Inside the ARRB, Vol. I, by Doug Horne

[Pat Speer]

Pat,

Boswell told the HSCA that there was missing bone in the back of the head. When discussing the location of the entrance in the back of the skull he explained that they originally found only a semi circle and that a late arriving fragment completed its circumference:

BOSWELL: It tore right down to that point. And then we just folded that back and this back and an interior flap forward and that exposed almost the entire - I guess we did have to disect a little bit to get to -

HUMES: To get to this entrance, right?

BOSWELL: But not much, because this bone was all gone and actually the smaller fragment fit this piece down here – there was a hole here, only half of which was present in the bone that was intact, and this small piece then fit right on there and the beveling on those was on the interior surface...

...There was a shelf and then a little hole came up on the side and then one of the smaller of the two fragments in that X-ray, when that arrived, we were able to fit that down there and complete the circumference of that bone wound. (7HSCA246,260)

Look, Pat, if there was no damage at all to the back of the head why the hell did so many people see it?

Martin

Martin, the missing bone on the back of the head described by Boswell was missing bone discovered AFTER the scalp was reflected and skull fell to the table.

Your quote of Boswell leaves something out. When Boswell says "it tore right down to that point", he is discussing the red oval in the cowlick, which he had just claimed was the rear most part of a scalp laceration. He was thereby claiming there were no scalp lacerations on the back of the head below the cowlick.

You can try all night long to reconcile that with the wound presented in the McClelland drawing, but you won't succeed.

In chapter 18c, I offer a detailed explanation of why I believe the Parkland witnesses were mistaken. They saw a wound on the top of the head of a man with his feet in the air, and thought the wound was a few inches further back on his skull than it really was. Their incorrect recollections were then twisted by CTs anxious to convince everyone there was a shooter on the grassy knoll into being claims there was an exit wound on the far back of the head--something few of the Parkland witnesses ever actually claimed. Those that did claim it, moreover, claimed it after seeing the so-called McClelland drawing depicting such a wound...a drawing McClelland himself would later admit was inaccurate.

The mythical "back of the head blow-out" is the single-bullet theory of the CT community, IMO. I hate to be smug about it. But I've been through this material a thousand times and it is as clear as can be that there was no entrance on the front of the head and no blow-out on the back of the head, and that decades of research have been wasted trying to prove something that actually has no bearing on the question of conspiracy.

Edited June 23, 2010 by Pat Speer

[Cliff Varnell]

But I believe three things create problems: 1.) Undue length which is simply not necessary 2.) the lack of organizational guides which make it hard to locate details 3.) the manifest influence of BE which is obvious throughout.

Hi Jim. Welcome to the Ed Forum.

In your review of IARRB you wrote:

As Gary Aguilar once said to Lifton: Extravagant claims demand extravagant evidence. One example of this would be the sentence in the FBI's Sibert-O'Neill report on the autopsy, which states that Humes noticed surgery of the head area when he looked at Kennedy's body for the first time. What Lifton did with this piece of hearsay was rather remarkable.

I'm curious as to why you dismiss the FBI autopsy report as "hearsay."

Was it not a properly prepared investigative document?

Hasn't the other key finding in the report -- the location of the back

wound -- been borne out by physical evidence (the holes in the clothes),

other properly prepared contemporaneous documents (Burkley's death cert.,

the autopsy face sheet diagram), and the witness statements of over a

dozen people?

Could Humes have been mistaken about pre-autopsy surgery? Of course.

Could Sibert and O'Neill have been mistaken as to what Humes said? Of course.

But on what basis do we dismiss the possibility that Humes was correct,

and that subsequent denials on his part carry less weight since, after all,

this was a crime that was covered up at the highest levels of the US gov't?

[Pat Speer]

Martin, the missing bone on the back of the head described by Boswell was missing bone discovered AFTER the scalp was reflected and skull fell to the table.

Your quote of Boswell leaves something out. When Boswell says "it tore right down to that point", he is discussing the red oval in the cowlick, which he had just claimed was the rear most part of a scalp laceration. He was thereby claiming there were no scalp lacerations on the back of the head below the cowlick.

You can try all night long to reconcile that with the wound presented in the McClelland drawing, but you won't succeed.

In chapter 18c, I offer a detailed explanation of why I believe the Parkland witnesses were mistaken. They saw a wound on the top of the head of a man with his feet in the air, and thought the wound was a few inches further back on his skull than it really was. Their incorrect recollections were then twisted by CTs anxious to convince everyone there was a shooter on the grassy knoll into being claims there was an exit wound on the far back of the head--something few of the Parkland witnesses ever actually claimed. Those that did claim it, moreover, claimed it after seeing the so-called McClelland drawing depicting such a wound...a drawing McClelland himself would later admit was inaccurate.

