Jump to content
The Education Forum

EOP v. Cowlick


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well!

That "reverse image" printed photo (flipped) has served the purpose of confusing many, for a lot of times as well as for a long, long time.

A good "con" will always work again!

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk..._Vol7_0065a.htm

Would someone else like to "flip" this photo back to it's correct image or do I have to do that as well.

Move over rabbit! Here comes Pat for about the 13th time!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

This is hilarious coming from someone who, after speaking to Boswell, still claims that Boswell and Humes not only failed to notice an entrance on the back of the head in the cowlick region, but lied when they catalogued the "mystery photo" as a photo of the back of the head.

Care to relate where Boswell (or anyone at the autopsy) said they placed bones back into the skull BEFORE they took the autopsy photos and/or x-rays? Claiming that this was done while simultaneously claiming that your talking to Boswell gives you any credibility is incredibly hypocritical, unless you are claiming that your speaking to him convinced you he was a xxxx. Standard Operating Procedure dictates that the x-rays were taken before the beginning of the autopsy. When Finck arrived, he ordered a few more. But there were none taken during the skull's reconstruction. No autopsy photos were taken at this time either. If you search the medical books you'll find that NO ONE takes photographs during reconstruction. It serves no purpose. Photographs are taken to help the doctors remember and accurately describe the wounds observed. There is no other reason for their existence. The funeral home has no need for photographs; consequently, none are taken during reconstruction.

BTW, Tom, you still haven't explained the bullet hole, which on your interpretation, was on Kennedy's forehead.

Image1-full.jpg

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

This is hilarious coming from someone who, after speaking to Boswell, still claims that Boswell and Humes not only failed to notice an entrance on the back of the head in the cowlick region, but lied when they catalogued the "mystery photo" as a photo of the back of the head.

Care to relate where Boswell (or anyone at the autopsy) said they placed bones back into the skull BEFORE they took the autopsy photos and/or x-rays? Claiming that this was done while simultaneously claiming that your talking to Boswell gives you any credibility is incredibly hypocritical, unless you are claiming that your speaking to him convinced you he was a xxxx. Standard Operating Procedure dictates that the x-rays were taken before the beginning of the autopsy. When Finck arrived, he ordered a few more. But there were none taken during the skull's reconstruction. No autopsy photos were taken at this time either. If you search the medical books you'll find that NO ONE takes photographs during reconstruction. It serves no purpose. Photographs are taken to help the doctors remember and accurately describe the wounds observed. There is no other reason for their existence. The funeral home has no need for photographs; consequently, none are taken during reconstruction.

BTW, Tom, you still haven't explained the bullet hole, which on your interpretation, was on Kennedy's forehead.

Image1-full.jpg

Yep!

As stated Pat, I too would go to my grave had I gone around attempting to sell that a reverse image photo which demosntrates the front of the head was actually some "mystery photo" which demonstrates the rear of the head.

Especially since one does not even have to have ever heard of the autopsy surgeons to figure that one out.

Since I can not "draw a picture" of it on which is written "front" & "back" for you to understand, then I will merely recommend to others that the read the combined testimonies of Dr. Humes; Finck; and Boswell.

In that, they will find that your "Mystery Photo" was taken after the brain had been removed and a retriieved skull fragment brought in.

In fact, it is one of the three skull fragments which can be found in the X-ray of those brought in during the later course of the autopsy.

Commander HUMES - Having ascertained to our satisfaction and incidentally photographs illustrating this phenomenon from both the external surface of the skull and from the internal surface were prepared, we concluded that the large defect to the upper right side of the skull, in fact, would represent a wound of exit. A careful examination of the margins of the large bone defect at that point, however, failed to disclose a portion of the skull bearing again a wound of--a point of impact on the skull of this fragment of the missile, remembering, of course, that this area was devoid of any scalp or skull at this present time. We did not have the bone.

To make my presentation of this wound of the skull more logical to the Commission, I would like to go forward in time that evening to at a later hour. I apologize--time and what happened exactly at what moment escapes me at this time.

I mentioned previously that there was a large bony defect. Some time later on that evening or very early the next morning while we were all still engaged in continuing our examination, I was presented with three portions of bone which had been brought to Washington from Dallas by the agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

These were--

Mr. SPECTER - Might that have been by a Secret Service agent?

Commander HUMES - It could be, sir; these things.

Mr. SPECTER - At any rate, someone presented thee three pieces of bone to you?

