dr. David Mantik would present testimony about the BOH photographs being proven to have matte inserts by stereoscopic testing of the purported "originals"; and there would be a long list of 11/22/1963 first day witnesses (the records and testimony of those who are deceased would be admitted into evidence under the official records exception to the hearsay rule) whose testimony would demonstrate that the extant autopsy photographs, X-rays, autopsy report and Zapruder film misrepresent the true nature of JFK's wounds. The court would exclude the autopsy evidence EXCEPT FOR PURPOSES OF PROVING FRAUD, and the matter would proceed to trial on the basis of the admissible records and testimony. _____________ Digital and photographic evidence is thrown out of courtrooms every day once shown by multiple testimonial witnesses to be fraudulent. Photographic fakery is more common than most people realize. Disputed photographic evidence must be authenticated in a Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 402 evidentiary hearing before being admitted into evidence, and if found to be fraudulent (most often as the result of conflicting testimonial evidence), it is excluded as evidence and very often ruled to be admissible ONLY to prove fraud. With regard to the back-of-the-head autopsy photographs in particular in the JFK case, we are not talking about just 1 or 2 witnesses that dispute their veracity, BUT OVER 40 WITNESSES WHO DO. And it's not just a mere matter of those witnesses having widely varying accounts of the back-of-the head wound actually seen on 11/22/1963; the vast majority of them describe the actual wound as being in the same location, and having virtually the same characteristics, placing defenders of the authenticity of the back-of-the-head autopsy photographs in the impossible position of claiming it is mere coincidence that 40+ witnesses were not only wrong, BUT WRONG IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY. This simply isn't going to go ever well in an American courtroom. The back-of-the head autopsy photographs would be found to be fraudulent and excluded from evidence except to prove fraud. James DiEugenio made a very interesting post in this forum a few months ago about how the back-of-the-head autopsy photographs would be evaluated in a FRE 402 hearing that is probably pretty close to how it would actually transpire, as follows: _____________ "As I have said before, if one was defending Oswald one would be able to call pretrial evidentiary hearings all day and night for a week, or more. Maybe longer. I learned something about these by working on Oliver's film. Since we dealt with professionals in the field who were familiar with these proceedings: Henry Lee, Brian Edwards, Bob Tanenbaum, Cyril Wecht. (Strange that the Arizona drug crimes advisor does not deal with these things is it not?) This is what would occur: 1. The defense attorney would ask why there were no identifying labels on any of the pictures. 2. He would then call John Stringer to the stand, since he was the photographer of record, and ask him why this was so. And why he did not follow his usual protocol either in that or the series of photos he said he usually took, which was close up, medium shot, context shot, especially for impacted areas. 3. The lawyer would then ask him: what on earth was the mystery photo and why was it so badly posed that you cannot orient it? 4. He would then ask him: did you not say that the cerebellum was disrupted? Well, does it look disrupted to you here? 5. Mr. Stringer: Are you the only photographer on these pictures? He would likely say yes. The lawyer would then ask him: did you use Ansco film and press pack technique? He would say no. At this point the attorney would call Robert Knudsen to the stand. 