Jump to content
The Education Forum

Eye Hand Witnesses to the back of JFK's Head Wound


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 31
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Eye Hand Witnesses to the back of JFK's Head Wound Parkland into Coffin and at Bethesda..

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

Thanks, Bernice. The video makes some good points, the best one being that the witnesses DID NOT see a hole on the MIDDLE of the back of the head. This suggests that the Harper fragment was NOT occipital bone, and that those claiming it was, e.g. Mantik, are as at odds with the Parkland witnesses as those claiming there was no hole on the back of the head at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eye Hand Witnesses to the back of JFK's Head Wound Parkland into Coffin and at Bethesda..

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

Thanks, Bernice. The video makes some good points, the best one being that the witnesses DID NOT see a hole on the MIDDLE of the back of the head. This suggests that the Harper fragment was NOT occipital bone, and that those claiming it was, e.g. Mantik, are as at odds with the Parkland witnesses as those claiming there was no hole on the back of the head at all.

it does make a very clear point of a hole exactly where most of the witnesses placed their hand...and where the zapruder flm shows a black blotch on the film showing the back of his head..thanks take care b..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eye Hand Witnesses to the back of JFK's Head Wound Parkland into Coffin and at Bethesda..

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

Hi Bernice,

Thanks for posting this. Did you put this video together, or do you know who did? It is very clear from the evidence, and this showcases it, that witnesses who saw JFK's head in the aftermath of the shooting saw a wound in the right rear of the head.

One of the photos, of the gentleman laying on a gurney with a visible rubber wound in the right rear of the head, was one of my volunteers for a presentation I did at Lancer. I made the wound to the average approximate size noted by Parkland ... 7cm in diameter. I placed the wound on the head based on the Parkland description AND the autopsy diagram for that portion of the wound .... the medial edge is 1" right of the eop, and the bottom of the "wound" is slightly above the eop. Several volunteers took the roles of Parkland personnel around the gurney. All those at the head or on JFK's right noted they could clearly see a wound in the right rear of the head as the person wearing the wound lay supine on the gurney.

The old LN argument that Parkland people could not see a wound in the rear of the head because JFK was laying on his back is clearly as lame as it is trite. The wound, as noted, drawn and measured at autopsy for where it began and where it extended laterally and relative to the eop, was clearly large enough, and extended far enough lateral right, to be quite visible when a person is supine on a gurney. And Parkland people specified the wound they saw was on the *right* rear. Quite visible. (Note: this wound was not intended to show the entire extent of the wound as measured at autopsy, 10x17cm .... only to showcase the size and location of that portion of the wound noted by Parkland. I did have paper wounds available for people to see just how big a 10x17cm wound is .... and how much of the right half of the skull it would involve.)

Bests,

Barb :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eye Hand Witnesses to the back of JFK's Head Wound Parkland into Coffin and at Bethesda..

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

Hi Bernice,

Thanks for posting this. Did you put this video together, or do you know who did? It is very clear from the evidence, and this showcases it, that witnesses who saw JFK's head in the aftermath of the shooting saw a wound in the right rear of the head.

One of the photos, of the gentleman laying on a gurney with a visible rubber wound in the right rear of the head, was one of my volunteers for a presentation I did at Lancer. I made the wound to the average approximate size noted by Parkland ... 7cm in diameter. I placed the wound on the head based on the Parkland description AND the autopsy diagram for that portion of the wound .... the medial edge is 1" right of the eop, and the bottom of the "wound" is slightly above the eop. Several volunteers took the roles of Parkland personnel around the gurney. All those at the head or on JFK's right noted they could clearly see a wound in the right rear of the head as the person wearing the wound lay supine on the gurney.

The old LN argument that Parkland people could not see a wound in the rear of the head because JFK was laying on his back is clearly as lame as it is trite. The wound, as noted, drawn and measured at autopsy for where it began and where it extended laterally and relative to the eop, was clearly large enough, and extended far enough lateral right, to be quite visible when a person is supine on a gurney. And Parkland people specified the wound they saw was on the *right* rear. Quite visible. (Note: this wound was not intended to show the entire extent of the wound as measured at autopsy, 10x17cm .... only to showcase the size and location of that portion of the wound noted by Parkland. I did have paper wounds available for people to see just how big a 10x17cm wound is .... and how much of the right half of the skull it would involve.)