Commander HUMES - Someone presented these three pieces of bone to me, I do not recall specifically their statement as to where they had been recover. It seems to me they felt it had been recovered either in the street or in the automobile, I don't recall specifically.

We were most interested in these fragments of bone, and found that the three pieces could be roughly put together to account for a portion of this defect.

Mr. SPECTER - How much remained unaccounted for, Dr. Humes?

Commander HUMES - I would estimate that approximately one-quarter of that defect was unaccounted for by adding these three fragments together and seeing what was left.

However, the thing which we considered of importance about these three fragments of bone was that at the margins of one of them which was roughly pyramidal in shape, there was a portion of the circumference of what we interpreted as a missile wound. We thus interpreted it this because there was, the size was, sufficiently large for us, for it to have the curve of the skull still evident. At the point of this defect, and I will draw both tables of the bone in this defect, at the area which we interpreted as the margin of a missile wound, there was a shelving of the margin. This would, to us, mean that a missile had made this wound from within the skull to the exterior. To confirm that this was a missile wound, X-rays were made of that fragment of bone, which showed radio-opaque material consistent and similar in character to the particles seen within the skull to be deposited in the margins of this defect, in this portion of the bone.

Mr. SPECTER - On the reconstruction of the three portions of the scalp which you described-----

Commander HUMES - Skull, sir.

Mr. SPECTER - Skull, which enabled you to reconstruct a point of exit of the bullet, will you state at this point of the record that size of opening or exit path of the bullet?

Commander HUMES - As I mentioned previously, at one angle of this largest pyramidal shaped fragments of bone which came as a separate specimen, we had the portion of the perimeter of a roughly what we would judge to have been a roughly circular wound of exit. Judging from that portion of the perimeter which was available to us, we would have judged the diameter of that wound to be between 2.5 and 3 cm.

As this missile penetrated the scalp, it then came upon a very firm substance, the hard skull, and I believe that this track depicted by the dotted lines on Exhibit 388 was a portion of that missile which was dislodged as it made its defect in the skull. And that--that another portion, and, as I say, presumably, by the size of the defect, a more major portion made its exit through the right lateral side of the skull.

Mr. McCLOY - Is this piece of pyramidal bone that was brought in to you subsequently as I understand it--

Commander HUMES - Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY - Was that part of the outer table or the inner table?

Commander HUMES - It was both tables, sir.

Mr. McCLOY - Both tables?

Commander HUMES - Yes, sir; had it only been one it might have been difficult to ascertain whether it was.

Mr. McCLOY - Shelving or not?

Commander HUMES - Yes, sir; in or out, but it encompassed both tables, sir.

===================================================

Mr. SPECTER - Were you present when the three pieces of scalp were reconstructed to form the major portion of the absent part of President Kennedy's skull which Doctor Humes described?

Colonel FINCK - I was present when several portions of bone were brought.

Mr. SPECTER - And what did you observe, if anything, as to a reconstructed hole from those three portions of skull?

Colonel FINCK - May I refer to my scheme?

Mr. SPECTER - Please do.

Colonel FINCK - For the sake of demonstration.

Mr. SPECTER - Fine.

Colonel FINCK - At the level of the wound of exit, E, in my scheme, Commission Exhibit No. 400, when viewed from the inside of the skull, there was no crater, whereas when the wound is seen from the outside of the skull, there was beveling, cratering, or coning--this is possible to determine an exit even if only a portion of the bone is submitted, for the reason that if there was enough bone submitted, there is enough curvature to identify the inside and outside of the skull. Therefore the fragment, to give you an example, this portion at the level of the wound of exit can be oriented, and the outer surface of the skull and the inner surface of the skull may be identified due to the curvature.

And then you look at the direction of the beveling and you do see the beveling when looking from the outside and you can identify an exit wound. And that is what I did, and now I am referring to the actual case in discussion, Commission Exhibit 388.

Mr. SPECTER - That is B?

Colonel FINCK - Letter B. We will see portions of bone in this general area, the large wound in the bone on the right side of the skull of President Kennedy. I had enough curvature to identify outside of the skull, and inside of the skull, as the first step to orient the specimen, and then I could determine the location of the beveling, and I could therefore say that B, Commission Exhibit 388, is a wound of exit.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/finckhsca.htm

Dr. COE. If I understood you, you said that the head post had already been done at the time you arrived.

