Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 20, 2008 Author Share Posted August 20, 2008 Nope!It is not a "WAG"! Tom, Its gonna take me some time to chew this over. But it will be time well spent I am sure. Do I notice a touch of the diplomat in those letters? I am enjoying the read. Thank You again for sharing this with me. Mike Do I notice a touch of the diplomat in those letters? Quite a shocker no doubt! Only a complete fool slams the door into the face of someone with whom they wish to continue to gain cooperation and information. And yes, I have also spoken to Pierre Finck (who resides in Switzerland), and he too declined to discuss the autopsy. So, of three doors, two were closed primarily due to the ignorant actions of prior persons who purported themselves to be researchers. Don't be silly, Tom. Humes and Finck refused to talk because they KNEW there'd been no entrance at the cowlick, and KNEW that it had become the official U.S. government-certified entrance on the back of the head. The last time they talked openly about the wounds was when they talked to the HSCA medical panel--who repaid the favor by insulting them and pressuring them to say what they knew wasn't true. Don't be silly, Tom Far better to be "silly" and state the forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical facts, than to continue to remain ignorant even when openly explained to one. Still have not figured our the angle of attack for the 15mm length, slanting upwards and to the left ragged wound of entry huh? But then again, you have not figured out much of anything to date, have you? Certainly glad that you were not around back in the 1990's when I was discussing this with Dr. Boswell. Your lack of knowledge could have easily closed that door as well. Why not attempt to explain to the Clark Panel as well as the entire HSCA Medical Panel that there is no wound to the rear of the skull of JFK in the Cowlick area. Boy oh boy! And I though that I could be "big-headed"! Can't read X-rays either huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 20, 2008 Author Share Posted August 20, 2008 http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/index.html The "Cowlick" entry bullet hole which the Clark Panel as well as the HSCA Medical Panel states IS THERE, as well as measuring only approximately 9mm in length. The head is tilted slightly back in this X-ray which makes the bullet hole appear to be more in the rear center of the head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 20, 2008 Author Share Posted August 20, 2008 Anterior/Posterior X-ray of JFK's head marked. "A" is the 9mm length cowlick entry point, as determined by the Clark Panel as well as the HSCA Medical Panel, and of which the autopsy surgeons had no knowledge of. Due to the slight tilt backwards of the head at the time of the X-ray, the hole appears lower in the back of the head than it actually is. Had the head been perfectly level at the time of the X-ray (rotated forward slighty), this would have made the entrance hole in the skull rotate to it's higher position up near he cowlick. In addition to this penetration through the skull, there was also a corresponding penetration through the scalp of JFK. "B" is metallic residue which scraped off the exiting bullet as it began it's initial exit from the interior of the skull. This metallic residue is scraped off onto the inner table of the skull, thus creating the semi-circular indication. All bone immediately forward of the forward one-half of the circle is absent as a result of the exiting bullet and it's destruction to this portion of the skull as the bullet nose was cut to pieces due to an almost horizontal encounter against the plane of the skull bone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 20, 2008 Author Share Posted August 20, 2008 The "BIG MYSTERY" resolved! http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0036b.htm Stated Simply: The autopsy surgeons (Humes & Boswell/Finck had not arrived yet) missed the cowlick entry simply due to the fact that the piece of bone which contained this entry wound was not present on the skull when the initial examination began, and throughout the "prelilminary" stage when Humes & Boswell located the EOP entry. The 'picture" with MISSING is for those with reading difficulties! For the more advanced researcher, we have the written word! http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0031a.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 (edited) http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/index.htmlThe "Cowlick" entry bullet hole which the Clark Panel as well as the HSCA Medical Panel states IS THERE, as well as measuring only approximately 9mm in length. The head is tilted slightly back in this X-ray which makes the bullet hole appear to be more in the rear center of the head. Tom, you're off on that limb, as usual. You cite your contact with Boswell as if it gives you some sort of credibility, and then latch onto the Clark Panel and HSCA Panel conclusion that Boswell was completely daft, and recorded the wound location incorrectly, and was off by FOUR inches. You can't have it both ways. One of the groups of experts was either incompetent or lying. Was it your friend Boswell, or the supposed experts who decided he was incompetent? I side with Boswell on this issue. As far as your A and B. Humes testified that there was no exit visible on the skull, only on the recovered fragments. So your contention that the bullet fragments (determined by the HSCA's radiologist Davis to have been on the outside of the skull) were on the inside of a semi-circular exit is way off. Your other assertion that the black mark A on the x-rays was the entrance is also without foundation. It is believed to be a sinus on Kennedy's forehead. Neither the Clark Panel or HSCA medical panel placed the cowlick entry at that location. Most, but not all, of the various consultants believed the entrance to be in the vicinity of the 6.5 mm fragment. From patspeer.com chapter 18: Dr. Russell Morgan of the Clark Panel (February, 1968, using the un-enhanced x-rays): claims 8 mm hole on outer table, 20 mm on inner table. 