EOP v. Cowlick

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Tom, you're not dealing with the issues. If, as you seem to believe, the Clark Panel and HSCA shared your impression of the photo, then why did the HSCA depict the beveled exit inches away from the exit in your interpretation? And why did Dr. Angel, who was only the world's foremost authority on skull reconstruction, interpret the photo as being a straight-on shot of the front of the skull, with the scalp reflected over the eyes?

Now I agree that they were both incorrect, but your pretending that they agreed with YOUR interpretation, and that the photo was reversed, is completely bizarre, and without foundation.

Now answer the questions, please.

Why would someone reverse the image?

Who reversed the image?

When was the image reversed?

And, finally...

The image when reversed, in your orientation, has what appears to be a bullet hole on the forehead. What is this, if not a bullet hole?

Tom, you're not dealing with the issues.

(Pat Speer)

The "issues" is quite simple.

1. Pat Speer (along with a few others who own crystal balls and Ouiji boards) says that photo#44 is a photograph which was taken from the rear of the head which shows the scalp reflected from the rear of the skull, and a bullet hole in the rear of the skull.

Whereas:

2. Everyone else from the Clark Panel; to the HSCA FPP Panel, to include the atuopsy surgeons, says that that photograph$44 is a photograph which was taken from the front of the head and shows the scalp in the front of the head reflected downwards over the face, as well as demonstrating a semi-circular area of the skull which exhibits beveling on the exterior surface and thusly demonstrates a point of EXIT out the parietal/parietal frontal vicinity of the skull.

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

I do believe that I will stick with #2. above.

Although I have little or no qualms in regards to intentionally appearing stupid, I do have qualms in regards to unintentionally looking stupid.

After all: "Stupid is as Stupid Does".

Therefore, if one in intentionally looking "stupid", then quite apparantly it was done for some reason.

Now I agree that they were both incorrect,

(Pat Speer)

Save your agreements for the mouse in your pocket!

When you (provided that you ever do) come to recognize that Photo#44 represents a photographs which was taken from the front of the skull; demonstrates the scalp reflected down over the face as well as to the left hemisphere of the skull; demonstrates the front of the skull in the parietal/parietal-frontal area of the skull along with a large portion of the bone of the right hemisphere as well as extending into the right rear hemisphere (occipital area) of the skull as being absent, then perhaps as they one used to say: "You will have learned".

Until such time, you continue to remain completely lost!

Do you offer refunds to anyone who knows so little that they may have actually paid something for the "mis-knowledge" contained in your video?

Tom, you're still running away from the issues. The fact is that I have studied the photograph and analyzed it, and concluded that Boswell, Humes, Ebersole, and Stringer were correct when they initially catalogued the photos as photos of a wound on the posterior skull after the reflection of the scalp. No one else of whom I am aware has studied this photo beyond looking at it and going "Gee, it looks like a forehead to me!" If you're aware of any such study, please bring it to my attention.

As far as your other evasion...the fact is we agree that the official interpretation of the photo is wrong. Your conclusions that the photo has been reversed, that it was taken after the largest fragment of bone had been re-inserted into the skull, and that it shows a defect near the middle of the skull, are your conclusions, and yours alone. None of the doctors or panels to glimpse at the photo have said as much. If two people look at a photo and one says it's a photo of the Taj Mahal, and one turns the photo sideways and says it's the Roman Colisseum, you can't say they're in agreement just because they both said it was a building.

BTW,

Why would someone reverse the image?

Who reversed the image?

When was the image reversed?

And, finally...

The image when reversed, in your orientation, has what appears to be a bullet hole on the forehead. What is this, if not a bullet hole?

Tom, you're still running away from the issues.

The "issues" is quite simple.

1. Pat Speer (along with a few others who own crystal balls and Ouiji boards) says that photo#44 is a photograph which was taken from the rear of the head which shows the scalp reflected from the rear of the skull, and a bullet hole in the rear of the skull.

Whereas:

2. Everyone else from the Clark Panel; to the HSCA FPP Panel, to include the atuopsy surgeons, says that that photograph$44 is a photograph which was taken from the front of the head and shows the scalp in the front of the head reflected downwards over the face, as well as demonstrating a semi-circular area of the skull which exhibits beveling on the exterior surface and thusly demonstrates a point of EXIT out the parietal/parietal frontal vicinity of the skull.

