Confused "Newbie" needs help over autopsy..Please respond.

[Denis Pointing]

Hi,

Edited December 20, 2009 by Denis Pointing

[Alan Kent]

Hi, I just spent a very heavy week studying Rob Grodens research concerning medical evidence and autopsy. This included Grodens DVD as well as his books. I read and indeed saw Parkland doctors present in JFK'S trauma room, categorically state that the autopsy pictures they were shown were NOT what they observed in the trauma room i.e. the back of Kennedy's head being completely gone. O.K. then....definite proof that the autopsy pictures were fakes, no doubt about it. Maybe I should have left it at that but I always like to see both sides, so I went too the Macadam's website and I found this: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/novadocs.htm. The self same doctors are now categorically stating that the autopsy pictures ARE what they observed in the trauma room!!! Can some of you guys help me out here, because at this moment I feel chucking the whole thing in and finding a new 'hobby' Maybe this JFK assassination is just to big for me.

Hi, Denis,

Witness recollections can vary widely over a period of time. What witnesses remember within a few hours, days, or weeks following an occurrance can change radically over a period of several years. PARTICULARLY in the case of the medical evidence pertaining to this assassination. Sometimes pressure is brought to bear on witnesses; sometimes they simply begin to roll with the preferred flow. The remembrances that are of most relevance to what actually occurred are the most nearly contemporaneous. Almost uniformly, the Parkland physicians describe a blowout in the back of Kennedy's head in statements signed immediately after the assassination and in their Warren Commission testimony.

Many years later, several of them began to temporize, on the issue of the occipital/parietal blowout, the issue of cerebellum being seen, and on the size and characteristics of the tracheotomy incision. Before the full implications of their original statements were entirely clear to them, they were pretty sure what they had seen!

Don't chuck "the whole thing" just yet! Try to focus as much as possible on the "early" testimony of the medical witnesses, both at Parkland, and at Bethesda. And pick up Lifton's "Best Evidence" for a lengthy, but gripping, tour through the maze of the medical evidence.

[Jack White]

Hi, I just spent a very heavy week studying Rob Grodens research concerning medical evidence and autopsy. This included Grodens DVD as well as his books. I read and indeed saw Parkland doctors present in JFK'S trauma room, categorically state that the autopsy pictures they were shown were NOT what they observed in the trauma room i.e. the back of Kennedy's head being completely gone. O.K. then....definite proof that the autopsy pictures were fakes, no doubt about it. Maybe I should have left it at that but I always like to see both sides, so I went too the Macadam's website and I found this: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/novadocs.htm. The self same doctors are now categorically stating that the autopsy pictures ARE what they observed in the trauma room!!! Can some of you guys help me out here, because at this moment I feel chucking the whole thing in and finding a new 'hobby' Maybe this JFK assassination is just to big for me.

Don't believe anything you read on the McAdams DISINFORMATION website! It is part of

the continuing coverup.

Jack

[Pat Speer]

Hi, I just spent a very heavy week studying Rob Grodens research concerning medical evidence and autopsy. This included Grodens DVD as well as his books. I read and indeed saw Parkland doctors present in JFK'S trauma room, categorically state that the autopsy pictures they were shown were NOT what they observed in the trauma room i.e. the back of Kennedy's head being completely gone. O.K. then....definite proof that the autopsy pictures were fakes, no doubt about it. Maybe I should have left it at that but I always like to see both sides, so I went too the Macadam's website and I found this: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/novadocs.htm. The self same doctors are now categorically stating that the autopsy pictures ARE what they observed in the trauma room!!! Can some of you guys help me out here, because at this moment I feel chucking the whole thing in and finding a new 'hobby' Maybe this JFK assassination is just to big for me.

Don't believe anything you read on the McAdams DISINFORMATION website! It is part of

the continuing coverup.

Jack

Denis, I got into this about 4 years ago, and found myself in the same quandary as yourself. Ultimately, I tried to educate myself as much as possible, before concluding one way or the other. My research is available at the link below.