Dr. FINCK. The brain had been removed.

Dr. COE. You mean some of these pictures were taken after the brain had been removed?

Dr. FINCK. I don't know. The sequence of photographs, I was there when some of the photographs were taken.

Dr. COE. I am a little confused because you said before the brain had been removed before you came.

Dr. FINCK. As far as I remember.

Dr. COE. Then if you were there when photographs were taken of the head, it must have been after the brain had been removed.

Dr. WECHT. What Dr. Coe means is before you stated when you got there the brain had been removed, right?

Dr. FINCK. I think so.

Dr. WECHT. So if you remember that pictures were taken at your specific request, then what John is asking therefore by definition, one or more pictures of the head were taken after the brain had been removed.

Dr. WESTON. He mentioned the crater specifically.

Dr. FINCK. Yes, and I don't know if all the pictures I were taken in my presence.

Dr. WECHT. Pierre, on the pieces of bone that were brought to you that evening from Dallas or on any of the remaining portions of fragmented bones in the President' s skull, cerebellum essentially, do you recall seeing anything that looked like or suggested a circular or a semi-circular or any portion of a circle, circular type wound that would be consistent with or suggestive of a gunshot wound in the right parietal region or in any of the bone fragments that were sent to you from Dallas that evening?

Dr. FINCK. From what I remember in the fragments of bone I established first what is the outer surface of the skull and what is the inner surface of the skull in those fragments and after doing that you at both surfaces and you determine where is the beveling. The beveling was in the outer surface, thus identifying a portion of a wound of exit if that is your question.

Dr. WECHT. Your answer then is that you did see some kind of a circular area or defect?

Dr. FINCK. A portion of the crater, I would say. This is the outside of the skull of the cadaver.

Dr. BADEN. Would those to your recollection be the three fragments brought to you in the course of the autopsy that were X rayed in the course of the autopsy?

Dr. FINCK. Probably.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/finckshaw.htm

During the course of the autopsy we received from Dallas portions of bone which have the same appearance as the general appearance of the remaining skull of President Kennedy, and on one of the fragments which we could match inside this wound, approximately five inches in diameter, occupying the right side and the top of the head of the President, I saw the beveling I described to you. First identified the outer aspect of the specimen and the inner aspect, I-n-n-e-r, of the specimen to orient the specimen in relation to the wound. After having oriented the specimen as far as the outer and inner surfaces are concerned, I saw this crater when the specimen was viewed from outside which identifies a portion of the wound of exit.

the wound of exit is very irregular and very often you don't have all the portions of bone to make a complete skull, some portions are missing, so you cannot do what you do with a complete puzzle, to take the complete pieces and make a complete image. In that case the fragments were matching the wound in a general way, and I could make a positive determination of a wound of exit, of a portion of a wound of exit, in a bone fragment submitted to us during the course of the autopsy,

Q: There were none. Now, having examined the skull particle which you have testified contained evidence as to which direction the bullet was traveling, and as an expert in the field of Pathology, do you have a definite opinion as to whether the projectile which caused the bone damage exhibited by that particle entered from the front or from the back?

A: I have a definite opinion. I would like to add that that bony specimen brought to us was X-rayed and contained metallic fragments which corroborates the finding of metallic fragments seen at the time of the autopsy on the X-ray film of the head of the President, and the X-ray film was taken before the autopsy of the head, I saw the X-ray film, there were metallic fragments on the X-ray, there were metallic fragments in that bony fragment brought to us during the course of the autopsy, and I have a firm opinion that the bullet entered in the back of the head and exited on the right side of the top of the head producing a very large wound.

Q: Had any work been done on President Kennedy's body in regard to the performing of the autopsy by the time you got there?

A: As I recall, the brain had been removed

======================================================

Now!

For the benefit of those who have no film/X-ray interpretation experience (which quite obvioiusly includes Pat Speer), the anterior/posterior X-ray demonstrates that area of parietal and parietal/frontal bone missing from JFK.

Part of this missing bone tapered downward to create a "V" shape of missing bone directly lateral to the nostrils.

The anterior/posterior photographs/aka the "Mystery Photograph" is taken after the brain had been removed from JFk and the scalp in the frontal lobe area is reflected back over to the left side of the skull.

That 'V" shaped portion of recovered skull which contained the semi-circular exit point/beveling is what is observed re-inserted down into the "V" which can be seen on the anterior/posterior X-ray.