Bests,

Barb :-)

HI; ON THE TOP LEFT OF THE VIDEO CLICK ANYWHERE ON SUCH, AFTER LOADED IT TAKES YOU DIRECTLY THERE, THE NAME IS mimusremedium's Channel ON THE RIGHT LOWER OF THE SCREEN, SHOWS THE OTHER VIDEOS THAT HAVE BEEN POSTED UNDER THIS NAME..HE HAS ONE OTHER WHEN YOU CLICK HIS NAME THAT COMES UP, RE THE OCCIPITAL WOUND.I HAVE NO IDEA WHO HE IS,AND I ASSUME ALSO IT'S A HE.??..I RECOGNIZED THE PHOTO OF THE MAN LYING DOWN BUT COULD NOT PLACE IT, NOW I RECALL, IT WAS FROM YOUR RESEARCH, TO ME IT SHOWED ABOUT WHAT DR.McCLELLAND ALWAYS STOOD BY AS TO WHERE THE BACK OF THE HEAD WOUND WAS AND SHOWN IN HIS DRAWING....WITHIN THE WITNESSES AT PARKLAND THERE SIMPLY WERE TOO MANY WHO REPORTED SUCH TO SIMPLY DISMISS ALL THEIR INFORMATION, BUT AS WITH OTHER WITNESSES SOME DO, IT HAPPENS QUITE OFTEN WITHIN THE RESEARCH I ALWAYS HAVE THOUGHT ''THEY WERE THERE AND I WAS NOT'' SO I GIVE THEM THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT...TAKE CARE..B PLEASE EXCUSE THE CAPS...THANKS...

HERE IS HIS OTHER VIDEO...

http://www.youtube.c...r/mimusremedium

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Bernice ... and thanks for the info. I am familiar with him.

Too many witnesses to a wound in the right rear of the head, indeed .... only three places in the universe where JFK's head was seen up close and personal like by people in the aftermath of the shooting. Clint Hill in DP, the Parkland personnel, and at autopsy ... and all 3 saw damage to the right rear of the skull.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your welcome, pleased you know of him, and yes the first other than jackie to see the back right wound to the head was no other than clint hill...a hero, being the only man that really tried.and suffered so for many years for doing so...within this video i believe is shown some areas of the motorcade that we have not seen or rarely are shown, watch for them.....b

Secret Service Agent Clint Hill '2004

http://kentuckyhelp....nt-hill-04.html or

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your welcome, pleased you know of him, and yes the first other than jackie to see the back right wound to the head was no other than clint hill...a hero, being the only man that really tried.and suffered so for many years for doing so...within this video i believe is shown some areas of the motorcade that we have not seen or rarely are shown, watch for them.....b

Secret Service Agent Clint Hill '2004

http://kentuckyhelp....nt-hill-04.html or

Some great frames in here that show the back of JFK's head close up ... and show his cowlick, high and on the *left*. A great frame at about 18 secs in.

Thanks for this, too, Bernice!

Bests,

Barb :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your welcome, pleased you know of him, and yes the first other than jackie to see the back right wound to the head was no other than clint hill...a hero, being the only man that really tried.and suffered so for many years for doing so...within this video i believe is shown some areas of the motorcade that we have not seen or rarely are shown, watch for them.....b

Secret Service Agent Clint Hill '2004

http://kentuckyhelp....nt-hill-04.html or

Some great frames in here that show the back of JFK's head close up ... and show his cowlick, high and on the *left*. A great frame at about 18 secs in.

Thanks for this, too, Bernice!

Bests,

Barb :-)

Yes, thanks. I don't recall if this is the video or not, but people need to see that Hill has disavowed the whole "back of the head" thing.

From chapter 18c at patspeer.com:

Clint Hill, one of the Secret Service agents riding on the left side of the limo, while never commenting on the impact location of the fatal bullet, would later describe the appearance of Kennedy's head wound both upon arrival at the hospital in Dallas, and then later, after the autopsy in Bethesda. An 11-30-63 report written by Hill relates: "As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lieing in the seat." Hill returns to this later. When describing the aftermath to Kennedy's autopsy, Hill relates "At approximately 2:45 A.M., November 23, I was requested by ASAIC to come to the morgue to once again view the body. When I arrived the autopsy had been completed and ASAIC Kellerman, SA Greer, General McHugh and I viewed the wounds. I observed a wound about six inches down from the neckline on the back just to the right of the spinal column. I observed another wound on the right rear portion of the skull." Well, this once again, is vague. A wound, whether on the "right rear side" of the head, or simply in "the right rear portion of the skull," could be most anywhere in back of the face, including the area above the ear.