The fact is that I have studied the photograph and analyzed it,

And did it just suddenly, late one night, "whisper" to you it's secrets? Secrets that it witheld from every single person with the medical and forensic ability to determine it's secrets on their own?

and concluded that Boswell, Humes, Ebersole, and Stringer were correct when they initially catalogued the photos as photos of a wound on the posterior skull after the reflection of the scalp.

Although deceased, I am certain that Dr. Humes appreciates you having reviewed this material and also now having determined that he was correct.

And, just in event that you have not caught on, the photo does show the "POSTERIOR SKULL AFTER REFLECTION OF THE SCALP".

The scalp is reflected from the parietal/parietal frontal lobe of the skull and the photo is taken looking down into the cranium, thusly demonstrating the INTERIOR TABLE of the POSTERIOR of the skull, and the associated bullet entrance wound in the EOP.

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

Richard Avedon:

There is no such thing as inaccuracy in a photograph. All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth.

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

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...tml/Image00.htm

No one else of whom I am aware has studied this photo beyond looking at it and going "Gee, it looks like a forehead to me!" If you're aware of any such study, please bring it to my attention.

Well!

I personally have little doubt that this was the manner in which the HSCA FPP; the Clark Panel; the Autopsy Surgeons; and virtually every other qualified person who has looked at the photographs resolved the issues.

The looked at it and said "Gee, it looks like a forehead to me!".

If you're aware of any such study, please bring it to my attention.[/b]

Clark Panel and HSCA FPP Panel!

But I personally an not aware of any place where they said "GEE!".

The merely utilized the vastness of their forensic; pathological; and anthropoligical knowledge to recognized what it was.

[Pat Speer]

Tom, I regretfully inform you that neither the Clark Panel studied the photograph. They both recited a conclusion--contradictory conclusions at that--after LOOKING at the photograph. Neither group analyzed the proportions observed the photograph in order to determine if it was of the front or the back of the head. Neither group closely analyzed the features of the photograph. They certainly left no paper trail indicating as much. There is no evidence, furthermore, that the HSCA FPP interviewed Boswell and Humes with the knowledge that they'd previously stated the photo was of the back of the head. In fact, there is no evidence any of the HSCA FPP knew ANYTHING about the history of the photo, as they were given ACCESS to the primal documents for but a brief amount of time and were not required to read them. As a result, all we have is a few doctors, after almost certainly reading the report of their mentor Russell Fisher, which told them the photo is of the forehead, taking a quick look at the photos, and then jotting down their own thoughts. Neither group noted any of the interior features of the photograph. The report of the HSCA FPP does make a brief reference to a semi-circular entrance and a semi-circular exit visible, which IMO indicates their confusion. There is certainly no record, or testimony, discussing this semi-circular entrance elsewhere, nor is there a semi-circular entrance apparent in the interior of the photo.

As Baden and Wecht were later to admit they couldn't make sense of the photo, it seems clear no true consensus was reached.

If you can find one member of the HSCA FPP or Clark Panel to debate me about the proper orientation of the photo, you'll be my hero. But I assure you they won't.

FWIW, the doctor who's studied this photo the most is Dr. David Mantik. He's been to the Archives 9 times, and has concluded that the photo was taken from behind.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...tml/Image00.htm

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...tml/Image04.htm

If you can find one member of the HSCA FPP or Clark Panel to debate me about the proper orientation of the photo, you'll be my hero. But I assure you they won't.

(Pat Speer)

Most probably correct in that statement Pat, as it has been my experience that those who know what they are talking about are seldom inclined to "debate" with those who have no idea as to what they are talking about.

And just so the record is straight, this is no debate.

It is merely an effort to share knowledge with those who will most probably never be afforded the opportunity to speak with some of those with whom I have had the privilidge of speaking, as well as demonstrate exactly how little you actually know on the subject matter.

FWIW, the doctor who's studied this photo the most is Dr. David Mantik. He's been to the Archives 9 times, and has concluded that the photo was taken from behind.

(Pat Speer)

For what it's worth, I have been to Houston multiple times and have concluded that all Houston Drivers are crazy.

But at least I am also smart enough to recognize that this conclulsion too is not correct!

Go sell your video to children who know no better Pat!

Anybody want to buy a video! I am sure that Pat will soon be offering them at extremely low discount prices.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...tml/Image06.htm

We all, at time, confuse right from left.