6. Mr. Knudsen, did you take autopsy pictures on the night JFK was killed? He would say yes. Can you tell me by experience and observation what film was used in these pictures of Kennedy's brain? Yes, that is Ansco. What technique was used, he would say that is from a press pack. 7. Mr Knudsen, did you see photos of probes in Kennedy's body? Yes I did. Are you aware that those pictures do not exist? Yes I am. 8. Call Stringer back to the stand: Did you cooperate on a supposed inventory of the pictures for the DOJ in about 1965? Yes I did. Does that inventory say all the pictures are accounted for? Yes it does. You yourself knew that was a false statement. Yes I did. Why did you sign it? Well, you have to go along sometimes to get along. Lawyer says, but some people don't. Stringer says: but they don't last very long. 9. At this point the lawyer now displays the BOH photo on a screen. He now begins to parade 40 witnesses from Bethesda and Parkland. One by one over a period of about 2 hours they say that something is missing from that photo, something they all remember. Namely a baseball sized cavity. 10. And now, the icing on the cake. The attorney produces pics of the Harper fragment. He calls Dr. Noteboom to the stand. He says: yes I examined that bone fragment in Dallas. And yes I agree it came from the occipital area as the two other pathologists who examined it in Dallas also thought. The lawyer asks, where is it now: Noteboom says Burkley gave it to the FBI who lost it. Lawyer says: how convenient. The lawyer then asks: but if that analysis was correct, how do you explain this picture? After staring at the photo for a moment or two, Noteboom says: beats the heck out of me. Lawyer says: I think we all feel that way about this whole subject. Your honor, I move to have the autopsy pictures ruled inadmissible. Judge: Motion is sustained. Bugliosi starts stamping his feet, and yelling objections. Judge: Mr. Bugliosi if you continue to act like this you will be charged with contempt. This is not some show trial like you did in London. This is for real. https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28751-the-402-hearings-on-the-autopsy-pictures/

Since @Chris Bristow's post -- to which Mr. Speer responded with the above -- referred to my recent experience with Mr. Speer concerning his fabrication of Jerrol Custer information related to Custer's ARRB deposition, which Chris characterized as "gaslighting;" and as Speer responded completely off topic in a manner which in itself satisfies the classic definition of "gaslighting," and since the creation of this thread itself was inspired by said "gaslighting" for calling Speer out on his Jerrol Custer fabrications, I wish to merely point out that the following indeed meets the classic definition of "GASLIGHTING:" Early on the morning of Sunday, January 21, 2024, in response to @Sandy Larsen's post calling him out for claiming that Dr. Randy Robertson's conclusions about the 3 autopsy photographs that Kodak had developed from Floyd Riebe's exposed film had authenticated the back-of-the-head autopsy photographs, Mr. Speer wrote: "...As brought to our attention by Jerrol Custer, moreover, the photos show JFK on his back with his head in a stirrup. IF there had been a gigantic hole in the location of the wound in the McClelland drawing, this would not have been possible. Now, Custer mentioned this when discussing the x-rays. He took the x-rays. In order to take the A-P x-ray film would have to have been placed beneath the back of the head. Custer claimed he would not have placed film directly beneath a gaping hole oozing blood and brain matter, and that the back of the head was shattered, but remained beneath the scalp. And the x-rays he took show this fractured eggshell pattern he remembered. Which is why he signed off on the authenticity of the x-rays when speaking before the ARRB." https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526546 On Sunday afternoon, January 21, 2024, in response to Sandy Larsen's post arguing against his head stirrup claims, Mr. Speer again wrote: "Custer said that he would have to have placed the back of JFK's head on the x-ray cassette to take the A-P x-ray. And that he couldn't and wouldn't have done that if the back of his head was missing. Keep in mind that the x-rays were taken with the brain still in the skull. He wasn't about to take an x-ray where the brain would be smushed onto the cassette." https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526563 Commentary: Mr. Speer is here repeating his false claims about the Jerrol Custer ARRB deposition as if reading them from the deposition. 