That Pat Speer can not seem to either read and/or understand this is in and of itself not fully understandable.

Other than what would be the pure and simple reason that he does not wish to demonstrate to one and all exactly how little he actually knows in regards to the medical evidence in the JFK assassination.

The evidence on the facts as presented is repetitive throughout all of the various testimonies as well as the evidence photo's which the HSCA eventually published (even if they did fool Pat and a few others with the "reverse image" sleight-of-hand).

But!

Don't take my word for it!

Take the evidence to virtually any qualified forensic pathololgist; medical examiner; and/or qualified and experienced radiologist, and see what answer you get.

P.S. Mike! In the event that I should ever post anything which is as stupid; unfounded' and incompletely researched as the "Mystery Photo" essay/back of the head entry determination, please feel free to drive up here to S. Mississippi and "terminate our relationship with extreme prejudice", as I will have grown far too senile and stupid to continue living and spreading complete BS disinformation.

but lied when they catalogued the "mystery photo"

Now Pat, for all to see, please demonstrate ANY place where I have stated that any of the autopsy surgeons "Lied".

You cannot, and the reason that you cannot is due to the fact that you quite obviously can not read and comprehend things and therfore merely have to make up things as you go along and/or dream them up.

Not unlike the great "Mystery Photo"!

What a total joke!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, Tom, you still haven't explained the bullet hole, which on your interpretation, was on Kennedy's forehead.

First off, you are as usually, incorrect in: you still haven't explained the bullet hole

I long ago posted those drawings which demonstrate exactly how that metallic residue was left embedded into the inner table of JFK's skull.

Just that one of the may have gotten scanned upside down and confused you into interpreting that it was something to do with JFK's butt.

Since we actually now have another party here who has clearly demonstrated ballistic knowledge, with some more "shed dipping" I will find them and provide them to him as I have always preferred comments and review by someone who actually knows something.

Secondly: which on your interpretation, was on Kennedy's forehead

There you go making up things again!

For the enjoyment of the reading public, would you like to demonstrate exactly where it is that I have stated that the metallic residue is in the "forehead".

Hate to be the one to inform you Pat, but you kind of gave yourself away on that one in demonstration that you know absolutely nothing in regards to X-ray interpretation or reading comprehension. Take your choice!

The beginning "exit" wound and metallic residue as seen in the anterior/posterior X=ray is nowhere near the "forehead" area, and only someone who is completely ignorant of radiographic film would make such an assinine* statement.

*asinine is normally correct! However, down here in the deep south when one makes a statement that it is so stupid that the person stating it make an A** of themselves, we normally reference the statement as being "assinine".

It would appear that due to your lack of either radiographic interpretation or deficent reading retention ability that you are confusing the exit wound location as shown in the anterior posterior X-ray, which has clearlly defined metallic residue embedded into the margins of the inner table of the skull, with that piece of skull fragment from the Parietal/Parietal-Frontal lobe which was brought into the autopsy room considerably after the the autopsy was underway; the brain had been removed, and an attempt to reconstruct the skull with these fragments was being done by Humes; Boswell; and Finck.

1. Finck was not present when the anterior/posterior x-ray was made. He did not arrive until after the brain had been removed by Dr. Humes.

2. The anterior/posterior X-ray DOES NOT show the presence of that "V" shaped fragment of skull which contains the 2.5cm semi-circular point of exit which contained beveling on the outer table of the skull.

Simple reason being that this fragment had not arrived in the autopsy at the time that the anterior/posterior x-ray was made.

3. That, for some reason, Pat Speer wants to attempt to "combine" that exit location as seen in the anterior/posterior x-ray as if it has some direct association with the 2.5cm exit location which was found in the "V" shaped fragment which was brought in later during the autopsy, is somewhat indicative of exactly how confused on the subject matter he is.

But then again, one could expect little more from someone who thinks that an anterior/posterior photographs of the skull which has been printed in reverse image representes the rear of the head.

4. That indication as shown on the anterior/posterior X-ray which demonsrates metallic residue embedded into the inner table of the skull, is the result of an intact bullet as it began it's initial exit point from the skull.

5. That indication which Dr. Humes measured as approximately a 2.5 to 3 cm semi-circle and which was found to have beveling on the exterior surface of the bone, and which fragment of skull was brought in to the autopsy room after JFK's brain had been completely removed, is a fragment of skull from the parietal/parietal-frontal lobe of the skull which contained the exit point of a large fragment from the bullet.