However! I have actually encounterd only a few select individuals who could not recognize "front" from "back"!

And to think! They often refer to those of us down here in the Mississippi backwoods as being "backwards"!

Well, maybe so! However, we for the most part know and recognize: right from left; front from back; and up from down!

[Pat Speer]

Spin, spin, spin, Tom.

Why would someone reverse the image?

Who reversed the image?

When was the image reversed?

And, finally...

The image when reversed, in your orientation, has what appears to be a bullet hole entrance on the forehead. What is this, if not a bullet hole?

Now, since you seem to believe the orientation of this photo is so obvious, let's add another...

The report of the Clark Panel, which you conveniently edit in your last post: "Due to lack of contrast of the structures portrayed and lack of clarity of detail in these photographs the only conclusion reached by the Panel from study of this series was that there was no exiting bullet defect in the supra-orbital region of the skull."

The report of Lawrence Angel, the world's pre-eminent expert on skull reconstruction, hired by the HSCA to help them interpret the photographs: "The exit area through the right frontal bone above the boss can account for the small semi-circular notch 35 mm above the right orbit."

35 mm above the right orbit is indisputably the supra-orbital region of the skull. These two reports therefore contradict each other. Care to explain? Was Angel, in your opinion, a bonehead? Or was the Clark Panel, which failed to note the exit so obvious to others, including you, simply blind?

Edited September 4, 2008 by Pat Speer

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Spin, spin, spin, Tom.

Why would someone reverse the image?

Who reversed the image?

When was the image reversed?

And, finally...

The image when reversed, in your orientation, has what appears to be a bullet hole entrance on the forehead. What is this, if not a bullet hole?

Now, since you seem to believe the orientation of this photo is so obvious, let's add another...

The report of the Clark Panel, which you conveniently edit in your last post: "Due to lack of contrast of the structures portrayed and lack of clarity of detail in these photographs the only conclusion reached by the Panel from study of this series was that there was no exiting bullet defect in the supra-orbital region of the skull."

The report of Lawrence Angel, the world's pre-eminent expert on skull reconstruction, hired by the HSCA to help them interpret the photographs: "The exit area through the right frontal bone above the boss can account for the small semi-circular notch 35 mm above the right orbit."

35 mm above the right orbit is indisputably the supra-orbital region of the skull. These two reports therefore contradict each other. Care to explain? Was Angel, in your opinion, a bonehead? Or was the Clark Panel, which failed to note the exit so obvious to others, including you, simply blind?

Was Angel, in your opinion, a bonehead?

In event that he was under the completely misguided impression that photo#44 constituted a photograph which was taken from the rear of the head, then I would have to state that in my opinion, he was a "bonehead".

Along with anyone else who is of the opinion that the photograph was taken from the rear of the head!

[Pat Speer]

Spin, spin, spin, Tom.

Why would someone reverse the image?

Who reversed the image?

When was the image reversed?

And, finally...

The image when reversed, in your orientation, has what appears to be a bullet hole entrance on the forehead. What is this, if not a bullet hole?

Now, since you seem to believe the orientation of this photo is so obvious, let's add another...

The report of the Clark Panel, which you conveniently edit in your last post: "Due to lack of contrast of the structures portrayed and lack of clarity of detail in these photographs the only conclusion reached by the Panel from study of this series was that there was no exiting bullet defect in the supra-orbital region of the skull."

The report of Lawrence Angel, the world's pre-eminent expert on skull reconstruction, hired by the HSCA to help them interpret the photographs: "The exit area through the right frontal bone above the boss can account for the small semi-circular notch 35 mm above the right orbit."

35 mm above the right orbit is indisputably the supra-orbital region of the skull. These two reports therefore contradict each other. Care to explain? Was Angel, in your opinion, a bonehead? Or was the Clark Panel, which failed to note the exit so obvious to others, including you, simply blind?

Was Angel, in your opinion, a bonehead?

In event that he was under the completely misguided impression that photo#44 constituted a photograph which was taken from the rear of the head, then I would have to state that in my opinion, he was a "bonehead".

Along with anyone else who is of the opinion that the photograph was taken from the rear of the head!

Not funny. But interesting. So now you're calling Humes, Boswell, Ebersole, and Stringer, who, when asked simply to ID the photograph by the National Archives, claimed it was of an entrance on the posterior skull, "boneheads."