The mythical "back of the head blow-out" is the single-bullet theory of the CT community, IMO. I hate to be smug about it. But I've been through this material a thousand times and it is as clear as can be that there was no entrance on the front of the head and no blow-out on the back of the head, and that decades of research have been wasted trying to prove something that actually has no bearing on the question of conspiracy.

Pat,

What you're claiming is that the fragment that completed the circumference of the entry hole was one that fell to the table after the scalp was reflected? If that's so, why did Boswell say "when that arrived, we were able to fit that down there and complete the circumference of that bone wound"?

Your explanation for why you believe the Parkland witnesses were mistaken does not account for Sibert and O'Neil who were both at the entire autopsy and presumably saw that head wound from all manner of angles. Nor does it account for the morticians. Nor does it account for Clint Hill who was spreadeagled over the limo all the way to the hospital.

I'm not trying to prove anything. Unlike yourself, I do not have any beliefs regarding the head wounds and what caused them, I'm keeping an open mind. However, it is clear to me that simply dismissing the vast number of witnesses who saw a hole in the back of the head as mistaken is no way to discover the truth.

You may be right, the hole in the back of the head may be "mythical," but you certainly haven't proved it.

Cheers,

Martin

Well, people can claim there was a blow-out on the back of the head if they want, but without photographic or eyewitness support for such a thing, it gets them nowhere, and lowers their argument to the level of those arguing for the SBT. If one reads the words of the eyewitnesses to the shooting it's clear they saw an impact at the supposed exit on the top right side of the head and did not see a blow-out on the back of the head. When one reads the statements of the supposed back of the head witnesses at Parkland, furthermore, and looks at their depictions of the wound location, it's clear they are NOT describing the blow-out on the back of the head depicted in the McClelland drawing, nor the massive wound encompassing the whole right side of the head depicted in the sculpture created for Groden. With few exceptions, they are describing a wound on the right top side of the head but a few inches back of the wound shown in the photos. Such a wound would not represent an exit for a shot fired from the fence, as most CTs presume, although it could represent a tangential wound for bullet fired from further west.

Proposing such a shot is self-defeating, however, as no one saw a shooter in that location, even though the shooter would have been exposed. Such a shot is also at odds with the Zapruder film and autopsy photos, which show the wound to be above and in front of the ear. We should recall that, when the back wound was found to be in an inconvenient location, the doctors didn't fake the autopsy photos no one was supposed to see, but just lied about it, and created drawings showing the back wound to be in a different location. As a consequence, it makes a lot more sense to assume the photos proving this lie are legit than to assume someone somehow faked or altered photos no one was supposed to see of the head wound but left the photos of the back wound--which single-handedly destroys the single-assassin conclusion--alone.

[Mike Williams]

Martin, the missing bone on the back of the head described by Boswell was missing bone discovered AFTER the scalp was reflected and skull fell to the table.

Your quote of Boswell leaves something out. When Boswell says "it tore right down to that point", he is discussing the red oval in the cowlick, which he had just claimed was the rear most part of a scalp laceration. He was thereby claiming there were no scalp lacerations on the back of the head below the cowlick.

You can try all night long to reconcile that with the wound presented in the McClelland drawing, but you won't succeed.

In chapter 18c, I offer a detailed explanation of why I believe the Parkland witnesses were mistaken. They saw a wound on the top of the head of a man with his feet in the air, and thought the wound was a few inches further back on his skull than it really was. Their incorrect recollections were then twisted by CTs anxious to convince everyone there was a shooter on the grassy knoll into being claims there was an exit wound on the far back of the head--something few of the Parkland witnesses ever actually claimed. Those that did claim it, moreover, claimed it after seeing the so-called McClelland drawing depicting such a wound...a drawing McClelland himself would later admit was inaccurate.

The mythical "back of the head blow-out" is the single-bullet theory of the CT community, IMO. I hate to be smug about it. But I've been through this material a thousand times and it is as clear as can be that there was no entrance on the front of the head and no blow-out on the back of the head, and that decades of research have been wasted trying to prove something that actually has no bearing on the question of conspiracy.

Pat,

What you're claiming is that the fragment that completed the circumference of the entry hole was one that fell to the table after the scalp was reflected? If that's so, why did Boswell say "when that arrived, we were able to fit that down there and complete the circumference of that bone wound"?

Your explanation for why you believe the Parkland witnesses were mistaken does not account for Sibert and O'Neil who were both at the entire autopsy and presumably saw that head wound from all manner of angles. Nor does it account for the morticians. Nor does it account for Clint Hill who was spreadeagled over the limo all the way to the hospital.

I'm not trying to prove anything. Unlike yourself, I do not have any beliefs regarding the head wounds and what caused them, I'm keeping an open mind. However, it is clear to me that simply dismissing the vast number of witnesses who saw a hole in the back of the head as mistaken is no way to discover the truth.

You may be right, the hole in the back of the head may be "mythical," but you certainly haven't proved it.

Cheers,

Martin

Martin,

And wise you are. There is no evidence of a shot from the front as we shall soon see.