Recognizing that Pat will most likely not understand this, does anyone else have any questions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I like "multiple choice" questions in which there is only an "A" or "B" answer in which to have to chose from.

Now:

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z312.jpg

With the position of JFK's head at Z312/313, a bullet fired from behind could not have struck JFK:

A. In the upper cowlick area of the head, to penetrate through the upper lobe of the brain and exit in the front of the skull.

B. In the lower edge of the hairline at the base of the neck, after having penetrated through the coat of JFK on an acute angle, to tunnel upwards through the soft flesh of the neck, ultimately striking JFK in the EOP region of the skull at a point which was in fact higher in elevation than the penetration at the scalp entry.

==========================================================

Correct answer is:__________

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on, Tom, all this flattery is making me blush. It seems clear to me that you have no intention of actually dealing with the issues.

My interpretation: the photo is of the back of the head. Reasons: the autopsy doctors listed it as such in 1966; the entrance described at autopsy is featured in the photo; the drainage hole in the photo indicates the photo was taken from a specific angle. I re-created this angle and found it to match a photo taken from behind.

Your interpretation: the photo is of the front of the head, only reversed, and with a bone re-inserted. Reasons: You feel like it--there are no statements from anyone to have studied the evidence claiming that the photo was reversed, nor are there any statements from anyone claiming a bone was re-inserted before the photograph was taken.

As I understand it, you also are claiming the v-shaped notch apparent in the photo--which you claim to represent a bullet's exit on the front of the skull--is on a piece of bone re-inserted in the skull late in the autopsy. Did you forget that this bone was x-rayed? Please show us how this bone fits on the forehead, and where the v-shaped notch in the photo is on the piece of bone that was x-rayed...

http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca..._Vol7_0066a.htm

BTW, don't think I didn't notice your obfuscation. I asked about the bullet hole in the photo in my last post, which you place on the forehead, and you tried to discuss the bullet fragments on the x-rays. Come on, Tom, we're waiting. What is that bullet hole, if it's not a bullet hole?

P.S. Tom, I have a chapter on the x-rays which was reviewed by numerous radiologists. None of them had a problem with my findings; they just thought the published x-rays were of poor quality, and difficult to fully orient or understand, and were unwilling to have their names associated with ANY interpretation of the x-rays.. Your acting as though I've failed to do my homework and that my understanding of the x-rays is silly or without foundation is not appreciated and clearly reflective of your own lack of expertise.

If you actually do some reading you'll find that a large black area on an x-ray does not necessarily indicate missing bone. Believe it or not, the frontal bone on the bottom x-ray in the slide below was intact.

radiology-full.jpg

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That "reverse image" printed photo (flipped) has served the purpose of confusing many, for a lot of times as well as for a long, long time.

Thomas,

You need to stop selling that idea of a reversed image, to me it sounds like one of those "Whim Wham Scams."

The real damage to the skull is explained in the photo below.

Don

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That "reverse image" printed photo (flipped) has served the purpose of confusing many, for a lot of times as well as for a long, long time.

Thomas,

You need to stop selling that idea of a reversed image, to me it sounds like one of those "Whim Wham Scams."

The real damage to the skull is explained in the photo below.

Don

Don I fear you are in woefully over your depth!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on, Tom, all this flattery is making me blush. It seems clear to me that you have no intention of actually dealing with the issues.

My interpretation: the photo is of the back of the head. Reasons: the autopsy doctors listed it as such in 1966; the entrance described at autopsy is featured in the photo; the drainage hole in the photo indicates the photo was taken from a specific angle. I re-created this angle and found it to match a photo taken from behind.

Your interpretation: the photo is of the front of the head, only reversed, and with a bone re-inserted. Reasons: You feel like it--there are no statements from anyone to have studied the evidence claiming that the photo was reversed, nor are there any statements from anyone claiming a bone was re-inserted before the photograph was taken.

As I understand it, you also are claiming the v-shaped notch apparent in the photo--which you claim to represent a bullet's exit on the front of the skull--is on a piece of bone re-inserted in the skull late in the autopsy. Did you forget that this bone was x-rayed? Please show us how this bone fits on the forehead, and where the v-shaped notch in the photo is on the piece of bone that was x-rayed...

http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca..._Vol7_0066a.htm

BTW, don't think I didn't notice your obfuscation. I asked about the bullet hole in the photo in my last post, which you place on the forehead, and you tried to discuss the bullet fragments on the x-rays. Come on, Tom, we're waiting. What is that bullet hole, if it's not a bullet hole?