Dr. Angel, of course, did not believe the photo was of the back of the head. He interpreted it as being the front of the head, in an entirely different orientation from yourself. As did the HSCA FPP. Your attempts to use them as support for your pet theory that the photo is of the front of the head, only reversed, is therefore ridiculous. You can claim you are correct, naturally, but your argument from authority is refuted.

[Thomas Graves]

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...tml/Image06.htm

We all, at time, confuse right from left.

However! I have actually encounterd only a few select individuals who could not recognize "front" from "back"!

And to think! They often refer to those of us down here in the Mississippi backwoods as being "backwards"!

Well, maybe so! However, we for the most part know and recognize: right from left; front from back; and up from down!

________________________________

Tommy, your are backwards. It's "backwards!" not "backwards"!

"However!,

Yet!,

But Wait!,

Actually!,

Yes!

However!" (etc, etc)

(Whatever...)

Edited September 7, 2008 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Spin, spin, spin, Tom.

Why would someone reverse the image?

Who reversed the image?

When was the image reversed?

And, finally...

The image when reversed, in your orientation, has what appears to be a bullet hole entrance on the forehead. What is this, if not a bullet hole?

Now, since you seem to believe the orientation of this photo is so obvious, let's add another...

The report of the Clark Panel, which you conveniently edit in your last post: "Due to lack of contrast of the structures portrayed and lack of clarity of detail in these photographs the only conclusion reached by the Panel from study of this series was that there was no exiting bullet defect in the supra-orbital region of the skull."

The report of Lawrence Angel, the world's pre-eminent expert on skull reconstruction, hired by the HSCA to help them interpret the photographs: "The exit area through the right frontal bone above the boss can account for the small semi-circular notch 35 mm above the right orbit."

35 mm above the right orbit is indisputably the supra-orbital region of the skull. These two reports therefore contradict each other. Care to explain? Was Angel, in your opinion, a bonehead? Or was the Clark Panel, which failed to note the exit so obvious to others, including you, simply blind?

Was Angel, in your opinion, a bonehead?

In event that he was under the completely misguided impression that photo#44 constituted a photograph which was taken from the rear of the head, then I would have to state that in my opinion, he was a "bonehead".

Along with anyone else who is of the opinion that the photograph was taken from the rear of the head!

Not funny. But interesting. So now you're calling Humes, Boswell, Ebersole, and Stringer, who, when asked simply to ID the photograph by the National Archives, claimed it was of an entrance on the posterior skull, "boneheads."

Dr. Angel, of course, did not believe the photo was of the back of the head. He interpreted it as being the front of the head, in an entirely different orientation from yourself. As did the HSCA FPP. Your attempts to use them as support for your pet theory that the photo is of the front of the head, only reversed, is therefore ridiculous. You can claim you are correct, naturally, but your argument from authority is refuted.

Not funny. But interesting. So now you're calling Humes, Boswell, Ebersole, and Stringer, who, when asked simply to ID the photograph by the National Archives, claimed it was of an entrance on the posterior skull, "boneheads."

Actually! About the only "bonehead" is the one who fails to recognize that the photograph (#44), as stated, demonstrates the entrance in the posterior skull and the associated beveling of the interior table of the skull, as well as the fragment exit in the Parietal/parietal-frontal area of the skull, with the scalp reflected.

(The "little" hole v. the "Big" hole)

And, since a photograph can not demonstrate the difference in sizes of two seperate holes, without also demonstrating/showing both of the holes, then even us swamp rats down here in the backwoods can figure that one out.

Be sure and come back and visit when you have actually learned something Pat!

[Pat Speer]

Spin, spin, spin, Tom.

Why would someone reverse the image?

Who reversed the image?

When was the image reversed?

And, finally...

The image when reversed, in your orientation, has what appears to be a bullet hole entrance on the forehead. What is this, if not a bullet hole?

Now, since you seem to believe the orientation of this photo is so obvious, let's add another...

The report of the Clark Panel, which you conveniently edit in your last post: "Due to lack of contrast of the structures portrayed and lack of clarity of detail in these photographs the only conclusion reached by the Panel from study of this series was that there was no exiting bullet defect in the supra-orbital region of the skull."

The report of Lawrence Angel, the world's pre-eminent expert on skull reconstruction, hired by the HSCA to help them interpret the photographs: "The exit area through the right frontal bone above the boss can account for the small semi-circular notch 35 mm above the right orbit."