9:12 a.m., Tuesday, January 23, 2024: I posted a comprehensive refutation of Mr. Speer's claims that Jerrol Custer told the ARRB that he wouldn't have placed X-Ray film "directly beneath a gaping hole oozing blood and brain matter," supported by screenshots of the transcript of the ARRB deposition of Custer, pointing out that it had been Custer's testimony that there had not been a brain in JFK's skull at the time of the first X-rays and thereafter. https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526695 9:22 a.m., Tuesday, January 23, 2024: Mr. Speer responded to my post of ten minutes prior as follows: "Sadly, you have no idea what you are talking about. "The foundation of my entire project?" What a laugh!" https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526698 Commentary: It has been ten minutes since I posted to debunk Mr. Speer's Jerrol Custer claims, and most if not all of that time has been expended by him reading the post. Mr. Speer didn't review the deposition to make certain he wasn't mistaken, instead he exclaims that I simply have "no idea what [I'm] talking about." 9:25 a.m., Tuesday, January 23, 2024: I responded to Mr. Speer's 9:22 a.m. post as follows: "Prove it." https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526700 9:33 a.m., Tuesday, January 23, 2024: Mr. Speer responded to my 9:25 a.m. post with a cut and paste of his website chapter about Jerrol Custer (which was completely unresponsive to my refutation of his claims), which he prefaced as follows: "LOL.Why waste my time? You know damn well that people who've staked out a position--no matter how ill-informed--always double down on that position. If you had any desire to learn about me or what I've uncovered, you would have read a significant portion of my website before coming here in attack mode. So to me you're nothing but a waste of time, until proven otherwise. As far as Custer.... Here's what you would have known if you'd done the research.." https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526701 Commentary: Mr. Speer knows that his Jerrol Custer claims were not truthful, but instead of saving face by simply saying he had misremembered or was mistaken, he does summersaults attempting to demean me. "Why waste my time?" Yet Mr. Speer has no hesitation to waste our valuable time spent trying to sort out his lies, and the question of why he would tell those lies. 10:00 a.m., Tuesday, January 23, 2024: I responded to Mr. Speer's 9:33 a.m cut and paste post as follows: "This is unresponsive and immaterial to the misrepresentations I have called you out on. Pasting blather from your website just will not do. You claimed I don't know what I'm talking about, and I dared you to "prove it," but your cut and paste job falls far short of achieving that. Not even close. The following are the Custer misrepresentations I have called you out on and is what you should be responding to rather than a pathetic cut and paste job that misses the mark entirely:" https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526702 10:09 a.m., Tuesday, January 23, 2024: Mr. Speer responded to my 10:00 a.m. post as follows: "Stalker." https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526703 Commentary: As Sandy Larsen would later write, stalking is a serious forum infraction; it is also a crime. By accusing me of being a "stalker" for simply calling him out on his lies, Mr. Speer trivialized the actual crime of stalking, and revealed to us what he is made of in terms of his seriousness as a researcher, and in terms of his honesty and integrity as a human being. 10:33 a.m., Tuesday, January 23, 2024: I responded to Mr. Speer's 10:09 a.m. "stalker" allegation as follows: "Seriously? You are really going to mount a "woke" defense like that to what I have clearly proven are material misrepresentations on your part? I would say "that is beneath you," but clearly it is not. Your feeble attempt to deflect from the issue at hand by resorting to name-calling is pathetic. I have presented concrete evidence of your misrepresentations, and instead of owning up to your deceit, you resort to baseless accusations. It's clear that you have no valid defense for your actions, so you resort to childish tactics in a feeble attempt to save face. But let me tell you, Mr. Speer, it's not working. Your lack of integrity is on full display for everyone to see, and no amount of name-calling will change that. It's time for you to face