The Trach Incision -

[Micah Mileto]

29 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Micah is ignoring the autopsists' testimony that the hole was on the margin of the blowout hole. Which means that there was NO hole unless the occipital fragment was in place. Which in turn means that that thing in the open cranium photo is not the EOP hole.

I take it you believe "chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions." from the autopsy report was the truth, and all other revisions were lies?

I don't know, I can't deny that the spot on the open cranium photos is a perfect contender for the EOP wound. The autopsy doctors labeled those photos as "depicting missile wound over entrance in posterior skull, following reflection of the scalp" .

 

EDIT: Wait a second, Humes could've just confused finding a skull fragment with part of some kind of exit with a the entry.

Edited December 12, 2016 by Micah Mileto

[Sandy Larsen]

Just now, Micah Mileto said:

 

Just now, Sandy Larsen said:

Micah is ignoring the autopsists' testimony that the hole was on the margin of the blowout hole. Which means that there was NO hole unless the occipital fragment was in place. Which in turn means that that thing in the open cranium photo is not the EOP hole.

I take it you believe "chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions." from the autopsy report was the truth, and all other revisions were lies?

I don't know, I can't deny that the spot on the open cranium photos is a perfect contender for the EOP wound. The autopsy doctors labeled those photos as "depicting missile wound over entrance in posterior skull, following reflection of the scalp" .

The two things you mention that I've emphasized in blue above are what the WC wants us to believe, and I don't believe either one. (Except that they intentionally created the wound that  was "chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions.")

In contrast, the thing I mentioned, in italics above, is a difficult thing for the WC which they wished would go away. The mere fact that they admit something that's difficult and doesn't follow the official story attests to its truthfulness. And I can't understand why anybody would dismiss it after learning about it.

[Pat Speer]

12 hours ago, Robert Prudhomme said:

Actually, it's not, Sandy. I was using this site to demonstrate that "gunshot wound of the low back" or "gunshot wound of the right thigh" describes the circumstance causing the injury, not the nature of the injury itself.

When McClelland stated there was a gunshot wound of the left temple, he was clearly describing, as you pointed out, his belief there was an entrance wound in the left temple. As you have shown, his description in his WC testimony of a massive wound to the rear of JFK's head is something very basic that Pat Speer should know, and proves he is not above playing fast and loose with the evidence.

That's a bunch of malarkey, Robert. I I've discussed this issue dozens of times now on this website, and devote two whole chapters to it in my free online book. I do not avoid the statements of the Parkland witnesses. In fact, I am not the one doing the avoiding. If you go back and read my posts on this website, or, God forbid, read the book I've written on this subject on my website, you'll find that the research community has routinely concealed much about the Parkland witnesses. Here's but a short list of some of these deceptions...

1. When asked to demonstrate the wound's lcoation, the majority of witnesses to the head wound have pointed out a location at the top of the back of the head, well above and to the right of the cerebellum. Many researchers have taken advantage of this, and have used this to undermine confidence in the medical evidence...and have then used this to sell that the wound was really low on the back of the head...where their star witnesses have specified it was not...

2. Most of the Parkland witnesses barely got a peak at the President, and were first asked about his wounds years later. While the key personnel in his treatment did in fact make 1964-1964 statements suggesting the wound was low on the back of the head, they mostly changed their minds about this years later, and deferred to the accuracy of the autopsy photos. Those claiming they'd been mistaken include Dr.s Carrico, Perry, Jenkins, Baxter, and Jones. Dr. Clark refused to talk about it, other than to complain about those darned conspiracy theorists trying to make a buck off Kennedy's death. The fact, then, is that most of those who'd spent more than a few seconds with the president came to believe they'd been mistaken about the exact location of the wound, and their seeing cerebellum. And that those claiming to be defenders of the Parkland witnesses actually despise them, and consider them to be cowards and liars. This was demonstrated once again at the 2015 Lancer Conference. Dr. Kenneth Salyer was there, and he described the wound location as being above the ear, right where it is shown in the autopsy photos. Dr. Mantik was also there, selling his book promoting that the wound was low on the back of the head. Well, I was interested in Mantik's response to this, and whether he would ask Salyer a question.  Nope. He rolled his eyes as if to say "what a moron". He then closed his eyes and went to sleep. I later realized this fit a pattern. William Newman was there, still insisting he saw a blow-out wound on the right side of the head by the ear, and no blow-out wound on the back of the head. And James Jenkins was there, sticking to the story he told me in 2013--that the skull at the middle of the back of the head was present beneath the scalp but shattered like a broken egg. And yet, Mantik largely ignored them, and focused on promoting a theory at odds with the recollections of all the witnesses present at the convention.