[Tim Gratz]

Denios, Pat's work is, IMO, just outstanding and merits your careful attention. It is clear he has put hundreds and hundreds of hours into studying these complicated issues.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Denios, Pat's work is, IMO, just outstanding and merits your careful attention. It is clear he has put hundreds and hundreds of hours into studying these complicated issues.

It is clear he has put hundreds and hundreds of hours into studying these complicated issues.

Exactly who was it that stated that there was anything "complicated" about this?

About the only thing which is "complicated" is all of the nice little "slight/sleight-of-hand" tricks which Specter & Company pulled, which surrounds THE SHOT THAT MISSED! (which by the way never actually missed).

Personally, I could never follow the logic of persons who though that the shooter (LHO) could hit JFK twice, yet could not even hit the car with THE SHOT THAT MISSED!

Certainly glad that me & Jethro are so "simple-minded" that we just could not understand all of this other complicated stuff, and thus had to stick with the facts.

[Denis Pointing]

Denios, Pat's work is, IMO, just outstanding and merits your careful attention. It is clear he has put hundreds and hundreds of hours into studying these complicated issues.

It is clear he has put hundreds and hundreds of hours into studying these complicated issues.

Exactly who was it that stated that there was anything "complicated" about this?

About the only thing which is "complicated" is all of the nice little "slight/sleight-of-hand" tricks which Specter & Company pulled, which surrounds THE SHOT THAT MISSED! (which by the way never actually missed).

Personally, I could never follow the logic of persons who though that the shooter (LHO) could hit JFK twice, yet could not even hit the car with THE SHOT THAT MISSED!

Certainly glad that me & Jethro are so "simple-minded" that we just could not understand all of this other complicated stuff, and thus had to stick with the facts.

Thanks for the help guys, especially the link to Pats site, load's good info there. And Thomas I'm glad you find everything so easy, I certainly dont, but now you got me intrigued, are you saying Tague never got wounded in the cheek by a missed shot?

Edited March 9, 2008 by Denis Pointing

[Cliff Varnell]

Denios, Pat's work is, IMO, just outstanding and merits your careful attention. It is clear he has put hundreds and hundreds of hours into studying these complicated issues.

It is clear he has put hundreds and hundreds of hours into studying these complicated issues.

Exactly who was it that stated that there was anything "complicated" about this?

About the only thing which is "complicated" is all of the nice little "slight/sleight-of-hand" tricks which Specter & Company pulled, which surrounds THE SHOT THAT MISSED! (which by the way never actually missed).

Personally, I could never follow the logic of persons who though that the shooter (LHO) could hit JFK twice, yet could not even hit the car with THE SHOT THAT MISSED!

Certainly glad that me & Jethro are so "simple-minded" that we just could not understand all of this other complicated stuff, and thus had to stick with the facts.

Thanks for the help guys, especially the link too Pats sight, load's good info there. And Thomas I'm glad you find everything so easy, I certainly dont, but now you got me intrigued, are you saying Tague never got wounded in the cheek by a missed shot?

Denis,

I suggest you read Gerald McKnight's Breach Of Trust.

Pat Speer indulges in a significant amount of mis-information regarding

the nature of JFK's wounds, and shows no grounded understanding of

the nature of the assassination cover-up.

[Cliff Varnell]

Hi, I just spent a very heavy week studying Rob Grodens research concerning medical evidence and autopsy. This included Grodens DVD as well as his books. I read and indeed saw Parkland doctors present in JFK'S trauma room, categorically state that the autopsy pictures they were shown were NOT what they observed in the trauma room i.e. the back of Kennedy's head being completely gone. O.K. then....definite proof that the autopsy pictures were fakes, no doubt about it. Maybe I should have left it at that but I always like to see both sides, so I went too the Macadam's website and I found this: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/novadocs.htm. The self same doctors are now categorically stating that the autopsy pictures ARE what they observed in the trauma room!!! Can some of you guys help me out here, because at this moment I feel chucking the whole thing in and finding a new 'hobby' Maybe this JFK assassination is just to big for me.