the truth and take responsibility for your dishonesty." https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526705 2:25 p.m., Tuesday, January 23, 2024: Sandy Larsen responded to Mr. Speer's 9:33 a.m. post as follows: "Upon witnessing all the misrepresentations Pat has tried to pass on this forum over the past couple of weeks, and his refusal to admit he is wrong when confronted with the truth, I certainly have no faith in the accuracy of anything he has written on his website. I'm sure that much of it is factual, but now I'm sure that much of it isn't." https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526719 2:40 p.m., Tuesday, January 23, 2024: Sandy Larsen responded to Mr. Speer's 10:09 a.m. "stalker" allegation as follows: "Stalking is a serious forum infraction. But it is not considered stalking when the pursuing party presents valid evidence to counter the claims of the pursued." https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526720 2:54 p.m., Tuesday, January 23, 2024: Mr. Speer responded to Sandy Larsen's 2:40 p.m. post as follows: "Everything Keven has posted has been addressed on this forum over the years, and on my website. His repeating it over and over again serves no purpose beyond harassment. Even if am wrong, his repeating his nonsense over and over again would be like my asking you over and over again about those pesky rings of Saturn...that you claim you once saw with your naked eyes." https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526721 Commentary: It's been six hours since I first confronted Mr. Speer about his Jerrol Custer misrepresentations. Far more than enough time for him to consult the Jerrol Custer deposition if he had any doubts about his memory. But instead he doubles down even harder, and maligns me to other members of the forum. Not only that, but he compounds his previous lies by telling new ones in his attempt to escape his dilemma. 3:01 p.m., Tuesday, January 23, 2024: Mr. Speer responded to Sandy Larsen's 2:25 p.m. post -- though quoted his own 9:33 a.m. post to Keven Hofeling -- as follows: "It's become clear to me that whenever I counter anything written by our friend from Utah, he immediately tries to bury it with an extremely long post filled with lots of images. In this case, his spasm has fooled Sandy into thinking that I have been misrepresenting Custer's statements. So here they are again, Sandy. Maybe read them this time." https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526722 Commentary: If there had been any chance at all that Mr. Speer had merely been mistaken rather than deliberately lying, by insinuating that I have "fooled" Sandy Larsen into believing he had misrepresented Jerrol Custer's deposition testimony -- with no less than highlighted pages of the deposition itself -- he invoked a bridge too far. 5:19 p.m., Tuesday, January 23, 2024: Sandy Larsen responded to Mr. Speer's 2:54 p.m. post as follows: On 1/23/2024 at 2:54 PM, Pat Speer said: Everything Keven has posted has been addressed on this forum over the years... "I haven't seen most of what Keven has posted till now. And it's certainly new to the newbies." On 1/23/2024 at 2:54 PM, Pat Speer said: His repeating it over and over again serves no purpose beyond harassment. "I've noticed that he repeats what he's posted when you don't respond to it (or even acknowledge it)." On 1/23/2024 at 2:54 PM, Pat Speer said: Even if am wrong, his repeating his nonsense ... "It is not nonsense. It is factual." On 1/23/2024 at 2:54 PM, Pat Speer said: Even if am wrong, his repeating his nonsense over and over again would be like my asking you over and over again about those pesky rings of Saturn...that you claim you once saw with your naked eyes. "There's a big difference. In my case, I stated what I saw. In your case, you stated what one of the witnesses said. When in fact the witness did not say it." https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526731 6:49 p.m., Tuesday, January 23, 2024: Sandy Larsen responded to Mr. Speer's 3:01 p.m. post as follows: "The whole exchange is on the forum, and I saw it with my own eyes. You made this claim: Custer said that he would have to have placed the back of JFK's head on the x-ray cassette to take the A-P x-ray. And that he couldn't and wouldn't