P.S. Tom, I have a chapter on the x-rays which was reviewed by numerous radiologists. None of them had a problem with my findings; they just thought the published x-rays were of poor quality, and difficult to fully orient or understand, and were unwilling to have their names associated with ANY interpretation of the x-rays.. Your acting as though I've failed to do my homework and that my understanding of the x-rays is silly or without foundation is not appreciated and clearly reflective of your own lack of expertise.

If you actually do some reading you'll find that a large black area on an x-ray does not necessarily indicate missing bone. Believe it or not, the frontal bone on the bottom x-ray in the slide below was intact.

radiology-full.jpg

It seems clear to me that you have no intention of actually dealing with the issues.

Actually, it seems clear to me that you do not even know what the issue is.

Therefore, let me difine it for you:

You state that some "Mystery Photograph" constitutes an autopsy photgraph which demonstrates primarily the back of JFK's head and a bullet penetration through the skull in the upper portion of the rear of the head.

Whereas:

The HSCA Medical Panel durilng the questioning of the autopsy surgeons fully clarified that this photograph demonstrated the front of JFK's head with the scalp reflected; the brain removed, and a recovered triangular shaped bone fragment re-positioned into the area in the parietal/parietal frontal area of the skull.

As well as the clearly determined discussions which established that the semi-circular indication on this bone fragment was where the autopsy surgeons, including Pierre Finck, had found an EXIT wound of a bullet fragment which exited forward out the front of JFK's head, thus creating this semi-circular wound of exit in the skull fragment.

Not only do the WC testimonies reference this bone fragment having been brought in during the latter stages of the autopsy, but the other statements and testimonies of the autopsy surgeons do so as well.

And, to the extent that the HSCA published a "close-up" photograph of the EXIT point in this wound, which due to their having published this photograph in a "Reverse Image" state as well, not unlike the "Mystery Photograph", has led Pat Speer on a Snipe Hunt for the illlusive "furry snipe"!

That Pat, is the issue!

=================================================================

Your interpretation: the photo is of the front of the head, only reversed, and with a bone re-inserted.

(Pat Speer)

See the photograph Pat?

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk..._Vol7_0065a.htm

Get someone to read and explain to you what the HSCA Medical Panel had to say in regards to the photograph Pat!

Black and white photograph No. 17 and color transparency and print No. 44 are closeups of the margins of the fracture line in the right frontoparietal region after reflection of the scalp. On the margins of this fracture line is a semicircular defect which appears to be beveled outward, although the photograph is not in sharp focus. Computer-assisted image enhancement of this photograph revealed the defect more clearly [emphasis added]. (7HSCA118)

Now Pat! Might want to "double check" that HSCA image against your back of the head "Mystery Photo" and attempt to decipher exactly why the HSCA and autopsy surgeons are all incorrect and Pat Speer has it figured out.

Below images:

1. Portion of photo cropped and flipped (as shown in the Pat Speer Mystery Photo) as well as the HSCA photo.

I am sorry that you do not know enough to recognize when someone pulls the wool over and/or flings BS into your eyes to the extent that you do not recognize when a photograph has been printed in "reverse image".

However, that would appear to be one of those "nature v. nurture" issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That "reverse image" printed photo (flipped) has served the purpose of confusing many, for a lot of times as well as for a long, long time.

Thomas,

You need to stop selling that idea of a reversed image, to me it sounds like one of those "Whim Wham Scams."

The real damage to the skull is explained in the photo below.

Don

Don I fear you are in woefully over your depth!

At least you know who the "others" are!

In case you missed this little trist when it first arised. Hope you may have gained something from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since Pat Speer (as well as at least one other) have been severely fooled.

Is anyone else now "fooled" by the "flipped/reverse image" photography???

Other than a few remaining fools, can we now put the great "Mystery Photo" to bed?

Tom, you still haven't explained what appears to be a bullet hole, which is on the forehead in your interpretation.

As far as your assertion that the statements of the doctors support your pet theory that the photo was taken after a piece of bone was re-inserted into the skull, spare me! No one EVER said this photo was taken with a piece of bone re-inserted into the skull. If you educate yourself on autopsy procedure, you'll see that such things just are not done. The supposed exit on bone in your interpretation is on the frontal bone. So what did Dr. Humes say when discussing this photo with the HSCA?