3. Dr. McClelland did not draw the so-called McClelland drawing. And has in fact disavowed its accuracy. Many of the other witnesses have also disavowed its accuracy. (I discuss this in great detail in chapter 18c, and prove that Livingstone and Groden misrepresented the statements of these witnesses). Dr. McClelland has also claimed since pretty much forever that there was nothing about the wound to suggest the shot came from the front, and that the trach incision at Parkland looked like the trach incision in the autopsy photos. And yet no one citing McClelland as proof the back of the head was blown out cares to reveal this to their readers. Gee, I wonder why...

4. The lists of witnesses compiled by those pushing that the back of the head was blown out routinely exclude the statements of witnesses who saw Kennedy's wound in the plaza or outside the hospital in the car port. This is incredibly convenient, as the vast majority of these witnesses (which I compile in chapter 18c) said the wound was on the top of the head or on the side of the head. This has been excused, however, by the claim these people were not medical professionals, and that they only saw the wound for a second. This avoids, of course, that the vast majority of Parkland witnesses also saw the wound for but a second, and that there is no reason whatsoever to believe the 2 hour or even  30-year-old memories of medical professionals are more accurate than the minutes old recollections of layman eyewitnesses. In fact, it's quite the opposite.

 

Edited December 12, 2016 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

46 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The two things you mention that I've emphasized in blue above are what the WC wants us to believe, and I don't believe either one. (Except that they intentionally created the wound that  was "chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions.")

In contrast, the thing I mentioned, in italics above, is a difficult thing for the WC which they wished would go away. The mere fact that they admit something that's difficult and doesn't follow the official story attests to its truthfulness. And I can't understand why anybody would dismiss it after learning about it.

Humes testified that the hole at the EOP entrance was a through and through hole. Finck said much the same. It wasn't until 14 years or so later that Boswell made some statements suggesting that the large bone brought to the autopsy was matched up to the entrance hole, and completed the entrance. This, then, fed into mucho conspiracy theories. Aha! So the back of the head was missing! The problem is that this didn't pop up until years later, and that Boswell was almost certainly mistaken. You see, Humes testified and continued to claim till the end that the large fragment had a section of the bullet's exit on it, and not the bullet's entrance. And Boswell signed the autopsy protocol saying as much. And Boswell insisted on the accuracy of the protocol till the end. It seems likely then that Boswell got mixed up on this issue, and took to spewing nonsense in the years to follow.

[Pat Speer]

6 hours ago, Robert Prudhomme said:

Pat

Are you aware that a tangential wound would not have penetrated the skull? If it had penetrated the skull, it would be a penetrating wound of the skull but, without penetration and with burrowing and disruption of the scalp, it becomes a tangential wound.

While tangential head wounds from bullets can be very messy, there is no wound track through the brain, nor is there penetration and disruption of brain matter, as was observed in JFK's brain at the autopsy.

Your theory of JFK suffering a tangential head wound, capable of inflicting serious damage to his brain, is quite flawed.