Denis, it's not really that complicated.

A political decision was reached in Washington DC the afternoon/evening of

11/22/63: Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of JFK.

The autopsy report was subsequently fixed to conform to this decision.

As a result, there is a lot of contradictory evidence, including the purported

autopsy photos.

But it isn't that hard to figure out.

This alleged autopsy photo shows brain matter extruding from the back of

JFK's head:

This alleged autopsy photo does not:

The autopsy report lists two separate locations for the back wound:

1) "just above the upper border of the scapula"

2) "14cm below the right tip of the mastoid process"

This photo of JFK shows his protruding shoulder-blades:

The "14cm-below-mastoid" measurement puts the wound at the base

of JFK's neck; but the "upper border of the scapula" is several inches

below the base of his neck.

Consensus witness testimony is stronger evidence than anything produced

by the US gov't cover-up, contrary to the argument of Pat Speer, who seems

to think that everyone who witnessed JFK's wounds suffered from the same

mass hallucination.

[Pat Speer]

Cliff, we agree on a lot and disagree on a lot, as you know. For the record, you make a number of mistakes in your post.

1) The first photo you show does not show the BACK of Kennedy's head, it shows a defect in the TOP of his head, exactly as depicted in the x-rays, Zapruder film, and autopsy photos. In this photo Kennedy is lying on his back, with the long hair at the top of his head draped down.

2) The second photo does show the largely undamaged scalp at the back of Kennedy's head. Although it's difficult to see, it also shows the bullet entrance in the scalp exactly as described by the autopsy doctors. In this photo Kennedy is lying on his left side with the hair at the top of his head pulled forward and to the left so that the back of the head can be photographed. At the top of his head, in front of his right ear, the defect visible through the hair in the first photo, can be seen.

3) Your assertion that the first photo shows the back of Kennedy's head, and that the two photos are incompatible, demonstrates one of my major points--that people have great difficulty rotating images in their head, and often transpose the top of someone's head while lying down with the back of their head when standing up. As discussed in the Wrestling Over History section of my webpage, similar difficulties with image rotation have been studied and documented by cognitive psychologists for decades. I discussed this with a prominent psychologist and she said the problem is not so much that people remember things incorrectly as that they perceive them incorrectly from the get-go. She also told me that incorrect perceptions are contagious. This could explain why Dr. Clark thought the wound was at the back of the head, a few inches back of its identical location, and why the other doctors so readily agreed, only to change their minds when shown the autopsy photos. When one looks at bodies in the Trendelenburg position, the position Kennedy's body was in when Clark made his inspection, his mistake is easy to understand. Studies have shown that emergency room doctors are often wrong about bullet wounds, and that their perceptions are not to be trusted as to the number of wounds and the direction of fire. It appears that in this instance their perception problems extended to their perception of the exact location of the head wound as well.

4) Anyone claiming that the doctors' initial statements are to be trusted beyond all the other evidence needs to explain why eyewitnesses Newman and Zapruder went on TV and pointed out a head wound location in the exact location shown in the autopsy photos, long before the Parkland doctors wrote their early reports. So far this has not been done. Are we really to believe that Newman and Zapruder both pointed to Kennedy's temple as the wound location, in error, and that this just so happened to correspond to the x-rays and photos faked later that day? Or should we slip on down Conspiracy Road and make the assumption that the wounds in the photos were faked specifically to match the incorrect wound locations noted by Newman and Zapruder? How far will we go before we will admit that the Parkland doctors could have been mistaken, something they themselves have readily admitted? I reached the end of that line after watching Newman and Zapruder.