Dr. Humes: “This is not frontal bone where that semi-circle is—it’s either temporal or parietal bone, Dr. Angel.”

The temporal bone is on the side of the head; this proves that Dr. Humes did not share your interpretation.

If Dr. Humes had placed the bone back into the skull before the empty cranium photo was taken, as you insist, he would certainly have remembered this in 1966, when he wrote that the photo showed the EOP entrance on the posterior skull, as I've proposed. Neither he nor Boswell nor Finck nor Stringer (the photographer) ever mentioned their taking a photo with a piece of bone re-inserted into the skull. When they spoke to the ARRB, moreover, neither Humes nor Boswell nor Finck could say for sure whether this photo was of the back of the head or the forehead. (See part 1 of my video series). This was quite interesting seeing as the HSCA medical panel, taking their cue from the Clark Panel, which in turn took its cue from the Justice Department, which wrote the 1967 review of the photo which changed its orientation from being a photo of the back of the head to being a photo of the front of the head, had claimed that this was of the front of the head, and showed a bullet exit. (FWIW, the HSCA wound ballistics expert Larry Sturdivan now asserts that the beveled bone in the photo is NOT an exit.)

So your assertion that this photo was taken late in the autopsy, after a late-arriving piece of bone was re-inserted into the skull, is completely without foundation.

You can believe what you want, but your claim that the historical record supports your belief is a false one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since Pat Speer (as well as at least one other) have been severely fooled.

Is anyone else now "fooled" by the "flipped/reverse image" photography???

Other than a few remaining fools, can we now put the great "Mystery Photo" to bed?

Tom, you still haven't explained what appears to be a bullet hole, which is on the forehead in your interpretation.

As far as your assertion that the statements of the doctors support your pet theory that the photo was taken after a piece of bone was re-inserted into the skull, spare me! No one EVER said this photo was taken with a piece of bone re-inserted into the skull. If you educate yourself on autopsy procedure, you'll see that such things just are not done. The supposed exit on bone in your interpretation is on the frontal bone. So what did Dr. Humes say when discussing this photo with the HSCA?

Dr. Humes: “This is not frontal bone where that semi-circle is—it’s either temporal or parietal bone, Dr. Angel.”

The temporal bone is on the side of the head; this proves that Dr. Humes did not share your interpretation.

If Dr. Humes had placed the bone back into the skull before the empty cranium photo was taken, as you insist, he would certainly have remembered this in 1966, when he wrote that the photo showed the EOP entrance on the posterior skull, as I've proposed. Neither he nor Boswell nor Finck nor Stringer (the photographer) ever mentioned their taking a photo with a piece of bone re-inserted into the skull. When they spoke to the ARRB, moreover, neither Humes nor Boswell nor Finck could say for sure whether this photo was of the back of the head or the forehead. (See part 1 of my video series). This was quite interesting seeing as the HSCA medical panel, taking their cue from the Clark Panel, which in turn took its cue from the Justice Department, which wrote the 1967 review of the photo which changed its orientation from being a photo of the back of the head to being a photo of the front of the head, had claimed that this was of the front of the head, and showed a bullet exit. (FWIW, the HSCA wound ballistics expert Larry Sturdivan now asserts that the beveled bone in the photo is NOT an exit.)

So your assertion that this photo was taken late in the autopsy, after a late-arriving piece of bone was re-inserted into the skull, is completely without foundation.

You can believe what you want, but your claim that the historical record supports your belief is a false one.

[b]you'll see that such things just are not done.[/b][/i

Might want to run that one by even just a regular pathologists, not to mention a forensic pathologists.

It happens to be pretty well standard procedure to reconstruct/attempt to replace bone fragments back into their proper location, and especially with bullet wounds, and even more especially with bullet wounds of the skull.

Happens to be one of the few way in which one can determine the entrance location v. the exit location.

Unlike Pat.Speer.Com, pathologist do not look at reverse image photographs and consult crystal balls to determine what is the front vs. rear of the head of a corpse.

As far as your assertion that the statements of the doctors support your pet theory that the photo was taken after a piece of bone was re-inserted into the skull, spare me! No one EVER said this photo was taken with a piece of bone re-inserted into the skull. If you educate yourself on autopsy procedure, you'll see that such things just are not done.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humesa.htm

A. The pieces that were brought to me, it was either two or three, I think three: one pretty sizable one and two smaller ones. Again, I'm talking off the top of my head. When they were repositioned to where they should have been, there was still a defect. We didn't have sufficient bone to totally close the defect.