So what about Hill's testimony, you might ask? Did he clear this matter up when testifying before the Warren Commission? Some would say so. In testimony taken nearly four months after the shooting, Hill told the Warren Commission: "The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head." Hill's testimony, then, first reflects that the wound was not on A portion of the right rear side, or merely ON a right rear portion of the skull, but instead covered THE entire right rear portion. It then reverses course, and reflects merely that it was IN the right rear portion, which could, of course, be anywhere in back of the face.

So, despite the widespread claims that Hill's testimony is proof the wound was on the back of Kennedy's head, it is, in reality, a confusing mess. With his statements and testimony, Hill had made four references to Kennedy's head wound--three that were unduly vague, and one that was overly expansive, as not even the looniest of conspiracy theorists believes the entire right rear portion of Kennedy's skull was missing. Perhaps Hill, then, when claiming "THE right rear portion" was missing, meant simply to repeat his earlier statement that "A portion of the right rear side was missing," and mis-spoke. While this may be stretching, it explains Hill's subsequent claim, in a 2004 television interview, that, when he first looked down on the President, he saw "the back of his head, And there was a gaping hole above his right ear about the size of my palm" better than that he had forgotten what he had seen, or that he had suddenly, for the first time, more than forty years after his original testimony, decided to start lying about what he saw.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

\''the right rear portion of the skull\'' MAY I SAY PAT, ANYONES......PUT YOUR HAND ON THE REAR OF YOUR HEAD, RIGHT REAR, OF YOUR SKULL, YOU GOT IT....

YOUR CHERRY NIT PICKING AGAIN,,,,,,,NO MATTER WHAT IT SEEMS THAT IS WHAT YOU DO..OR DO YOU SIMPLY WANT TO ARGUE FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUING, HUMBUG..OR SAYING YOU WON ANOTHER ONE, I REALLY AM BECOMING CURIOUS AS TO WHICH, IF I SAY BLACK WILL YOU SAY WHITE...???.

carry on as expected....

EXCUSE CAPS THANKS...B...http://educationforu...?showtopic=2349

http://www.maryferre...K_Assassination

http://www.assassina...web.com/ag6.htm

http://educationforu...opic=15373&st=0

""According to Dr. Robert Canada, who was at Bethesda, the reason the first report was burned and rewritten was because of that large avulsed wound in the rear of the skull. Canada went on to describe it as "clearly an exit wound" because "the occipital bone was avulsed outward." (Horne Vol 3, p. 928) When he was told that the autopsy report we have today describes only a small entrance wound in the rear skull, Canada replied that "the document had to have been rewritten to conform to the loan assassin thesis."[ (ibid)""

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16495&st=90

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat, that constant bending over backwards to deny the consensus witness descriptions

of JFK's head/throat/back wounds -- doesn't that hurt your back? :blink:

I was discussing Clint Hill, who has made it as clear as he can that he did not see the wound on the far back of Kennedy's skull that CTs presume he saw. Maybe he's lying. I don't know. But for people to go around pretending "Clint Hill said it was on the back of the head," when he ultimately claimed it was above Kennedy's ear, is totally disingenuous.

I do not deny that the majority of Parkland witnesses made comments suggesting that the head wound was further back on the head than revealed by the photos. But it is totally dishonest to say they ALL said it was on the back of the head. And it is a flat-out lie of Specter-esque proportions to pretend they said the MIDDLE of the back of the head was missing.

That is the point. And it is 100% correct. It is totally hypocritical for CTs to pretend that, by accepting the statements of the Parkland witnesses, they are not also rejecting the still-widespread belief the Harper fragment was occipital bone.

If it was occipital bone, it would have to have derived from the LOW MIDDLE back of the head. This is anatomy 101.

But will CTs as a group come out and admit the statements of the Parkland witnesses destroy the belief the Harper frag was occipital?

It seems the answer is...NO. Jim Douglass, for example, writes in his book that Dr. Mantik has identified the location of the Harper fragment on the back of Kennedy's head, and that it corresponds to the "white patch" on the x-rays. This is absolutely untrue. The "white patch" identified by Mantik is on the side of JFK's head, while the Harper frag location he proposes is in the middle of the back of the skull.

Drmantikandmrharper2.jpg

This suggests to me that the wound on the back of the head proposed by most CTs is akin to the back wound proposed by most LNs. They want it to be wherever they want it to be, and evidence be damned.

Edited by Pat Speer
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...