35 mm above the right orbit is indisputably the supra-orbital region of the skull. These two reports therefore contradict each other. Care to explain? Was Angel, in your opinion, a bonehead? Or was the Clark Panel, which failed to note the exit so obvious to others, including you, simply blind?

Was Angel, in your opinion, a bonehead?

In event that he was under the completely misguided impression that photo#44 constituted a photograph which was taken from the rear of the head, then I would have to state that in my opinion, he was a "bonehead".

Along with anyone else who is of the opinion that the photograph was taken from the rear of the head!

Not funny. But interesting. So now you're calling Humes, Boswell, Ebersole, and Stringer, who, when asked simply to ID the photograph by the National Archives, claimed it was of an entrance on the posterior skull, "boneheads."

Dr. Angel, of course, did not believe the photo was of the back of the head. He interpreted it as being the front of the head, in an entirely different orientation from yourself. As did the HSCA FPP. Your attempts to use them as support for your pet theory that the photo is of the front of the head, only reversed, is therefore ridiculous. You can claim you are correct, naturally, but your argument from authority is refuted.

Not funny. But interesting. So now you're calling Humes, Boswell, Ebersole, and Stringer, who, when asked simply to ID the photograph by the National Archives, claimed it was of an entrance on the posterior skull, "boneheads."

Actually! About the only "bonehead" is the one who fails to recognize that the photograph (#44), as stated, demonstrates the entrance in the posterior skull and the associated beveling of the interior table of the skull, as well as the fragment exit in the Parietal/parietal-frontal area of the skull, with the scalp reflected.

(The "little" hole v. the "Big" hole)

And, since a photograph can not demonstrate the difference in sizes of two seperate holes, without also demonstrating/showing both of the holes, then even us swamp rats down here in the backwoods can figure that one out.

Be sure and come back and visit when you have actually learned something Pat!

Sorry, Tom, but it's clear from our exchange that we have conflicting theories, and that yours is based upon a willful ignorance of the bullet hole entrance near the EOP--which is apparent in the photo--and the preposterous presumption the image was reversed for no apparent reason. As a result, we're looking at two different photos. I'm looking at the photo as printed by the HSCA and as reproduced in the books on the assassination, and you're looking at it as you wish it to be.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Spin, spin, spin, Tom.

Why would someone reverse the image?

Who reversed the image?

When was the image reversed?

And, finally...

The image when reversed, in your orientation, has what appears to be a bullet hole entrance on the forehead. What is this, if not a bullet hole?

Now, since you seem to believe the orientation of this photo is so obvious, let's add another...

The report of the Clark Panel, which you conveniently edit in your last post: "Due to lack of contrast of the structures portrayed and lack of clarity of detail in these photographs the only conclusion reached by the Panel from study of this series was that there was no exiting bullet defect in the supra-orbital region of the skull."

The report of Lawrence Angel, the world's pre-eminent expert on skull reconstruction, hired by the HSCA to help them interpret the photographs: "The exit area through the right frontal bone above the boss can account for the small semi-circular notch 35 mm above the right orbit."

35 mm above the right orbit is indisputably the supra-orbital region of the skull. These two reports therefore contradict each other. Care to explain? Was Angel, in your opinion, a bonehead? Or was the Clark Panel, which failed to note the exit so obvious to others, including you, simply blind?

Was Angel, in your opinion, a bonehead?

In event that he was under the completely misguided impression that photo#44 constituted a photograph which was taken from the rear of the head, then I would have to state that in my opinion, he was a "bonehead".

Along with anyone else who is of the opinion that the photograph was taken from the rear of the head!

Not funny. But interesting. So now you're calling Humes, Boswell, Ebersole, and Stringer, who, when asked simply to ID the photograph by the National Archives, claimed it was of an entrance on the posterior skull, "boneheads."

Dr. Angel, of course, did not believe the photo was of the back of the head. He interpreted it as being the front of the head, in an entirely different orientation from yourself. As did the HSCA FPP. Your attempts to use them as support for your pet theory that the photo is of the front of the head, only reversed, is therefore ridiculous. You can claim you are correct, naturally, but your argument from authority is refuted.

Not funny. But interesting. So now you're calling Humes, Boswell, Ebersole, and Stringer, who, when asked simply to ID the photograph by the National Archives, claimed it was of an entrance on the posterior skull, "boneheads."