have done that if the back of his head was missing. Keep in mind that the x-rays were taken with the brain still in the skull. He wasn't about to take an x-ray where the brain would be smushed onto the cassette. Kevin responded with a video of Custer stating that the back of the head was missing. He further responded with Custer's ARRB testimony, where he said that he DID place the back of the head on the x-ray cassette in order to take the A-P x-ray. Kevin provided the parts of his ARRB deposition where he said there was no brain when he took the x-ray, but that he nevertheless placed a sheet on the x-ray cassette to protect it from body fluids. (No mention of brain matter.)" https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526739 7:48 p.m., Tuesday, January 23, 2024: Mr. Speer responded to Sandy Larsen's 6:49 p.m. text as follows: "Holy moly! Let's get this straight! Yes, I may have overstated what Custer said about the cassette. He may or may not have said he wouldn't put the brain down on the cassette. I don't have all the interviews with him handy, so I can't say for sure. But that's immaterial. Are you really unable to see that? Custer specified in his ARRB testimony that the back of the head was NOT blown out. He created a drawing for them showing that it was NOT blown out. And he said he took the x-rays which you and I agree do NOT depict a blow out wound on the back of the head. And yet, Keven is telling both of us--actually everyone who reads this website--that Custer was lying when he said the back of the head was NOT blown out, and that, furthermore, the x-rays taken by him DO show the back of the head to be missing...only neither Custer nor the rest of us can see it. Now I know that sounds like nonsense...and it is... But it's not my nonsense. Sprinkled amidst his attacks on me, Keven has indicated that he is a devotee of David Mantik's. Well, Mantik says the far back of the head on the x-rays show missing bone that can only be detected by one using his special device, and that the numerous doctors and x-ray techs, including Custer, who dispute this, are just wrong, seeing as they never used his special device. (IOW, junk science in a nut-shell.) And Custer is of special interest to Mantik because Mantik once showed him a cropped and computer-enhanced x-ray published by the HSCA, and Custer disavowed this x-ray. Ooh...Exciting... Years later, after being shown the originals by the ARRB, however, Custer said he recognized these x-rays as x-rays he'd taken, and vouched for their authenticity. Well, that must have stung Mantik a bit. Perhaps more than a bit. Because Mantik continued (and maybe even continues) telling his audience that Custer had disavowed the x-rays, without telling them that Oh yeah Custer embraced the x-rays as x-rays he'd taken once shown the originals." https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526744 Commentary: For the first time, Mr. Speer attempts to escape his dilemma by claiming he may not have recalled correctly, but then goes on to filibuster on a topic he knows full well had nothing to do with his misrepresentations or the manner in which I confronted him about those misrepresentations. By doing so Mr. Speer is misrepresenting the exchange to Sandy Larsen, thereby adding new lies upon old lies. 9:20 p.m., Tuesday, January 23, 2024: Sandy Larsen responded to Mr. Speer's 7:48 p.m. post as follows: "While it is the case that Keven presented a video of Custer saying (in 1988 for KRON TV) that the back of the head was gone, I see now that Keven didn't challenge you on that. My bad. But he is right on the parts of what you said that he did challenge. Since you say those points are immaterial, why didn't you just admit that you misspoke or incorrectly remembered?" https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526753 Commentary: As I write this it is 8:00 a.m. on Thursday morning, January 25, 2024, nearly 36 hours since Sandy Larsen asked Mr. Speer why he didn't just admit that he had misspoken or incorrectly responded, and Mr. Speer has still not responded. 1/27/2024 -- Commentary: And 5 days later Mr. Speer has still done nothing to retract, amend or otherwise apologize for accusing me of being a stalker in response to me calling him out on his Jerrol Custer fabrications.