5) Cliff, you are also quite incorrect to state that the 14 cm measurement places the wound at the base of the neck. Parts 2 and 3 of my video series show that the 14 cm measurement places the wound just where it is in the autopsy photos, and several inches below the "base of the neck" wound drawing depicted in the Warren Commission's drawings. That you continue to insist this measurement is a lie and reflects a wound at the base of the neck, when the accuracy of this measurement PROVES that the back wound drawing was a lie, is bizarre, IMO and indicates that you have trouble adjusting your pet theories when new information comes along. Perhaps I misunderstand you. Do you really mean to imply that the 14 cm measurement reflects the "base of the neck" wound in the Rydberg drawings? Or are you calling the back wound seen in the autopsy photos, which is consistent with the 14 cm measurement, a "base of the neck" wound?

Respectfully,

Pat

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Denios, Pat's work is, IMO, just outstanding and merits your careful attention. It is clear he has put hundreds and hundreds of hours into studying these complicated issues.

It is clear he has put hundreds and hundreds of hours into studying these complicated issues.

Exactly who was it that stated that there was anything "complicated" about this?

About the only thing which is "complicated" is all of the nice little "slight/sleight-of-hand" tricks which Specter & Company pulled, which surrounds THE SHOT THAT MISSED! (which by the way never actually missed).

Personally, I could never follow the logic of persons who though that the shooter (LHO) could hit JFK twice, yet could not even hit the car with THE SHOT THAT MISSED!

Certainly glad that me & Jethro are so "simple-minded" that we just could not understand all of this other complicated stuff, and thus had to stick with the facts.

Thanks for the help guys, especially the link too Pats site, load's good info there. And Thomas I'm glad you find everything so easy, I certainly dont, but now you got me intrigued, are you saying Tague never got wounded in the cheek by a missed shot?

Tague never got wounded in the cheek by a missed shot

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/tague.htm

And I says, "Well, you know now, I recall something sting me on the face while I was standing down there."

And he looked up and he said, "Yes; you have blood there on your cheek."

And I reached up and there was a couple of drops of blood.

Mr. LIEBELER. How long after did you feel yourself get hit by anything?

Mr. TAGUE. I felt it at the time, but I didn't associate, didn't make any connection, and ignored it. And after this happened, or maybe the second or third shot, I couldn't tell you definitely--I made no connection. I looked around wondering what was going on

Mr. TAGUE. I would guess it was either the second or third. I wouldn't say definitely on which one.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you hear any more shots after you felt yourself get hit in the face?

Mr. TAGUE. I believe I did.

Mr. LIEBELER. You think you did?

Mr. TAGUE. I believe I did.

Mr. LIEBELER. How many?

Mr. TAGUE. I believe that it was the second shot, so I heard the third shot afterwards.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you hear three shots?

Mr. TAGUE. I heard three shots; yes sir. And I did notice the time on the Hertz clock. It was 12:29.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now you say you thought it was the third shot that hit down there?

Mr. TAGUE. No; I said I thought that all three shots were accounted for. All the newspaper accounts for months said all the shots were accounted for.

Mr. LIEBELER. In terms of hitting in the car?

Mr. TAGUE. Hitting into the car; yes.

The "Tague" injury and what may have caused it has been discussed in great length here as well as many other places.

Tague had a small scratch on his face, which was of such minor significance that he almost forgot that he had even felt the "sting" when he was hit.

Tague has repeatedly stated that he felt that he was hit at/about the time of the second shot, which is quite rational since this is the only bullet to fragment and thereafter send it's fragments in multiple directions.

As to whether Tague was struck by a small piece of concrete, a small piece of asphalt, or a small piece of lead, is completely unknown and will remain an unknown.

To reference it as a "wound" is taking slight liberty with the facts.

Does your "logic" operate under the assumption that whoever the shooter was, that he could hit JFK on two out of three shots, yet could not even hit the slightly large Presidential Limo and/or anyone in it with the third shot?

And, just for your information, Lee Harvey Oswald was an absolutely EXCELLENT shot!

[Donald Diabo]

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/gtds.html

to see how confused the dallas police were, go read this item.

[Denis Pointing]

Denios, Pat's work is, IMO, just outstanding and merits your careful attention. It is clear he has put hundreds and hundreds of hours into studying these complicated issues.