Actually! About the only "bonehead" is the one who fails to recognize that the photograph (#44), as stated, demonstrates the entrance in the posterior skull and the associated beveling of the interior table of the skull, as well as the fragment exit in the Parietal/parietal-frontal area of the skull, with the scalp reflected.

(The "little" hole v. the "Big" hole)

And, since a photograph can not demonstrate the difference in sizes of two seperate holes, without also demonstrating/showing both of the holes, then even us swamp rats down here in the backwoods can figure that one out.

Be sure and come back and visit when you have actually learned something Pat!

Sorry, Tom, but it's clear from our exchange that we have conflicting theories, and that yours is based upon a willful ignorance of the bullet hole entrance near the EOP--which is apparent in the photo--and the preposterous presumption the image was reversed for no apparent reason. As a result, we're looking at two different photos. I'm looking at the photo as printed by the HSCA and as reproduced in the books on the assassination, and you're looking at it as you wish it to be.

Actually!

I am looking at it in the same manner as did:

1. The Clark Panel

2. The HSCA FPP Panel

3. The HSCA Anthropological Panel

4. The Autopsy Surgeons.

You on the other hand are looking at it as a "reverse image" photograph which has "blown smoke" in your eyes as well as up your A** and made you believe that it represents some "Mystery Photograph" of the back of the head.

Don't feel bad Pat!

Had I fallen for this with so little reserch of the actual materials and thereafter wasted considerable cerebral capacity on writing up some great BS "Enter the Darkside" tale, then I too would most probably never admit to having been that gullible.

P.S. I reiterate! Come back when you have actually learned something.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Spin, spin, spin, Tom.

Why would someone reverse the image?

Who reversed the image?

When was the image reversed?

And, finally...

The image when reversed, in your orientation, has what appears to be a bullet hole entrance on the forehead. What is this, if not a bullet hole?

Now, since you seem to believe the orientation of this photo is so obvious, let's add another...

The report of the Clark Panel, which you conveniently edit in your last post: "Due to lack of contrast of the structures portrayed and lack of clarity of detail in these photographs the only conclusion reached by the Panel from study of this series was that there was no exiting bullet defect in the supra-orbital region of the skull."

The report of Lawrence Angel, the world's pre-eminent expert on skull reconstruction, hired by the HSCA to help them interpret the photographs: "The exit area through the right frontal bone above the boss can account for the small semi-circular notch 35 mm above the right orbit."

35 mm above the right orbit is indisputably the supra-orbital region of the skull. These two reports therefore contradict each other. Care to explain? Was Angel, in your opinion, a bonehead? Or was the Clark Panel, which failed to note the exit so obvious to others, including you, simply blind?

Was Angel, in your opinion, a bonehead?

In event that he was under the completely misguided impression that photo#44 constituted a photograph which was taken from the rear of the head, then I would have to state that in my opinion, he was a "bonehead".

Along with anyone else who is of the opinion that the photograph was taken from the rear of the head!

Not funny. But interesting. So now you're calling Humes, Boswell, Ebersole, and Stringer, who, when asked simply to ID the photograph by the National Archives, claimed it was of an entrance on the posterior skull, "boneheads."

Dr. Angel, of course, did not believe the photo was of the back of the head. He interpreted it as being the front of the head, in an entirely different orientation from yourself. As did the HSCA FPP. Your attempts to use them as support for your pet theory that the photo is of the front of the head, only reversed, is therefore ridiculous. You can claim you are correct, naturally, but your argument from authority is refuted.

Not funny. But interesting. So now you're calling Humes, Boswell, Ebersole, and Stringer, who, when asked simply to ID the photograph by the National Archives, claimed it was of an entrance on the posterior skull, "boneheads."

Actually! About the only "bonehead" is the one who fails to recognize that the photograph (#44), as stated, demonstrates the entrance in the posterior skull and the associated beveling of the interior table of the skull, as well as the fragment exit in the Parietal/parietal-frontal area of the skull, with the scalp reflected.

(The "little" hole v. the "Big" hole)

And, since a photograph can not demonstrate the difference in sizes of two seperate holes, without also demonstrating/showing both of the holes, then even us swamp rats down here in the backwoods can figure that one out.

Be sure and come back and visit when you have actually learned something Pat!