10 cm above the EOP, directly above the depressed fracture (which means it’s in a section of parietal bone that presumably fell to the table when the doctors peeled back the scalp and NOT in the occipital bone near the hairline where the doctors saw a beveled entrance). Large fragment is embedded in outer table of skull close to the lower edge of the hole (implying it’s in the depressed bone). Small fragments of bone lie within the hole. Dr. Fred Hodges (April, 1975, un-enhanced): says that, although the bullet hole itself is not readily detected, many linear fracture lines converge on the site of the small round hole in the right occipital bone described in the autopsy report. Notes one large metallic fragment flattened against the outer table of the occiput. (By supporting the autopsy report, his interpretation is in conflict with the interpretation of the Clark Panel.) Dr, Lawrence Angel (October, 1977, un-enhanced): sees entrance 1.8 cm to right of midline, just below obelion, the mid-point of the Lambda suture. This means it’s on the occipital bone where Humes originally placed it, and not the parietal, where the Clark Panel moved it. Since Dr. Davis measured the Lambda as 6 cm above the EOP, this is indicative that Angel placed the entrance 4 cm (more than 1 ½ inches) below the Clark Panel’s entrance. Angel also says radiopaque lump (the large fragment) is behind obelion and appears to mark entry. Dr. Norman Chase (February, 1978, un-enhanced): sees an entry point on upper rear head. Sees metal fragment at back of head. Dr. William Seaman (February, 1978, un-enhanced): sees possible defect in upper rear skull. Sees no beveling denoting an entrance. Dr. G.M. McDonnel (August, 1978, enhanced): doesn’t mention a hole, sees depressed fracture with radiating fractures 10.6 cm above the EOP, and a large metallic fragment 1 cm below it on the outer table of the skull, above the mid-portion of the EOP. Dr. David O. Davis, (August 1978, enhanced): doesn’t mention a hole, says the large fragment is 9-10 cm above the EOP on the outer table of the skull and is 2.5 cm to right of midline. Says radiating fractures "seem to more or less emanate from" the fragment, but later says central point of fractures is 3 cm from midline, which means the bullet fragment ended up to the left of the entrance. HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel: does not note an entrance location, but notes a depressed fracture as “sharp disruption of the normal smooth contour of the skull 10 cm above the EOP” (which places it higher than in the Clark Panel Report, whose measurement of 10 cm was the distance to the 8 mm hole above the depressed fracture). Mentions “suggested beveling” of the inner table and radiating fracture lines. Says large fragment is 2.5 cm to the right of the midline at the lower margin of the defect, which means bullet fragment ended up to the right and below the entrance (assuming they shared the trajectory analysis’s belief the entrance was 1.8 cm from mid-line.) HSCA Trajectory Analysis: determined entrance was 1.8 cm to the right of midline and 9 cm above the EOP. This places the entrance 1 cm below the depressed fracture observed by the medical panel, and on intact bone. This contradicts the Clark Panel's conclusion. The interpretations detailed above raise a lot of questions. First of all, how could the Clark Panel, using un-enhanced x-rays, “see” so much more than everybody else? Particularly when the panel's radiologist, Dr. Morgan, later complained that these x-rays were of "poor quality" and "severely over-exposed"? The likely answer, of course, is that they didn't actually see these things, and only said they did because it helped them shut down the "junk" in Josiah Thompson's book, and build support for their argument that the actual entrance on the back of the skull was four inches higher than determined at autopsy. But what about the other radiologists? Shouldn’t an oval-shaped bullet entrance high on the back of someone’s head be readily identifiable to experienced radiologists and doctors using computer-enhanced x-rays? Why is there no consensus on what is shown in the x-rays? As to your other "revelation"--that being that the bone containing the cowlick entry was missing at autopsy--do you not realize that the x-ray you claim shows the entry on the bone was taken at the beginning of the autopsy, and that Humes and Boswell would therefore have had to have seen this entry upon reflection of the scalp? Edited August 20, 2008 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 20, 2008 Author Share Posted August 20, 2008 Mr. KELLERMAN. Entry into this man's head was right below that wound, right here. Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the bottom of the hairline immediately to the right of the ear about the lower third of the ear? Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. But it was in the hairline, sir. Mr. SPECTER. In his hairline? Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. SPECTER. Near the end of his hairline? Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir. ============================================================ For those who are of the impression that I merely sit around and make this stuff up in order to further confuse the issues. Tom, Finck, the wound ballistics expert at the autopsy, said the EOP entrance was transversal, wider than long, which matches exactly the wound found on the back of the head in the so-called "mystery" photo, when properly interpreted. which matches exactly the wound found on the back of the head in the so-called "mystery" photo, when properly interpreted. Oh, that hurt! The laughter that is! http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/index.html You do not even know enough about the subject matter to recognize a "reverse image" photograph, even though I long ago explained it and also posted the testimonies related to the HSCA & Humes discussion of it. Might want to attempt to give Dr. Boswell a call and see if you could possibly learn a thing or two. "Mystery Photo"--------My A*S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 21, 2008 Author Share Posted August 21, 2008 You cite your contact with Boswell as if it gives you some sort of credibility (Pat Speer) Will have to let others be the judge of the "credibility" issue. Nevertheless, whatever purposes my discussions with Dr. Boswell may have served, at least that have to date kept me from posting as well as writing WAG theories based on a frontal photograph that someone has printed in reverse image and then claimed to be of the rear of JFK's head. In simple layman's terms, these discussions have kept me from generally appearing completely "Bonehead Stupid" as well as functionally ignorant of the medical evidence. which matches exactly the wound found on the back of the head in the so-called "mystery" photo, when properly interpreted. (Pat Speer) It's called "First Person"/aka actual research Pat! Try it some time, you just may be amazed at what you could (possibly) learn! [b]The Mystery Photo[/b] Is a photograph that was taken later in the course of the autopsy after removal of JFK's brain was complete. Part of the recovered bone of the Parietal-Parietal/Frontal area of the skull had been recovered and brought in to the autopsy surgeons. This photograph, taken from the front, depicts this piece of bone being re-inserted into place in that trianguler shaped void in the skull, which can also be easily seen in th4 anterior/posterior X-ray. Dr. Humes clearly wrote of this piece of recovered skull in his autopsy notes, and this photo was completely discussed during the HSCA questioning. The only "mystery' as relates to this photograph is exactly why persons who claim to be researchers are still going around attempting to pass this photograph off as if it were a photogrlaph of the rear of the skull. And, even that is no great mystery! As a "combat" veteran, I have learned that not only did I fight for the right to be free, but it also included to right for others to remain ignorant of the facts as well. "Stupid is as Stupid Does!" Forest Gump "which matches exactly the wound found on the back of the head in the so-called "mystery" photo, when properly interpreted." Since the photo is of JFK's head, if I turned it upside down and interpreted it "properly", would it represent his Butt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 Mr. KELLERMAN. Entry into this man's head was right below that wound, right here. Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the bottom of the hairline immediately to the right of the ear about the lower third of the ear? Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. But it was in the hairline, sir. Mr. SPECTER. In his hairline? Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. SPECTER. Near the end of his hairline? Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir. ============================================================ For those who are of the impression that I merely sit around and make this stuff up in order to further confuse the issues. Tom, Finck, the wound ballistics expert at the autopsy, said the EOP entrance was transversal, wider than long, which matches exactly the wound found on the back of the head in the so-called "mystery" photo, when properly interpreted. which matches exactly the wound found on the back of the head in the so-called "mystery" photo, when properly interpreted. Oh, that hurt! The laughter that is! http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/index.html You do not even know enough about the subject matter to recognize a "reverse image" photograph, even though I long ago explained it and also posted the testimonies related to the HSCA & Humes discussion of it. Might want to attempt to give Dr. Boswell a call and see if you could possibly learn a thing or two. "Mystery Photo"--------My A*S Classic, Tom. It's an inverted photo. Explains everything. Only in your interpretation, there was a beveled exit in the parietal area. Humes testified there was no such thing. You also have the scalp being reflected to the left ON THE FOREHEAD, which makes little sense. And you have an incredible amount of gall citing Boswell as a defense for your nonsense, when you claim there was an entrance in the cowlick--something he insisted did not exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 (edited) You cite your contact with Boswell as if it gives you some sort of credibility(Pat Speer) Will have to let others be the judge of the "credibility" issue. Nevertheless, whatever purposes my discussions with Dr. Boswell may have served, at least that have to date kept me from posting as well as writing WAG theories based on a frontal photograph that someone has printed in reverse image and then claimed to be of the rear of JFK's head. In simple layman's terms, these discussions have kept