It is clear he has put hundreds and hundreds of hours into studying these complicated issues.

Exactly who was it that stated that there was anything "complicated" about this?

About the only thing which is "complicated" is all of the nice little "slight/sleight-of-hand" tricks which Specter & Company pulled, which surrounds THE SHOT THAT MISSED! (which by the way never actually missed).

Personally, I could never follow the logic of persons who though that the shooter (LHO) could hit JFK twice, yet could not even hit the car with THE SHOT THAT MISSED!

Certainly glad that me & Jethro are so "simple-minded" that we just could not understand all of this other complicated stuff, and thus had to stick with the facts.

Thanks for the help guys, especially the link too Pats site, load's good info there. And Thomas I'm glad you find everything so easy, I certainly dont, but now you got me intrigued, are you saying Tague never got wounded in the cheek by a missed shot?

Tague never got wounded in the cheek by a missed shot

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/tague.htm

And I says, "Well, you know now, I recall something sting me on the face while I was standing down there."

And he looked up and he said, "Yes; you have blood there on your cheek."

And I reached up and there was a couple of drops of blood.

Mr. LIEBELER. How long after did you feel yourself get hit by anything?

Mr. TAGUE. I felt it at the time, but I didn't associate, didn't make any connection, and ignored it. And after this happened, or maybe the second or third shot, I couldn't tell you definitely--I made no connection. I looked around wondering what was going on

Mr. TAGUE. I would guess it was either the second or third. I wouldn't say definitely on which one.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you hear any more shots after you felt yourself get hit in the face?

Mr. TAGUE. I believe I did.

Mr. LIEBELER. You think you did?

Mr. TAGUE. I believe I did.

Mr. LIEBELER. How many?

Mr. TAGUE. I believe that it was the second shot, so I heard the third shot afterwards.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you hear three shots?

Mr. TAGUE. I heard three shots; yes sir. And I did notice the time on the Hertz clock. It was 12:29.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now you say you thought it was the third shot that hit down there?

Mr. TAGUE. No; I said I thought that all three shots were accounted for. All the newspaper accounts for months said all the shots were accounted for.

Mr. LIEBELER. In terms of hitting in the car?

Mr. TAGUE. Hitting into the car; yes.

The "Tague" injury and what may have caused it has been discussed in great length here as well as many other places.

Tague had a small scratch on his face, which was of such minor significance that he almost forgot that he had even felt the "sting" when he was hit.

Tague has repeatedly stated that he felt that he was hit at/about the time of the second shot, which is quite rational since this is the only bullet to fragment and thereafter send it's fragments in multiple directions.

As to whether Tague was struck by a small piece of concrete, a small piece of asphalt, or a small piece of lead, is completely unknown and will remain an unknown.

To reference it as a "wound" is taking slight liberty with the facts.

Does your "logic" operate under the assumption that whoever the shooter was, that he could hit JFK on two out of three shots, yet could not even hit the slightly large Presidential Limo and/or anyone in it with the third shot?

And, just for your information, Lee Harvey Oswald was an absolutely EXCELLENT shot!

Edited December 20, 2009 by Denis Pointing

[Michael Hogan]

....are you saying Tague never got wounded in the cheek by a missed shot?

Thanks Thomas for this (to me) new insight. I must admit, I always took the 'missed shot' as gospel. Seems to me that I need to throw out all I thought I 'knew' about the case and start afresh.....