[David Josephs]

David:

I was going to reserve a long answer to your question for my summary of Horne's long series when I reviewed Part 5. But if you read my first two parts I think you will get an idea of what I think the strengths and weaknesses are.

There is a lot of interesting material in the volumes and I have tried to delineate that clearly and will continue to do so. Horne is to be congratulated for that. To use one example, no one has ever put together a better inquiry as to what photographs were taken and which are missing today. To me, the fact that they are missing is now proven almost beyond a shadow of a doubt.

These and other things noted are real and tangible achievements.

But I believe three things create problems: 1.) Undue length which is simply not necessary 2.) the lack of organizational guides which make it hard to locate details 3.) the manifest influence of BE which is obvious throughout.

As I said in Part 2, if Horne had had a real editor I think this would have been a really important book.

About the Douglass book, that was a real pleasure to read and write. If anything, I may have under-rated it. Some people seem to think I did.

Read it and will be reading it again (and probably again..) I also agree with your assessment about needing it to be indexed... Hopefully the time will come when it is scanned/entered into a digital file and offered on CD with the books so we can search more effectively.

Any chance of someone doing a "Cliff notes" type version without coloration? The key factual points, with understandable graphs/charts that can show quickly, for example, the photographic evidence differences among so much else.

If Doug would send me a complimentary copy I could get right on that!

And I MUST get Douglass' book. Reading "Brothers" first should be interesting to follow with UnSpeakable.

To my previous point, you name half dozen books used by Douglass that would be great to read, but who has that kind of time?

Take Care Jim,

DJ

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff:

The classic definition of hearsay is when someone says they heard someone say something, but the actual originating person says he did not.

That is what happened here. Both Lifton and Horne admit that part, And if I recall, the HSCA spent some time on this point.

Jim, I question whether this is a "classic" example of hearsay given the cover-up

in which Humes clearly took part. It's hard to see how Humes could have any

credibility post-autopsy.

Given the conflicting nature of the JFK head wound evidence, doesn't the pre-autopsy

surgery to the head scenario at least rise to the level of "reasonable doubt"?

Don't the conflicts between the witness testimonies, the x-rays, and the autopsy

photos re JFK's head injuries give weight to such a possibility?

I don't see how that touches on your pet issue as to the placement of the back wound. That is reliant on more than just an argument over an exchange.

I cite the back wound as a prime example of the credibility of the FBI autopsy report,

and the consistency of the credible back wound evidence. The FBI autopsy report corroborates

physical evidence (bullet holes in the clothing), witness testimony, and other properly

prepared contemporaneous documents such as Burkley's death certificate and the autopsy

face sheet diagram.

Compare that with the head wound evidence, which features contradictions between

witness testimony and the x-rays, and even inconsistencies between autopsy photos.

Horne's two-brain-exam scenario muddles the picture further.

A study of the back wound is a look at how JFK was killed.

A study of the head wound(s) is a look at how JFK's killing was

covered up. I question the value of the head wound evidence for

anything more than that.

[Bernice Moore]

The FBIs Sibert and ONeill Report

DL 100-10461/cv

A. AUTOPSY OF BODY OF PRESIDENT JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY

On 11/22/63 at Bethesda, Maryland

File #89-30

by SAs FRANCIS X. ONEILL, JR.; JAMES W. SIBERT:dfl

Date dictated 11/26/63

At approximately 3 p.m. on November 22, 1963, following the Presidents announced assassination, it was ascertained that Air Force One, the Presidents jet, was returning from Love Field, Dallas, Texas, flying the body back to Andrews Air Force Base, Camp Springs, Maryland. SAs FRANCIS X. ONEILL, JR. and JAMES W. SIBERT proceeded to Andrews Air Force Base to handle any matters which would fall within the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, inasmuch as it was anticipated that a large group of both military and civilian personnel assigned to the Base would congregate at Base Operations to witness the landing of this flight.

Lt. Col. Robert T. best, Director of Law Enforcement and Security, advised the Presidents plane would arrive at 5:25 p.m. Subsequently, Col. BEST advised that the plane would arrive at 6:05 p.m.

At approximately 5:55 p.m., agents were advised through the Hyattsville Resident Agency that the Bureau had instructed that the agents accompany the body to the National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, to stay with the body and to obtain bullets reportedly in the Presidents body.

Immediately agents contacted Mr. JAMES ROWLEY, the Director of the U. S. Secret Service, identified themselves and made Mr. Rowley aware of our aforementioned instruction. Immediately following the planes landing, Mr. ROWLEY arranged seating for Bureau agents in the third car of the White House motorcade which followed the ambulance containing the Presidents body to the Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland.