Geez, Robert. It isn't my theory, It's Dr. Clark's theory, based upon his knowledge of wound ballistics. I discuss tangential wounds in detail in chapter 16b. My discussion of these wounds has apparently found an audience, by the way, as in recent years Robert Groden, Tink Thompson, David Mantik, and Doug Horne have all taken to claiming the large head wound was a tangential wound (a term used by some to describe a minor wound that doesn't penetrate, but in fact an old term used to describe a large wound of both entrance and exit). Here's a picture of a tangential wound from a recent textbook. (I sent this to a prominent forensic pathologist--you can probably guess which one--and he agreed there's a striking similarity between this wound and Kennedy's wound.)

[Ray Mitcham]

I wonder how the Doctors at Parkland got it so wrong when they said that there was cerebellum protruding from the Parietal occip[ital wound.

If they were right, then the cerebellum must have come via the top of the head wound shown above. 

 

Regarding the head wound, Dr. Jenkins said that only one segment of bone was blown out–it was a segment of occipital or temporal bone. He noted that a portion of the cerebellum (lower rear brain) (sic) was hanging out from a hole in the right–rear of the head.” ( (HSCA-V7:286-287) In an interview with the American Medical News published on 11-24-78 Jenkins said, “…(Kennedy) had part of his head blown away and part of his cerebellum was hanging out.”

 

Edited December 12, 2016 by Ray Mitcham

[Robert Prudhomme]

Malarkey yourself, Pat Speer. You have been pushing nonsense on this forum for a long time now and I, for one, have had enough of it.

The FIRST DAY reports of the Parkland surgeons all state a large wound involving occipital bone. 

As this diagram clearly shows, the occipital bone is NOWHERE NEAR the top of the head, so let's not have any more nonsense about doctors pointing toward the tops of their heads, ok?

" Most of the Parkland witnesses barely got a peak at the President, and were first asked about his wounds years later."

Wrong on both counts. The team of doctors was about to open JFK's chest when it was suggested they all take a closer look at the head wound before doing so. Years later? Seriously, Pat? What would you call their questioning by the Warren Commission lawyers less than six months after the assassination? The majority of these doctors once again told the WC of a wound in the right rear of JFK's head involving occipital bone.

If this man was lying on a table beside you at about the height of your waist, would you try to tell me you could not have a perfectly good view of the right rear portion of his head? Malarkey indeed, Mr. Speer!

 

[Pat Speer]

I didn't mean to mess with your religion, Robert. But this is the Education Forum, not the blind faith in all the crud that's previously been spewed forum. You're misrepresenting the issue. The issue is not can a person see the back of the head when crouched down at the side at eye level with the back of the head, but can a person get a good look at the back of the head when standing above someone laying on his back on a gurney, with a bunch of people gathered round. And the answer to that is no. Look where the back of the head is in your photo. Do you really think they would lay Kennedy on the table in a manner obscuring the hole on the back of the head? Really? A big gaping hole oozing brain matter, and they just put it down on the table so what's left of his brain can ooze out onto the table?

Now let's go back to McCelland. He said he closely observed the wound while he was standing at the head of the table assisting in the tracheotomy. As I've demonstrated, the head is tilted back when a tracheotomy is performed. I don't see how he could see the hole in the so-called McClelland drawing (which he disavowed) from the position described in his statements. Do you?

As far as the rest of the stuff...it's clear you've never bothered to read my chapters covering all this stuff, so here's a piece for your digestion.

From chapter 18d at patspeer.com:

So, let's cut to the chase. Do the statements of the supporting cast of doctors suggest the far back of the head was blown off, as purported by the slew of JFK researchers claiming the statements of the Parkland witnesses are consistent and Exhibit 1A in the medical case for conspiracy?

As previously discussed, Dr. Burkley was aware of but one wound on Kennedy's head, a large wound by his temple. As previously discussed, Dr. Salyer testified that the wound was in the "right temporal area," and thus near the ear, and not on the back of the head. While Dr. Adolph Giesecke testified that the wound was on the left side of the head, moreover, he also claimed that it was a large wound stretching from the vertex to the ear, and the brow-line to the occiput, and thus not the hole on the back of the head purportedly recalled by all the witnesses. In fact, Giesecke later told Vince Palamara that although he "did not examine the President's head and should never have said anything about the wounds," he had nevertheless concluded "all entrance wounds were from the rear."