Sorry, Tom, but it's clear from our exchange that we have conflicting theories, and that yours is based upon a willful ignorance of the bullet hole entrance near the EOP--which is apparent in the photo--and the preposterous presumption the image was reversed for no apparent reason. As a result, we're looking at two different photos. I'm looking at the photo as printed by the HSCA and as reproduced in the books on the assassination, and you're looking at it as you wish it to be.

Actually!

I am looking at it in the same manner as did:

1. The Clark Panel

2. The HSCA FPP Panel

3. The HSCA Anthropological Panel

4. The Autopsy Surgeons.

You on the other hand are looking at it as a "reverse image" photograph which has "blown smoke" in your eyes as well as up your A** and made you believe that it represents some "Mystery Photograph" of the back of the head.

Don't feel bad Pat!

Had I fallen for this with so little reserch of the actual materials and thereafter wasted considerable cerebral capacity on writing up some great BS "Enter the Darkside" tale, then I too would most probably never admit to having been that gullible.

P.S. I reiterate! Come back when you have actually learned something.

Without going into great detail (again) in regards to the true advantage of having actually conducted research and read what is/was long ago available in regards to photo#44, as well as having discussed the issues with those who have "first person" knowledge of this item of evidence, let's move onward.

In attempting to make this as simple as possible, in order that the most simple minded moron can understand and grasp it:

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/index.html

Lateral X-ray of the head of JFK taken at the time of the autopsy.

(and, one can ignore all of the BS in regards to altered and phony autopsy photo's and X-rays, as they have been confirmed by the most prestigeous and qualified personnel in the fields.)

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z335.jpg

Here, we have JFK with the "skull cap/crown" section of the top of his head blown off, which was fractured and seperated from the skull as a result of the Z313/aka Second Shot/aka Cowlick entry impact.

"A" of posted image.

Edited September 9, 2008 by Thomas H. Purvis

[Thomas H. Purvis]

The below attached image demonstrates the fracture line which runs horizontally and laterally across the right rear of the head of JFK which demonstrates where the rearmost edge of the "skull cap" section (as seen in Z335) fractured from the head and was blown over to the right side of his head as a result of the Z313 impact.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/index.html

The (late)/Great "Mystery Photo"! And although printed in "reverse image" photography/aka "flipped".

The photo shows no horizontal fracture line which separates two separate and distinctive segments of skull bone.

And, when one "flips" the photo into it's correct orientation, it still does not show any horizontally running fracture line in that part of the skull in the foreground of the photograph.

So:

Simpleton Test:

A. JFK's skull demonstrates a horitzontal fracture line in the right rear of the skull which runs laterally across the back of the skull, thusly seperating two separate and distinctive segements of skull bone.

B. The "Mystery Photo" shows a portion of JFK's skull (either front or rear), and this section of skull DOES NOT have a horizontal fracture line running laterally across the skull which markedly seperates two seperate and distinctive fragments of skull bone:

Therefore:

1. The "Mystery Photo" is of the rear of JFK's head?

2. The "Mystery Photo" can not be of the rear of JFK's head!

3. The question is too difficult for me to understand.

ENTER THE DARKSIDE!/aka Enter the Lair of the Hare/aka move over rabbit, here he comes again!

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Since we are "this close" to differentation between that segment of the skull of JFK that was blown off as a result of the Z313/aka Second Shot/aka Cowlick entry, one may as well proceed on to the EOP entry.

Some have discussed as well as criticized the WC, etc; in that it would be most unlikely for a single shot to the head to have created the cerebral damage to JFK's head that is now known to exist.

To that extent, even the most prolific of "conspiracy theories" would be correct.

However! This means neither that the autopsy X-rays and photo's have been altered and/or forged, nor does it mean that JFK's body was kidnapped and surgical alteration to the wounds was done.

It merely means that more than one bullet struck JFK in the head!

And, since one of the three shots fired struck JFK in the right/rear back, that pretty much tells us where the other two shots fired struck.

Attachment "B" below is that portion of the rear base of JFK's skull that was fractured, fragmented, and "blown outwards" as a result of the Third/Last/Final/EOP/in front of James Altgens shot.

The structural integrity of the skull was already compromised considerably by the Z313/Cowlick impact which removed the "skull cap" section from the top of the head, and when the Third Shot/EOP entry struck, there was little difficulty in the impact of this shot further fragment a large section from the rear/base of the skull of JFK.