On arrival at the Medical Center, the ambulance stopped in front of the main entrance, at which time Mrs. JACQUELINE KENNEDY and Attorney General ROBERT KENNEDY embarked from the ambulance and entered the building. The ambulance was thereafter driven around to the rear entrance where the Presidents body was removed and taken into an autopsy room. Bureau agents assisted in the moving of the casket to the autopsy room. A tight security was immediately placed around the autopsy room by the Naval facility and the U. S. Secret Service. Bureau agents made contact with Mr. ROY KELLERMAN, the Assistant Secret Service Agent in Charge of the White House Detail, and advised him of the Bureaus interest in this matter. He advised that he had already received instructions from Director ROWLEY as to the presence of Bureau agents. It will be noted that the aforementioned Bureau agents, Mr. ROY KELLERMAN, Mr. WILLIAM GREER and Mr. WILLIAM OLEARY, Secret Service agents, were the only personnel other than medical personnel present during the autopsy.

The following individuals attended the autopsy:

Adm. C. B. HOLLOWAY, U. S. Navy, Commanding Officer of the U. S. Naval Medical Center, Bethesda;

Adm. BERKLEY, U. S. Navy, the Presidents personal physician;

Commander JAMES J. HUMES, Chief Pathologist, Bethesda Naval Hospital, who conducted autopsy;

Capt. JAMES H. STONER, JR., Commanding Officer, U. S. Naval Medical School, Bethesda;

Mr. JOHN T. STRINGER, JR., Medical photographer;

JAMES H. EBERSOLE;

LLOYD E. RAIHE;

J. T. BOZWELL;

J. G. RUDNICKI;

PAUL K. OCONNOR;

J. C. JENKINS;

JERROL F. CRESTER;

EDWARD F. REED;

JAMES METZLER.

During the course of the autopsy, Lt. Col. P. FINCK, U. S. Army Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, arrived to assist Commander HUMES in the autopsy. In addition, Lt. Cmdr. GREGG CROSS and Captain DAVID OSBORNE, Chief of Surgery, entered the autopsy room.

Major General WEHLE, Commanding Officer of U. S. Military District, Washington, D.C., entered the autopsy room to ascertain from the Secret Service arrangements concerning the transportation of the Presidents body back to the White House. AMC CHESTER H. BOYERS, U. S. Navy, visited the autopsy room during the final stages of such to type receipts given by FBI and Secret Service for items obtained.

At the termination of the autopsy, the following personnel from Gawlers Funeral Home entered the autopsy room to prepare the Presidents body for burial:

JOHN VAN HAESEN

EDWIN STROBLE

THOMAS ROBINSON

Mr. HAGEN

Brigidier General GODFREY McHUGH, Air Force Military Aide to the President, was also present, as was Dr. GEORGE BAKEMAN, U. S. Navy.

Arrangements were made for the performance of the autopsy by the U. S. Navy and Secret Service.

The Presidents body was removed from the casket in which it had been transported and was placed on the autopsy table, at which time the complete body was wrapped in a sheet and the head area contained an additional wrapping which was saturated with blood. Following the removal of the wrapping, it was ascertained that the Presidents clothing had been removed and it was also apparent that a tracheotomy had been performed, as well as surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull. [Emphasis added. This is the infamous phrase that set David Lifton on his odyssey toward body snatching, wound altering, and trajectory reversing in Best Evidence.] All personnel with the exception of medical officers needed in the taking of photographs and X-Rays were requested to leave the autopsy room and remain in an adjacent room.

Upon completion of X-Rays and photographs, the first incision was made at 8:15 p.m. X-Rays of the brain area which were developed and returned to the autopsy room disclosed a path of a missile which appeared to enter the back of the skull and the path of disintegrated fragments could be observed along the right side of the skull. The largest section of this missile as portrayed by X-Ray appeared to be behind the right frontal sinus. The next largest fragment appeared to be at the rear of the skull at the juncture of the skull bone.

The Chief Pathologist advised approximately 40 particles of disintegrated bullet and smudges indicated that the projectile had fragmentized while passing through the skull region.

During the autopsy inspection of the area of the brain, two fragments of metal were removed by Dr. HUMES, namely, one fragment measuring 7 x 2 millimeters, which was removed from the right side of the brain. An additional fragment of metal measuring 1 x 3 millimeters was also removed from this area, both of which were placed in a glass jar containing a black metal top which were thereafter marked for identification and following the signing of a proper receipt were transported by Bureau agents to the FBI Laboratory.

During the latter stages of this autopsy, Dr. HUMES located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column.

This opening was probed by Dr. HUMES with the finger, at which time it was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point had entered at a downward position of 45 to 60 degrees. Further probing determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger.

Inasmuch as no complete bullet of any size could be located in the brain area and likewise no bullet could be located in the back or any other area of the body as determined by total body X-Rays and inspection revealing there was no point of exit, the individuals performing the autopsy were at a loss to explain why they could find no bullets.