================================

Well now! Exactly what is one to make of that?????????

Could it be that Pat.Speer.WAG.Com, even if he is of the opinion that discussions with one of the autopsy surgeons is of no importance, even consider it might worthwhile to at least research the various testimonies of some of those persons who were actually there and involved.

======================================================

A. Well, we looked with care at the margins of the defect in the skull, and we found a similar situation where the bone fragments that were placed--that remained in place, halfway in place,

were shelved on that outer table of the skull. And when we got the fragments from Dallas, they were similarly--we almost could complete the circle of what appeared to be the actual exit wound because it was shelved on the outer table, and we almost could put it all together, that wound. Not the defect, but the wound.

Q. So unlike the wound in the occipital bone, the wound towards the front, there was a nick or a half-circle or some such thing showing what you understood to be the exit, and you were able then to complete that wound when the fragments came?

A. When the fragments came, almost, because they're all flying around, you know. These fragments are--it's like, you know, working with clouds, because they were--you had to put them together with great care to make that out.

==============================================

Dr. Humes: “This is not frontal bone where that semi-circle is—it’s either temporal or parietal bone, Dr. Angel.”

The temporal bone is on the side of the head; this proves that Dr. Humes did not share your interpretation

Coming from someone who obviously attempts to resolve pathololgical problems by holding reverse image photography up to their head and thereafter declares the photo to be of of the rear of JFK's head, does not tend to lend too much credence to anything which one has to say Pat.

As soon as you figure our the correct side of the head which the photo (the great "Mystery Photo") actually represents, then give me a call.

Meanwhile try and peddle your "Amazing Kresgin" method of problem resolution to someone who does not know any better.

A. Well, it didn't really--I don't know what it showed, my problem is, but in one of the bone fragments there was a semicircular defect that was not complete, only part of it. And then when we got these fragments, at one margin of it there's something that seemed to match up with that fragment that was still in the skull. My memory's pretty good. I said we had three. That's what we have, I guess.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/finckhsca.htm

Dr. WECHT. Pierre, on the pieces of bone that were brought to you that evening from Dallas or on any of the remaining portions of fragmented bones in the President' s skull, cerebellum essentially, do you recall seeing anything that looked like or suggested a circular or a semi-circular or any portion of a circle, circular type wound that would be consistent with or suggestive of a gunshot wound in the right parietal region or in any of the bone fragments that were sent to you from Dallas that evening?

Dr. FINCK. From what I remember in the fragments of bone I established first what is the outer surface of the skull and what is the inner surface of the skull in those fragments and after doing that you at both surfaces and you determine where is the beveling. The beveling was in the outer surface, thus identifying a portion of a wound of exit if that is your question.

Dr. WECHT. Your answer then is that you did see some kind of a circular area or defect?

Dr. FINCK. A portion of the crater, I would say. This is the outside of the skull of the cadaver.

====================================================================

Pat!

As soon as you learn "front from rear"/aka anterior vs. posterior, then be sure and come back to visit some time and then the subject matter can be at least discussed with someone who is not 180-degrees out.

For those who are unaware of the additional confusion that Pat.Speer.Wag.Com continues to dissiminate.

The Parietal/Temporal piece of bone which contained indications of an exit, remained attached to the skull/scalp of JFK and is clearly discussed by Dr. Humes in his HSCA Testimony.

And, anyone who has actually bothered to read it, would know that in one breath Dr. Humes is discussing this piece of bone with an apparant "exit" characteristic.

And in the next breath he is discussing that portion of the parietal/parietal frontal bone which can be seen re-inserted into the void area of the skull of JFK and which bone contained the 2.5 to 3 cm beveled would of exit which all autopsy surgeons observed, and which bone fragment was brought in late in the autopsy after the removal of JFK's brain.

http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkm...possibility.htm

Black and white photograph No. 17 and color transparency and print No. 44 are closeups of the margins of the fracture line in the right frontoparietal region after reflection of the scalp. On the margins of this fracture line is a semicircular defect which appears to be beveled outward, although the photograph is not in sharp focus. Computer-assisted image enhancement of this photograph revealed the defect more clearly

Move out of the way Rabbit! Here comes Pat again!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...