One can read James Tague's story as it appeared in Larry Sneed's book No More Silence here:

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/history/the_d...need/Tague.html

Or one could read James Tague's book Truth Withheld: A Survivor's Story:

http://www.jamestague.com/aboutbook.html

Or one could refer to Gerald McKnight's outstanding book Breach of Trust. McKnight writes:

There is no margin for doubt that whatever hit the curbstone where Tague was standing left a mark in the cement. The FBI agents who interviewed him on December 14 reported that after Tague felt a sting on his right cheek he looked down and saw a "chip missing" from the curb where he was standing. KRLD-TV's Underwood, who took pictures of the curb the day of the assassination, observed that the "object that had struck the curb had hit with such force that it left a fresh white mark." The first law officer on the scene was Deputy Sheriff Buddy Walthers. Later that day he filed a report with the Dallas Sheriff's Department noting that "a bullet splattered on the top edge of the curb." Tom Dillard, who was summoned to the spot by Walthers, took pictures of the curb. A Dillard photograph appearing in the Dallas Morning News carried the caption: Concrete Scar," and the story line under the photo started with "A detective points to a chip in the curb." The Dallas FBI case officer for the JFK assassination, Robert P. Gemberling, recorded in section B of his report that "One Bullet Fired During Assassination Went Wild, Crashed into a Curb and Struck James Tague." (FBIHQ Oswald File, 105-82555-4584, 27-39)

Or one could ask James Tague, who is still alive and selling books on eBay. He has this to say about the medical evidence:

And the doctors at Parkland all testified the back of the President's head had blown out, but the Warren Commission ignored that for some reason. I do not know why.

I don't know the answers - this is one of the reasons I wrote my book. We will never know the truth about the Kennedy assassination.

Denis, I suggest you read Gerald McKnight's Breach Of Trust.

In my opinion, this is the best advice offered in this thread.

Edited August 13, 2007 by Michael Hogan

[Cliff Varnell]

My comments will appear in this lovely shade of burgundy.

Cliff, we agree on a lot and disagree on a lot, as you know. For the record, you make a number of mistakes in your post.

1) The first photo you show does not show the BACK of Kennedy's head,

With all due respect, Pat, I didn't say it did.

This is what I wrote:

(quote on)

This alleged autopsy photo shows brain matter extruding from the back of

JFK's head.

(quote off)

In the interest of clarity, I should have written: This alleged autopsy photo of

the top of JFK's head shows brain matter extruding from the back of JFK's head.

The red line is the table top, the blue box highlights the extruding brain tissue.

Obviously, JFK's ears were above the line of the table-top, and the brain

matter extrudes from a point behind the ear.

it shows a defect in the TOP of his head, exactly as depicted in the x-rays, Zapruder film,

Jackie's actions in the limo indicate otherwise.

She instinctively reached for the area of greatest damage. Note that

her wrist is bent in this frame, while in the next frame her wrist is

straight.

She was able to straighten her wrist without pushing JFK's head

forward, consistent with her expunged WC testimony:

(quote on)

I was trying to hold his hair on. From the front there was nothing --- I

suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you

know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on.

(quote off)

To deny her words and these images is untenable.

and autopsy photos.

The HSCA insisted that the burden of proof of authentification for the extant JFK

autopsy photos resides with the prosecution, e.g., Pat Speer. They singled out

the Fox 5 "back wound" photo as especially lacking in evidentiary value.

Vol 7 of the HSCA findings:

(quote on, emphasis added))

Among the JFK assassination materials in the National Archives is a series

of negatives and prints of photographs taken during autopsy. The DEFICIENCIES

of these photographs as scientific documentation of a forensic autopsy have been

described elsewhere. Here it is sufficient to note that:

1. They are generally of rather poor photographic quality.

2. Some, particularly close-ups, were taken in such a manner that

it is nearly impossible to anatomically orient the direction of view.

3. In many, scalar references are entirely lacking, or when present,

WERE POSTIONED IN SUCH A MANNER TO MAKE IT DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE

TO OBTAIN ACCURATE MEASUREMENTS OF CRITICAL FEATURES (SUCH AS

THE WOUND IN THE UPPER BACK) FROM ANATOMICAL LANDMARKS.

4. None of the photographs contain information identifying the victim;

such as his name, the autopsy case number, the date and place of the

examination.