Personally, I don't believe J. Thornton Boswell's explanation of the back-of-the-head autopsy photographs. Mostly because it's not consistent with the testimony of the BOH witnesses, none of whom reported a huge segment of detached scalp at the back of JFK's head, but also because I once had a client who was a second-year med intern who had an interest in the JFKA and discussed that particular Boswell testimony with me. He had experience with cadavers and gunshot wounds, and told me that anybody that believes we are looking at a grapefruit sized piece of scalp being held up in those BOH photographs must be suffering from magical thinking because broken heads don't look perfectly intact the way JFK's head looks in those photographs. He said "it's just not credible." But if I were inclined to believe it, it would cause me to see the testimony of Dr. McClelland in the video below in a different light. However, I think McClelland was, like the other Parkland doctors in the PBS Nova episode "Who Killed President Kennedy," just concerned about his professional reputation when confronted with the original autopsy photographs, and didn't want to be pilloried as the "lone conspiracy doctor." I suspect that what was going on with Boswell and Humes is that they were told by some higher up, perhaps even LBJ himself, that the Cubans and Soviets were behind the assassination and that the lives of forty million Americans -- who would die in a nuclear war if the American public were to find out -- rested in their hands, and in their ability to convince the public with their Autopsy Report that President Kennedy had been assassinated by a lone gunman shooting from behind. It was by the use of this exact story that LBJ enlisted Senator Richard Russell and Chief Justice Earl Warren onto the Warren Commission: __________ 'LBJ-Russell 11-29-63, 2nd call' This fascinating conversation between President Johnson and his old mentor Senator Richard Russell is very revealing. Johnson begins by reading to Russell the announcement of the formation of the President's Commission to study the assassination, to which he has named Russell. Not realizing that it's a done deal, Russell complains that he "couldn't serve on it with Chief Justice Warren--I don't like that man" and pleads with Johnson to reconsider. LBJ tells him that "Dick, it's already been announced and you can serve with anybody for the good of America, and this is a question that has a good many more ramifications than on the surface and we've got to take this out of the arena where they're testifying that Khruschev and Castro did this and did that and kicking us into a war that can kill 40 million Americans in an hour." Toward the end of the conversation, Johnson re-invokes the image of 40 million Americans killed in a nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union, and then tells Russell how he got Warren to serve on the Commission. After Warren refused several times, Johnson called him to the Oval Office and told him "what Hoover told me about a little incident in Mexico City," whereupon Warren began crying and told Johnson "well I won't turn you down, I'll just do whatever you say." https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/lbjlib/phone_calls/Nov_1963/audio/LBJ-Russell_11-29-63_2nd.htm

Then why are you working so hard not to address the implications of the video and documents? The HSCA authentication of the autopsy photographs and x-rays is tainted due to the fraudulent conduct of the HSCA with regard to its Forensic Pathology Panel (as well as the American public). In the section of its Final Report concerning the authenticity of the autopsy photographs and x-rays the HSCA wrote: "Critics of the Warren Commission's medical evidence findings have found (sic) on the observations recorded by the Parkland Hospital doctors They believe it is unlikely that trained medical personnel could be so consistently in error regarding the nature of the wound, even though their recollections were not based on careful examinations of the wounds ... In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland doctors are the 26 people present at the autopsy. All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wound as depicted in the photographs; none had different accounts... it appears more probable that the observations of the Parkland doctors are incorrect." (HSCA, Vol. 7, p. 37-39) The statement is supported by reference to "Staff interviews with persons present at the autopsy." When the ARRB released the staff interviews referenced by the HSCA its authentication report that the committee had classified "tip secret" for fifty years, it was quickly discovered that the Bethesda witnesses had actually confirmed the presence of a large avulsive rear defect in JFK's skull, consistent with the Parkland witnesses' accounts, and they had also provided written and verbal descriptions of the rear defect to the HSCA, and even drew diagrams, all of which were suppressed by the HSCA. Dr. Gary Aguilar later wrote of this sad sordid episode, as well as the 1995 COPA conference at which some of the HSCA staff members were confronted about it, as follows: "...Once-secret documents, made public in the 1990s, show that the HSCA misrepresented both what the autopsy witnesses told the Warren Commission as well as what they had told the HSCA. Rather than contradicting Parkland witnesses that there was a