me from generally appearing completely "Bonehead Stupid" as well as functionally ignorant of the medical evidence. which matches exactly the wound found on the back of the head in the so-called "mystery" photo, when properly interpreted. (Pat Speer) It's called "First Person"/aka actual research Pat! Try it some time, you just may be amazed at what you could (possibly) learn! [b]The Mystery Photo[/b] Is a photograph that was taken later in the course of the autopsy after removal of JFK's brain was complete. Part of the recovered bone of the Parietal-Parietal/Frontal area of the skull had been recovered and brought in to the autopsy surgeons. This photograph, taken from the front, depicts this piece of bone being re-inserted into place in that trianguler shaped void in the skull, which can also be easily seen in th4 anterior/posterior X-ray. Dr. Humes clearly wrote of this piece of recovered skull in his autopsy notes, and this photo was completely discussed during the HSCA questioning. The only "mystery' as relates to this photograph is exactly why persons who claim to be researchers are still going around attempting to pass this photograph off as if it were a photogrlaph of the rear of the skull. And, even that is no great mystery! As a "combat" veteran, I have learned that not only did I fight for the right to be free, but it also included to right for others to remain ignorant of the facts as well. "Stupid is as Stupid Does!" Forest Gump "which matches exactly the wound found on the back of the head in the so-called "mystery" photo, when properly interpreted." Since the photo is of JFK's head, if I turned it upside down and interpreted it "properly", would it represent his Butt? Actually, Tom, in chapter 14 I measure the proportions of the drainage hole on the table, and show how this PROVES the photo was taken from behind. Please debunk my proof by simulating a photo taken from the front that accurately re-creates the proportions of the drainage hole. As far as your claim that people reversed this image to fake people into thinking this photo was taken form behind, that is utter malarkey. If you watch Part 1 of my video series you'll see that Dr. Baden presented this photo to congress in what you claim is the "reversed" orientation. He also claimed, as you, that this photo was taken from the front. In short, you are the only one in the world who shares your interpretation of this photo. That doesn't mean you're wrong, of course. It is pretty wild, however, that your interpretation is reliant upon someone re-inserting a piece of bone into the skull for a photograph--an event which would serve no forensic purpose, and which is unsupported by any eyewitness account. If you have a private correspondence from Stringer where he claims he stayed after the autopsy and took pictures of the reconstruction, now would be a good time to cough it up. BTW, in your orientation you leave what I propose to be the EOP entrance unexplained. Even worse, you place it on the forehead. I've shown this image to a number of hunters who know nothing about the Kennedy assassination, and they all readily agreed it was the entrance of a bullet on bone. Are you now suggesting Kennedy was shot from the front? If not, what is an entrance doing on his forehead? Edited August 22, 2008 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 23, 2008 Author Share Posted August 23, 2008 Heh! Heh! Heh! My appreciation, as in my old age, I do not get that many truly good laughs. Now! Were it that I knew so little about the medical evidence in the JFK assassination that I went around posting a "reverse image" printed photo of the front of JFK's head, and thereafter claimed that it represented the rear of his head, then I too would most likely go to my grave in complete denial that it was anything other than what was stated. For, I would not want anyone to come to realize how little that I actually knew in regards to the subject matter. Especially if I had written all about the "mystery photo" and posted this all over the internet for the whole world to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 23, 2008 Author Share Posted August 23, 2008 One never knows what they can learn in either speaking with those persons who were physically present during the events, as well as mere proper research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 23, 2008 Author Share Posted August 23, 2008 Actually! One merely requires the ability to read and comprehend to figure this one out. Of course, a little "experience" in the confusion that "reverse image" photographs create is also helpful as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 23, 2008 Author Share Posted August 23, 2008 Might want to inform them "hunters" that the entire HSCA Medical Panel, to include Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell, kind of "trumps" their crystal ball methods of forensic and pathological examination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 23, 2008 Author Share Posted August 23, 2008 Isn't that a coincidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 23, 2008 Author Share Posted August 23, 2008 "We believe that in photograph No. 44 the V-shaped notch here" "So, in tht case this exit wound is reallly in the frontal" "I would interpret this as being, originally, as being roughly the middle of the right parietal, and I still think so." Anyone else, (other than the last one who attempted to pass this photo off as the back of the head) that would like to demonstrate how little that they too know? For a highly reliable source, one might try: WWW.Patspeer.WAG.Com (Wild A**ed Guess) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now