Now, the statements of these doctors stand in opposition to what is purported to be the position of all the doctors viewing President Kennedy at Parkland. 

Well, certainly then there were a number of doctors whose Warren Commission testimony supported that the wound observed at Parkland was low on the back of Kennedy's head, and centered on his occipital bone...

You wanna bet? The closest to one was Dr. Gene Akin, who testified that "the back of the right occipitalparietal portion of his head was shattered", but who later rejected the depiction of this wound in the so-called McClelland drawing, and told the Boston Globe "what I saw was more parietal" (presumably, higher up on the skull). Akin was akin to a "no man's land" witness--a witness who doubted the authenticity of the autopsy photos, but whose recollection of the wound location was also at odds with the occipital location proposed by Lifton, Groden, Mantik, et al.

So now let's look at the Johnny-come-latelys--doctors not previously discussed and only marginally involved in Kennedy's treatment, whose statements regarding the head wound location came many years later...and see whether they line up with the wound being on the far back of the head--as claimed by so many researchers...

While Dr. Richard Dulaney testified before the Warren Commission, he was not asked about Kennedy's head wound. Although he told a number of researchers and reporters in the 1980's the large head wound was on the back of Kennedy's head, he was asked to view the original photos by the producers of NOVA in 1988 and quickly changed his tune. In the program he declared: "I don see any evidence of any alteration of his wound in these pictures from what I saw in the emergency room." And this wasn't a momentary lapse. When pointing out the wound location in Groden's book and video he pointed to the crown of his head...as close to the wound depicted in the autopsy photos as the one depicted in the "McClelland" drawing.

Dr. Don Curtis also testified before the Warren Commission. He also was not asked about the wound location. As a result, his recollection as to the head wound location was not recorded till many years later, when he at first told researcher Brad Parker the "McClelland" drawing was "essentially" correct, and then specified to researcher Vince Palamara that the wound was on the "posterior lateral surface of the skull," the side of the head.

And then there's Grossman... While there is almost no record of Dr. Robert Grossman's presence in Emergency Room One on 11-22-63, he emerged in 1981 with claims of having been at Dr. Clark's side when Kennedy's wounds were studied. His statements and articles not only reflect that he alone, of all the doctors to work on or inspect Kennedy at Parkland, noted an entrance wound on the back of Kennedy's head in his hair, but that he also recalled seeing an exit wound "about the size of your hand" on the right side of Kennedy's head, "over what's called the parietal boss." Although this supports my conclusions regarding the wound locations, I nevertheless suspect Dr. Grossman is full of hooey. It just smells to high heaven that the only Parkland doctor claiming to see an entrance wound on the back of JFK's head was a doctor no one else remembered even being there, who failed to come forward for 17 years or more.

There's also this: while Dr. Grossman reportedly told the ARRB in 1997 that the entrance wound he saw was "a circular puncture in the occipital region...approximately 2 cm in diameter, near the EOP, centerline, or perhaps just right of center, through which he could see brain tissue which he believed was cerebellum" (which is in the same location as, but much larger than, the wound described in the autopsy report), a November 22, 2003 article by Frank D. Roylance in the Baltimore Sun based upon an interview with Grossman reported that "Grossman and Clark saw a small wound about an inch in diameter on the upper part of the back of his head, just to the right of the midline...filled with damaged brain tissue" (which would appear to be a reference to the supposed cowlick entrance). So, did Grossman move the location of the entrance wound he and he alone "saw" to kiss up to those holding this wound was in the cowlick? I don't know but it's just hard to believe anything he says...

This brings us to Midgett. While Dr. William Midgett's presence in the emergency room was confirmed by the Warren Commission testimony of several nurses, his impressions were not recorded until decades later when he was interviewed first by Gerald Posner and then Wallace Milam. He is reported to have told Posner the wound was "more parietal than occipital" and to have told Milam it was an approximately 6 cm wound in the parietal area behind the ear. While this is not the wound shown in the autopsy photos it is also NOT the wound on the far back of the head in the occipital bone oozing cerebellum so many claim as the one true wound. 