In the main, these shortcomings bespeak of haste, inexperience and

unfamiliarity with the understandably rigorous standards generally

expected in photographs to be used as scientific evidence. In fact,

under ordinary circumstances, the defense could raise some reasonable

and, perhaps, sustainable objections to an attempt to introduce such

poorly made and documented photographs as evidence in a murder trial.

Furthermore, even the prosecution might have second thoughts about

using certain of these photographs since they are more confusing than

informative. Unfortunately, they are the only photographic record of

the autopsy.

Not all the critics of the Warren Commission have been content to

point out the OBVIOUS DEFICIENCES OF THE AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHS

AS SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. Some have questioned their very authenticity.

These theorists suggest that the body shown in at least some of the

photographs is not President Kennedy, but another decedent deliberately

mutilated to simulate a pattern of wounds supportive of the Warren

Commissions' interpretation of their nature and significance. As outlandish

as such a macabre proposition might appear, it is one that, HAD THE CASE

GONE TO TRIAL, might have been effectively raised by an astute defense

anxious to block the introduction of the photographs as evidence. IN ANY

EVENT, THE ONUS OF ESTABLISHING THE AUTHENTICITY OF THESE

PHOTOGRAPHS WOULD HAVE RESTED WITH THE PROSECUTION.

(quote off)

If you are going to cite the autopsy photos as evidence, Pat, the burden

of authentification is on you.

In this photo Kennedy is lying on his back, with the long hair at the top of his head draped down.

And with brain matter clearly extruding from the back

of JFK's head, which is on the table, in a location consistent with Jackie's

observable actions and sworn testimony.

2) The second photo does show the largely undamaged scalp at the back of Kennedy's head. Although it's difficult to see, it also shows the bullet entrance in the scalp exactly as described by the autopsy doctors. In this photo Kennedy is lying on his left side with the hair at the top of his head pulled forward and to the left so that the back of the head can be photographed. At the top of his head, in front of his right ear, the defect visible through the hair in the first photo, can be seen.

3) Your assertion that the first photo shows the back of Kennedy's head, and that the two photos are incompatible, demonstrates one of my major points--that people have great difficulty rotating images in their head, and often transpose the top of someone's head while lying down with the back of their head when standing up.

And some people have great difficulty transposing other people's

arguments into something easier to rebut.

As noted above, my comments refer to the brain matter that is clearly extruding

from behind JFK's right ear, which must be located above the table line.

See above...

As discussed in the Wrestling Over History section of my webpage, similar difficulties with image rotation have been studied and documented by cognitive psychologists for decades.

As well demonstrated here, it's a rhetorical device known as a "Strawman."

I discussed this with a prominent psychologist and she said the problem is not so much that people remember things incorrectly as that they perceive them incorrectly from the get-go. She also told me that incorrect perceptions are contagious. This could explain why Dr. Clark thought the wound was at the back of the head, a few inches back of its identical location, and why the other doctors so readily agreed, only to change their minds when shown the autopsy photos. When one looks at bodies in the Trendelenburg position, the position Kennedy's body was in when Clark made his inspection, his mistake is easy to understand. Studies have shown that emergency room doctors are often wrong about bullet wounds, and that their perceptions are not to be trusted as to the number of wounds and the direction of fire. It appears that in this instance their perception problems extended to their perception of the exact location of the head wound as well.

4) Anyone claiming that the doctors' initial statements are to be trusted beyond all the other evidence needs to explain why eyewitnesses Newman and Zapruder went on TV and pointed out a head wound location in the exact location shown in the autopsy photos, long before the Parkland doctors wrote their early reports.

An entrance wound location -- so?

So far this has not been done. Are we really to believe that Newman and Zapruder both pointed to Kennedy's temple as the wound location, in error,

I find error in your assumption that they were referring to an

exit wound. An entrance wound in the right temple is consistent with Jackie's

actions and sworn testimony.

and that this just so happened to correspond to the x-rays and photos faked later that day?

No, this is wholly inconsistent with the Fox 5 BOH photo, which does

not show any damage from the ear back -- clearly contradicted by the extant witness

testimony and another autopsy photo.