A call was made by Bureau agents to the Firearms Section of the FBI Laboratory, at which time SA CHARLES L. KILLION advised that the Laboratory had received through Secret Service Agent RICHARD JOHNSON a bullet which had reportedly been found on a stretcher in the emergency room of Parkland Hospital, Dallas, Texas. This stretcher had also contained a stethoscope and pair of rubber gloves. Agent JOHNSON had advised the Laboratory that it had not been ascertained whether or not this was the stretcher which had been used to transport the body of President KENNEDY. Agent KILLION further described this bullet as pertaining to a 6.5 millimeter rifle which would be approximately a 25 caliber rifle and that this bullet consisted of a copper alloy full jacket.

Immediately following receipt of this information, this was made available to Dr. HUMES who advised that in his opinion this accounted for no bullet being located which had entered the back region and that since external cardiac massage had been performed at Parkland Hospital, it was entirely possible that through such movement the bullet had worked its way back out of the point of entry and had fallen on the stretcher.

Also during the latter stages of the autopsy, a piece of the skull measuring 10 x 6.5 centimeters was brought to Dr. HUMES who was instructed that this had been removed from the Presidents skull. Immediately this section of skull was X-Rayed, at which time it was determined by Dr. HUMES that one corner of this section revealed minute metal particles and inspection of this same area disclosed a chipping of the top portion of this piece, both of which indicated that this had been the point of exit of the bullet entering the skull region.

On the basis of the latter two developments, Dr. HUMES stated that the pattern was clear that the one bullet had entered the Presidents back and had worked its way out of the body during external cardiac massage and that a second high velocity bullet had entered the rear of the skull and had fragmentized prior to exit through the top of the skull. He further pointed out that X-Rays had disclosed numerous fractures in the cranial area which he attributed to the force generated by the impact of the bullet in its passage through the brain area. He attributed the death of the President to a gunshot wound in the head.

The following is a complete listing of photographs and X-Rays taken by the medical authorities of the Presidents body. They were turned over to Mr. Roy KELLERMAN of the Secret Service. X-Rays were developed by the hospital, however, the photographs were delivered to Secret Service undeveloped:

11 X-Rays

22 4 x 5 color photographs

18 4 x 5 black and white photographs

1 roll of 120 film containing five exposures

Mr. KELLERMAN stated these items could be made available to the FBI upon request. The portion of the skull measuring 10 x 6.5 centimeters was maintained in the custody of Dr. HUMES who stated that it also could be made available for further examination. The two metal frgments removed from the brain area were hand carried by SAs SIBERT and ONEILL to the FBI Laboratory immediately following the autopsy and were turned over to SA KURT FRAZIER.

Back to The Deed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Qc4fhaBoxI

Edited June 23, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[Bernice Moore]

zapruder frames 312 313 why is the gif not showing in the post...???:blink:it is now... how do i remove one of the gifs and leave the other, thanks...b

Edited June 23, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[Bernice Moore]

zapruder frame 337

[Bernice Moore]

part 11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igMVdcT3FCo&feature=related

[Pat Speer]

Well, people can claim there was a blow-out on the back of the head if they want, but without photographic or eyewitness support for such a thing, it gets them nowhere, and lowers their argument to the level of those arguing for the SBT. If one reads the words of the eyewitnesses to the shooting it's clear they saw an impact at the supposed exit on the top right side of the head and did not see a blow-out on the back of the head. When one reads the statements of the supposed back of the head witnesses at Parkland, furthermore, and looks at their depictions of the wound location, it's clear they are NOT describing the blow-out on the back of the head depicted in the McClelland drawing, nor the massive wound encompassing the whole right side of the head depicted in the sculpture created for Groden. With few exceptions, they are describing a wound on the right top side of the head but a few inches back of the wound shown in the photos. Such a wound would not represent an exit for a shot fired from the fence, as most CTs presume, although it could represent a tangential wound for bullet fired from further west.

Proposing such a shot is self-defeating, however, as no one saw a shooter in that location, even though the shooter would have been exposed. Such a shot is also at odds with the Zapruder film and autopsy photos, which show the wound to be above and in front of the ear. We should recall that, when the back wound was found to be in an inconvenient location, the doctors didn't fake the autopsy photos no one was supposed to see, but just lied about it, and created drawings showing the back wound to be in a different location. As a consequence, it makes a lot more sense to assume the photos proving this lie are legit than to assume someone somehow faked or altered photos no one was supposed to see of the head wound but left the photos of the back wound--which single-handedly destroys the single-assassin conclusion--alone.

Pat,

You didn't answer my question: If the fragment that completed the circumference of the entry hole was one that fell to the table after the scalp was reflected, why did Boswell say "when that arrived, we were able to fit that down there and complete the circumference of that bone wound"? They would not need to await the arrival of a fragment that was already there would they?

And I don't understand this remark:

"people can claim there was a blow-out on the back of the head if they want, but without photographic or eyewitness support for such a thing, it gets them nowhere"

I thought the Parkland doctors and nurses, Sibert and O'Neil, the morticians etc were eyewitnesses to a hole in the back of the head?