The wound described by Dr. Donald Seldin was also not the one true wound purported by Lifton and others. When contacted by Vince Palamara in 1998, Seldin is reported to have claimed that the bullet exploded the skull, and that the "frontal, parietal, and temporal bones were shattered." He did not mention the occipital bone. While Seldin's recollections were at odds with both those claiming the bullet entered from the front and those claiming it entered on the back of the head--he told Palamara the bullet struck Kennedy in the forehead--he was nevertheless most adamant that his recollections not be used to spread doubts. He is reported to have told Palamara "I believe that the official story is accurate in all details."

And what about Zelditz? When contacted by Vince Palamara in 1998, Dr. William Zelditz reported that he arrived in Trauma Room One just before the tracheotomy was performed. He said he noted "a massive head injury to the right occipito-parietal area (right posterior-lateral) of the cranium." He said the wound covered an area approximately 10-12 centimeters in diameter. Well, this is too big to be the wound in the McClelland drawing, but is in the approximate location of that wound. Zelditz spoke in public at the 2003 Lancer Conference in Dallas, however, and further detailed his observations. He said Kennedy was supine (flat on his back) when he (Zelditz) came in the room. He then said the head wound was "massive--the entire posterior and right side of the head was nothing but matted hair and clots, and pieces of bone and tissue, and it was a mess. I gently palpated the area and it felt like somebody had boiled an egg and then dropped it. And then picked it up. The bones were just in crinkly pieces." He was asked about this again and added: "There was an area, I'd say, 8 by 12 centimeters in the back of the head on the right hand side on the occipito-parietal area, that was gone. And it was filled with blood, tissue, hair, bone fragments, and brain fragments, and that's all you could see." Well, this is not the gaping hole behind the ear depicted in the McClelland drawing.

Zelditz was then asked to depict the location of Kennedy's head wound on his own head. He placed his hand on the back of his head, with his fingers stretching from above his right ear on back to just below the top of his ear. He then admitted that beyond this area one "couldn't really tell the depth of it, or the extent of it." He was then asked if he had to rotate Kennedy's head to get a good look at the wound, and responded "No, no, there was enough of it there." He was then asked if he'd placed his hand under the head to palpate the skull, and said "No, it was in the back, and to the side." When then asked if he'd felt the extent of the wound, he admitted "No, I didn't see all of the wound. I couldn't see all of it because he was laying on that." (He then pointed to the back of his head)." He was then asked about the wound again. He put his hand back where the wound is in the McClelland drawing, and responded "It wasn't strictly straight back." He then moved his hand up to the top of his head with his fingers stretching above his right ear, and continued "It was top, back, and side." When then asked if the skull in this area was gone, he replied "It was in pieces." When then asked if the shattered skull in this area was still attached to the scalp, he continued "I could not tell. It was covered with blood and hair and other stuff. I could feel the bones but they felt like they were (he wiggled his fingers) loose." He expanded: "The bony fragments that were there were loose. And there was a spongy mass in the center of that, most obvious without bone, so I guess part of the bone was gone, but still there were fragments of bone still there." When then asked the million dollar question if he felt the autopsy photos showing the back of the head to be intact were altered, he clarified "The back of the head was not intact, but it was covered, as again I mention, with hair, blood, tissue, y'know, it was all there so you couldn't tell whether it was intact underneath that or not."

So, yeah... Zelditz had placed the wound about half-way between the location of the wound in the autopsy photos and the location of the wound in the McClelland drawing. His extended description of the wound, and insistence he could see it without rotating Kennedy's head, moreover, supported that the wound was not as depicted in the McClelland drawing.