Or should we slip on down Conspiracy Road[...]

...And acknowledge the readily established fact that JFK

was murdered as the result of a conspiracy which was covered up at the

highest levels of the US government?

Yes, I think it's about time the American people came to grips with this fact.

and make the assumption that the wounds in the photos were faked specifically to match the incorrect wound locations noted by Newman and Zapruder?

The assumptions here are all yours. It is not my burden of proof to show if

or how the BOH photo was faked -- the burden of proof is on you to establish its authenticity.

The reason I advise newbies to start their research with Gerald McKnight's Breach of Trust

is to appreciate the fact that the autopsy findings were fixed to conform to the political

decision to blame one man and 3 shots for the crime.

How far will we go before we will admit that the Parkland doctors could have been mistaken, something they themselves have readily admitted? I reached the end of that line after watching Newman and Zapruder.

Which brings us to the root flaw of your argument -- you make no

distinction between witnesses to a fleeting sequence of events, and witnesses to a

stationary body for a prolonged period of time.

How on earth do you assess greater value to the statements of Dealey Plaza

witnesses than the trained doctors at Parkland, who got a prolonged view of

the occipital-parietal wound?

5) Cliff, you are also quite incorrect to state that the 14 cm measurement places the wound at the base of the neck.

I am quite correct to cite the HSCA analysis of a photo

they didn't dare authenticate -- they put it at C7/T1.

The lower margin of the base of the neck is at C7/T1.

Parts 2 and 3 of my video series show that the 14 cm measurement places the wound just where it is in the autopsy photos, and several inches below the "base of the neck" wound drawing depicted in the Warren Commission's drawings.

Thereby ignoring the fact that Humes & Co. moved the back wound 3 times.

That you continue to insist this measurement is a lie and reflects a wound at the base of the neck, when the accuracy of this measurement PROVES that the back wound drawing was a lie, is bizarre,

It is the HSCA who concluded the 14cm measurement AND

the autopsy photo show the back wound at C7/T1. Please refrain from attributing

this to me.

As shown above, the HSCA deeply disputed the evidentiary value of the BOH

photo, a point I see no further need to belabor, given your past inability to

establish the authenticity of the photos you cite.

As to the measurements, they are contradicted in the autopsy report by a

citation of a wound "just above the upper margin of scapula," which is

inconsistent with the base of JFK's neck.

In the autopsy face sheet, a wound location consistent with T3 was marked

in pencil and signed off as "verified" in pencil, according to autopsy protocol.

The 14cm measurements were recorded in pen, a violation of autopsy protocol.

Both the wound locations cited in the autopsy report were in violation of autopsy

protocol -- the 14cm measurements violate two autopsy protocols.

The most experienced of the autopsists, Dr. Pierre Finck, disputed the

evidentiary value of the autopsy measurements, a fact we've already

discussed, Pat.

IMO and indicates that you have trouble adjusting your pet theories when new information comes along.

Your analysis does not rise to the level of "new information."

I cite primary sources.

It's not my "pet theory" that the decision was reached in Washington the afternoon

and evening of 11/22/63 to blame LHO and 3 shots for the crime. That this fact does

not inform your research is the fatal flaw in your work, Pat.

Perhaps I misunderstand you.

A much more productive approach.

Do you really mean to imply that the 14 cm measurement reflects the "base of the neck" wound in the Rydberg drawings?

No, the autopsy report has two wound locations, T2 ("just above the

scapula" -- and C7/T1 (14cm below the mastoid process).

The Rydberg drawing shows a wound location above C6.

They had to make the evidence fit 3 shots -- isn't it obvious what they did?

Or are you calling the back wound seen in the autopsy photos, which is consistent with the 14 cm measurement, a "base of the neck" wound?

Dr. Wecht did. C7/T1 is not that much different than T1, is it?

btw, There is nothing theoretical about anything I've presented here.

Respectfully,

Pat

Edited August 14, 2007 by Cliff Varnell