Come on, Pat, you've got an explanation for the Parkland staff, but what about those present at the autopsy like Sibert and O'Neil? How did they get the location of the hole "wrong"?

Martin

Martin, to clarify, the Parkland witnesses did not initially claim the head wound was on the far back of the head, as depicted in what I have called the McClelland drawing. They described a wound, or pointed out a wound, that was on the back half of the head (usually) above and behind the ear--and described the wound seen on the autopsy photos and x-rays--a wound missing scalp and bone, about 5 cm across.

Now, seeing as the eyewitnesses to the shooting itself placed the wound on the side of the head, and the autopsy photos, x-rays, and Zapruder film placed the wound on the side of the head, the logical conclusion is that these doctors--whose own descriptions varied--were mistaken as to the precise location of the wound, and that it was actually a few inches further forward on the skull than many of them initially believed. Several of the doctors--when confronted with the autopsy photos and x-rays--in fact, acknowledged that they were almost certainly mistaken.

But CTs desperately want to believe the head shot came from the knoll, the same way LNs desperately want to believe the SBT is true, and go to great lengths to support their chosen scenario. To that end, they invent scenarios in which the autopsy photos are fake, in which there was no missing scalp at the wound location but instead flaps which could be folded this way or the other to hide parts of the wound, in which bones were placed back in the skull before the x-rays were taken, in which white patches were added onto the x-rays, etc. It's all malarkey, and not remotely supported by the witnesses on whom they purportedly rely.

Sibert, and O'Neill, for example, all claimed the large head wound they saw was an exit related to the small entrance wound they saw on the back of the head. And yet, many CTs try to twist their latter-day descriptions of the wound into being evidence the wound was an exit for an unseen entrance on the front of the head. Never mind that the smaller wound that these men saw--the small entrance near the EOP--was located precisely where these CTs say the large exit these men saw actually was. It's pretty silly.

If some CT--perhaps you--were to propose the "back of the head" exit was where the witnesses said it was--high on the right back of the head--and acknowledge that there was no blow-out of the occipital bone, and that the Harper fragment was not occipital bone--then the CT position would be on much more solid ground, IMO. But few CTs will question the malarkey they've been fed for decades...a fact which brings great joy to LNs.

As far as Hill, his early statements were imprecise and his most recent statement is that the wound was above the ear. As a result, he is not a credible back-of-the-head witness.

As far as Boswell, he is a proven xxxx and a proven loon. He repeatedly claimed the autopsy photos verified the accuracy of the Rydberg drawings, and that the back wound was at the base of the neck--that is, until he was forced by the ARRB to commit his impression of the back wound photo under penalty of perjury, and suddenly acknowledged it was well down from the base of the neck, around T-2. His comments on the head wound were equally dubious. When interviewed by the HSCA, the HSCA panel was pushing that the large fragment brought in late at the autopsy completed the bullet exit purportedly visible on the mystery photo--which they'd incorrectly claimed represented Kennedy's forehead. This was in direct opposition to Humes' WC testimony, and the recollections of Boswell and Finck, who'd all claimed the beveled exit was ONLY visible on the large fragment. Apparently, this confused the easily-confused Boswell, who started blathering about a fragment completing the ENTRANCE wound--something both Humes and Finck specifically ruled out.

[Pat Speer]

Martin, to clarify, the Parkland witnesses did not initially claim the head wound was on the far back of the head, as depicted in what I have called the McClelland drawing. They described a wound, or pointed out a wound, that was on the back half of the head (usually) above and behind the ear--and described the wound seen on the autopsy photos and x-rays--a wound missing scalp and bone, about 5 cm across.

Now, seeing as the eyewitnesses to the shooting itself placed the wound on the side of the head, and the autopsy photos, x-rays, and Zapruder film placed the wound on the side of the head, the logical conclusion is that these doctors--whose own descriptions varied--were mistaken as to the precise location of the wound, and that it was actually a few inches further forward on the skull than many of them initially believed. Several of the doctors--when confronted with the autopsy photos and x-rays--in fact, acknowledged that they were almost certainly mistaken.

But CTs desperately want to believe the head shot came from the knoll, the same way LNs desperately want to believe the SBT is true, and go to great lengths to support their chosen scenario. To that end, they invent scenarios in which the autopsy photos are fake, in which there was no missing scalp at the wound location but instead flaps which could be folded this way or the other to hide parts of the wound, in which bones were placed back in the skull before the x-rays were taken, in which white patches were added onto the x-rays, etc. It's all malarkey, and not remotely supported by the witnesses on whom they purportedly rely.

Sibert, and O'Neill, for example, all claimed the large head wound they saw was an exit related to the small entrance wound they saw on the back of the head. And yet, many CTs try to twist their latter-day descriptions of the wound into being evidence the wound was an exit for an unseen entrance on the front of the head. Never mind that the smaller wound that these men saw--the small entrance near the EOP--was located precisely where these CTs say the large exit these men saw actually was. It's pretty silly.