rear defect in JFK's skull, the suppressed interviews reveal that the Bethesda witnesses corroborated them. They not only described a rear defect to HSCA in writing and verbally, they also drew diagrams of a defect in the rear of Kennedy’s skull, which the HSCA had also suppressed. ⁠ By falsely representing the data, including its own interviews, HSCA writers inaccurately portrayed autopsy witnesses as refuting the Dallas witnesses who in fact they had corroborated. (See Table 2) Had it not been for the Oliver Stone-inspired JFK Review Board, public access to these inconvenient interviews and diagrams, which had no national security value whatsoever, was to have been restricted for 50 years, until 2028. ⁠ This stunning suppression of contradictory evidence, which as we shall see included withholding it from the very medical experts responsible for conducting the HSCA’s analyses of autopsy and other medical evidence, is by itself sufficient reason to call into question the HSCA’s entire medical position.... ⁠ In 1994, HSCA counsel Purdy spoke at a public conference hosted by the Coalition on Political Assassinations (COPA) in Washington D.C. During his presentation, he explained that he had searched in vain for signs of conspiracy in JFK’s autopsy evidence. When these suppressed statements and diagrams depicting JFK’s rearward skull damage were projected in slide form before the entire audience, Purdy backed down. After all, his signature was plainly visible at the bottom of most of the documents. ⁠ In retreat, he conceded he was “unhappy” the HSCA had reported, “All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wounds as depicted in the photographs; none had differing accounts... .” Purdy was quick to add, however, that he hadn’t written the statement, and that he didn’t know who had. ⁠ The report in which these HSCA misstatements appears is prefaced with the following statement: “Materials submitted for this report by the committee’s forensic pathology panel were compiled by HSCA staff members Donald A. Purdy, Jr. and T. Mark Flanagan.”[288] ⁠ Perhaps Mr. Purdy’s denial is factual because neither Purdy nor Flanagan actually furnished the writer of the false passage with the damning interviews. If that is the case, however, the writer’s comment – “All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated …” – makes little sense. ⁠ More enlightening about this episode, however, were the comments of HSCA forensic consultants, Michael Baden, MD and Cyril Wecht, MD, JD, who were also present with Purdy on the podium. Despite their positions as the HSCA’s medical consultants, neither Baden nor Wecht had ever seen this important autopsy evidence. Purdy hadn’t let his own autopsy experts know about any of these autopsy witnesses. ⁠ That assumes, of course, that it was the lowly counsel Purdy who made the decision to keep key consultants in the dark, a decision so beyond his authority it seems unlikely he would have made it alone. In testimony before the ARRB, Purdy stated he in fact did not make that decision. Robert Blakey had.[289] ⁠ So on the mystery of who authored the falsehoods about the autopsy witnesses, one must therefore not discount the possibility that chief counsel, Robert Blakey, might have played a role. Although Blakey specifically denied to author Aguilar writing this unfactual section of the report (as did perhaps the one other possible choice, Richard Billings), it is not impossible to imagine that Blakey might himself have written this section to help keep the lid securely fastened over the revelations of the autopsy witnesses he had apparently already hidden from his medical consultants." ⁠ ⁠http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_5.htm The following is the video of the segment of the 1995 COPA conference described by Dr. Aguilar: 1995 COPA CONFERENCE AT WHICH ANDY PURDY AND MICHAEL BADEN WERE CONFRONTED WITH THE HSCA'S BOH FRAUD Thus, according to Michael Baden and Cyril Wecht, the HSCA had also withheld this important medical evidence of the posterior head wound from the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel, thereby forcing the Forensic Pathology Panel to rely exclusively upon the so-called "official" Autopsy Protocol and associated autopsy photographs and x-rays themselves, which are incomplete, of questionable provenance, dubious authenticity, and inadmissible in any judicial proceeding. Even before the committee's fraudulent conduct was exposed, the HSCA itself in Addendum A to the section of the Final Report devoted to the authenticity of the autopsy photographs and X-rays acknowledged the evidentiary deficiencies of the materials: Finally, as you can see in the final paragraph above, the HSCA Board of Anthropology Consultants wrote that they "did not concern [them]selves with the description and location of the wounds or of their nature and significance, since this was clearly the responsibility of the forensic pathology consultants," and the forensic pathologists never performed such a wound analysis!

Yup. Sounds like the stock response...

My background? As if I would be seeking to discredit YOU on behalf of the government? That makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? That's right. You and Von Pein clean up after yourselves real fast...

Yes, you covert tag teams clean up after yourselves fast, don't you?

Yes, Mr. Speer, you're a legend (in your own mind)...