If some CT--perhaps you--were to propose the "back of the head" exit was where the witnesses said it was--high on the right back of the head--and acknowledge that there was no blow-out of the occipital bone, and that the Harper fragment was not occipital bone--then the CT position would be on much more solid ground, IMO. But few CTs will question the malarkey they've been fed for decades...a fact which brings great joy to LNs.

As far as Hill, his early statements were imprecise and his most recent statement is that the wound was above the ear. As a result, he is not a credible back-of-the-head witness.

As far as Boswell, he is a proven xxxx and a proven loon. He repeatedly claimed the autopsy photos verified the accuracy of the Rydberg drawings, and that the back wound was at the base of the neck--that is, until he was forced by the ARRB to commit his impression of the back wound photo under penalty of perjury, and suddenly acknowledged it was well down from the base of the neck, around T-2. His comments on the head wound were equally dubious. When interviewed by the HSCA, the HSCA panel was pushing that the large fragment brought in late at the autopsy completed the bullet exit purportedly visible on the mystery photo--which they'd incorrectly claimed represented Kennedy's forehead. This was in direct opposition to Humes' WC testimony, and the recollections of Boswell and Finck, who'd all claimed the beveled exit was ONLY visible on the large fragment. Apparently, this confused the easily-confused Boswell, who started blathering about a fragment completing the ENTRANCE wound--something both Humes and Finck specifically ruled out.

Pat,

The Parkland doctors always maintained the wound was in the right occipitoparietal region and some recalled seeing cerebellar tissue. For example, Dr. William Kemp Clark - who was director of neurological surgery (!) at Parkland - testified:

"I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed. There was considerable blood loss evident on the carriage, the floor, and the clothing of some of the people present. I would estimate 1,500 cc. of blood being present." (6H20)

Is it possible that the cheif of neuro surgery was mistaken about the type of brain tissue he saw? Of course. Is it likely? I don't think so and nor do most others. It seems especially doubtful when his recollection is corroborated by colleagues like Dr. Charles Carrio (6H6) and Dr. Robert McClelland (6H33). You could well be right, Pat, but it would be easier dismiss if witnesses at Bethesda hadn't also placed the wound in the right rear. It's just damn hard to swallow.

In any case, you still haven't answered my questions:

How did Sibert and O'Neil who were present for the entire autopsy and viewed the head for hours from many angles get the location of the large hole "wrong"?

And if the fragment that completed the circumference of the entry hole was one that fell to the table after the scalp was reflected, why did Boswell say "when that arrived, we were able to fit that down there and complete the circumference of that bone wound"? They would not need to await the arrival of a fragment that was already there would they? (or was it your answer that Boswell was a "xxxx" and a "loon"?)

Martin

P.S. For the record, I personally do not "desperately want to believe the head shot came from the knoll." I've recently come to agree with you that what happened on the knoll was just as likely a deliberate distraction as a shooter.

Martin, Sibert and O'Neill--when they first claimed the head wound was on the back of the head--were many years removed from the assassination. Their initial report details a path of fragments released in the right side of the skull as the bullet passed through--an impossibility if the bullet entered low on the back of the head and exploded outwards directly above, as they later claimed. When one looks at their back of the head drawings, furthermore, it's clear their recollections of the wound location are at odds.

The thought occurs that they were confused by the appearance of the head wound before the reflection of the scalp and after, and came to believe the large hole apparent after skull fell to the table had been on the head all along.

If one is to try and rely upon them, furthermore, one would have to explain why Custer and Riebe came to believe the autopsy photos were accurate, and why O'Connor--another Bethesda witness presumed to be a truth-teller--long insisted there was a giant wound across the whole right side(the appearance of the wound after the reflection of scalp) and not a round hole on the back of the head (a la Sibert, O'Neill, and Robinson.)

One can't simply cherry-pick a few witnesses and say "these guys must have been right, because they were there a long time" without explaining why so many other witnesses who were there--and even more intimately involved in the autopsy--disagreed with their many-years-removed recollections.

[Pat Speer]

Martin, Sibert and O'Neill--when they first claimed the head wound was on the back of the head--were many years removed from the assassination. Their initial report details a path of fragments released in the right side of the skull as the bullet passed through--an impossibility if the bullet entered low on the back of the head and exploded outwards directly above, as they later claimed. When one looks at their back of the head drawings, furthermore, it's clear their recollections of the wound location are at odds.

The thought occurs that they were confused by the appearance of the head wound before the reflection of the scalp and after, and came to believe the large hole apparent after skull fell to the table had been on the head all along.

If one is to try and rely upon them, furthermore, one would have to explain why Custer and Riebe came to believe the autopsy photos were accurate, and why O'Connor--another Bethesda witness presumed to be a truth-teller--long insisted there was a giant wound across the whole right side(the appearance of the wound after the reflection of scalp) and not a round hole on the back of the head (a la Sibert, O'Neill, and Robinson.)

One can't simply cherry-pick a few witnesses and say "these guys must have been right, because they were there a long time" without explaining why so many other witnesses who were there--and even more intimately involved in the autopsy--disagreed with their many-years-removed recollections.

Pat,

Accusing me of "cherry-picking" on this issue is frankly ridiculous. As I'm sure you are aware, it has been well documented by many researchers just how many witnesses placed the large hole in the back of the head. The reason I singled out Sibert and O'neil is because they are two obviously credible witnesses to whom your "explanation" does not apply. But hey, you want some more non-Parkland witnesses who saw a back-of-head wound, here you go:

John Ebersole

Philip Wehle

Jan Rudnicki

James Jenkins

William Greer

Ed Reed

John Stringer

etc etc....

I love this passage of yours: "If one is to try and rely upon them, furthermore, one would have to explain why Custer and Riebe came to believe the autopsy photos were accurate"

So first you try to discredit Sibert and O'neil because they were not asked what they saw until the '70s and then you attempt to prop this up with the modified recollections of two witnesses who originally said the wound was in the back of the head?!!!!!!

How Posner/Bugliosi/DVP is that?

It appears that you are trying to argue that the latter-day statements of Sibert and O'Neill could not be in error. If so, you are trying to claim that their statements support that a shot was fired from the front, even though both men were at the autopsy, and wrote a report on what they observed in which they cited evidence the shot was fired from the rear. Now, I have countered that with the claim that their observations are in opposition to those of others at the autopsy, who, after claiming the wound was on the back of the head, came to believe the autopsy photos were an accurate reflection of the President's wounds. Even worse, Sibert and O'Neill's observations are in conflict with each other.

Even so, I'll play along. Sibert told the HSCA the wound was in the "upper back of the head with a section of the skull bone missing." The drawing he'd created shows this wound to be in the middle of the back of the head above the level of the ears. O'Neill told them it was "massive and pointed towards the right side of the head." The wound on O'Neill's drawing engulfs the upper right quadrant of the back of the head above the ears.

If one is to accept their words as gospel, then one must accept there was no blow-out wound of the occipital bone, and that the Harper fragment was therefore not occipital, and that those claiming they saw cerebellum in Dallas and not macerated brain were most probably mistaken. Yet how many of those claiming Sibert and O'Neill's observations are of the utmost importance will use their statements to come to any conclusions regarding the Harper fragment and the possible damage to the cerebellum? Very few, if any, I'm afraid.

What all too many have done, instead, is go through the testimony anxiously and excitedly looking for the word "back" and "rear" and counting each reference as some sort of victory for truth and justice, and then claim the very use of the words "back" or "rear" suggests the wound was REALLY a blow-out on the far back of the head--even though such a wound is precluded by the vast majority of witnesses using the words "back" or "rear" while describing the wound. This IS cherry-picking at its worst.

What you or anyone wanting to save the "back of the head" wound argument, need to do is decide, using the many witness statements, where exactly the "back of the head" wound was located. I have done this, and have reached the conclusion those thinking the wound was on the back of the head, on average, thought the wound was but a few inches back of the wound on top of the head seen in the photographs. This can be explained by the possibility they were confused by the rotation of the body--a phenomena which has been studied extensively, and which I have tested myself and found to be real.

But few CTs will do that, because it would force them to acknowledge that at least half of the "back of the head" witnesses they so love to cite were dead wrong, which would, in turn, undermine their position that ALL these people can't be wrong. And so, we're at a standstill. Just like single-assassin theorists who refuse to acknowledge that the back wound was at the same level or lower than the throat wound, many conspiracy theorists refuse to acknowledge that the "back of the head" witnesses have widely conflicting recollections, and that many of these recollections are more supportive of the autopsy photos than they are of the so-called "McClelland drawing", which they (the CTs) choose to believe is accurate.

[Cliff Varnell]

Just like single-assassin theorists who refuse to acknowledge that the back wound was at the same level or lower than the throat wound,

This is an egregious mis-statement of fact which you cannot defend to save

your life, Pat.

Show us where JFK's clothing was elevated 2 inches on Elm St.

Show us the witness statements placing the wound that high.

Show us the properly prepared medical evidence of a wound that high.

All you've got are Richard Lipsey and Thornton Boswell; improperly recorded

measurements on the autopsy face sheet; and some autopsy photos the HSCA

concluded were prima facie inadmissible in court, and which the ARRB discovered

have no chain of possession.

This nonsense you spew about the back wound is the worst form of "CT"

pet theorizing.

Edited June 25, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

Show us where JFK's clothing was elevated 2 inches on Elm St.

Betzner...which is unimpeachable as you well know. Not that you have the intellectual honesty to admit it.