And that's not the end of the Parkland witnesses claiming the wound was NOT on the far back of the head. Should one choose to look beyond Zelditz, one can find Sharon Calloway. Calloway, an x-ray intern at Parkland on the day of the shooting, performed an oral history interview for the Sixth Floor Museum on 1-27-02, and claimed she saw the back of Kennedy's head in the hallway before he was moved into Trauma Room One. She claimed: "The top of his head was gone... One of the doctors came down the hall shaking his head and he said it looked like someone had dropped a ripe watermelon on the floor. This is what the top of his head looked like. And we could see that. We could see his head. It wasn't draped yet."

And, no, Calloway was not the last such witness to come forward. On 11-21-15, the producers of a film on the Parkland doctors presented three of these doctors before the audience at the JFK Lancer Conference. Two of these three claimed the wound was not on the back of the head, and the third never commented on the head wounds. One of the two claiming the wound was not on the back of the head, Dr. Kenneth Salyer, has already been discussed. But the other, Dr. Peter M. Loeb, had not previously spoken on this issue, as far as I know. In any event, Loeb said that he got a quick glimpse of Kennedy in the hospital and that "When I looked at Kennedy, the top of his head was blown off." Top, not back.

So, there it is, yet another Parkland witness claiming to have observed an opening on the top of Kennedy's skull, inches away from its location in the McClelland drawing.

There really was no there there...

Edited December 13, 2016 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

10 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

I wonder how the Doctors at Parkland got it so wrong when they said that there was cerebellum protruding from the Parietal occip[ital wound.

If they were right, then the cerebellum must have come via the top of the head wound shown above. 

 

Regarding the head wound, Dr. Jenkins said that only one segment of bone was blown out–it was a segment of occipital or temporal bone. He noted that a portion of the cerebellum (lower rear brain) (sic) was hanging out from a hole in the right–rear of the head.” ( (HSCA-V7:286-287) In an interview with the American Medical News published on 11-24-78 Jenkins said, “…(Kennedy) had part of his head blown away and part of his cerebellum was hanging out.”

 

And he changed his tune, along with most of the other doctors, after seeing the autopsy photos...

If, 15 years after your high school graduation, you were asked what shirt you wore to your graduation, and said the shirt was green, would you change your mind about this if someone showed you a picture of the ceremony in which you were wearing a blue shirt? I know I would. And most of the key staff at Parkland did something quite similar...

While some might choose to believe they were duped, that's really beside the point, isn't it?. You can't build a case when your best witnesses. e.g. Carrico, Perry, Jenkins, Baxter, changed their mind about what they saw. Or rather, you can, but you'll lose most of those you've hooked once they realize your rock-hard evidence has turned to mush...

Edited December 13, 2016 by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

12 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Humes testified that the hole at the EOP entrance was a through and through hole. Finck said much the same.

Well of course the autopsists testified that there was a hole near the EOP. They needed an entrance wound from behind to explain the Oswald-inflicted blowout they claimed occurred at the top of the head. (The blowout that wasn't present in Dallas, BTW.)

But even the autopsists said that the wound was on the margin of the intact skull... the hole could be seen only when an occipital fragment was put in place. (A fragment Boswell said was brought in later, BTW.)

The fact that the autopsists had to put the occipital fragment in place in order to see the EOP hole proves that the dark thing seen in the open cranium photo isn't the EOP hole.

 

 

It wasn't until 14 years or so later that Boswell made some statements suggesting that the large bone brought to the autopsy was matched up to the entrance hole, and completed the entrance. This, then, fed into mucho conspiracy theories.

Boswell's wasn't the only testimony of the EOP hole being on the margin of a fragment, thus requiring the occipital fragment to be in place to see it. Dr. Finck also referred to this... twice! In his written report to his superior officer, General Philip Blumberg, Finck wrote:

"I also noticed another scalp wound, possibly of entrance, in the right occipital region, lacerated and transversal, 15 x 6 mm. Corresponding to that wound, the skull shows a portion of a crater, the beveling of which is obvious on the internal aspect of the bone; on that basis, I told the prosectors and Admiral Galloway that this occipital wound is a wound of entrance."

See Pat, it wasn't a whole crater, but a portion of one. That's almost precisely what Boswell said. (Boswell said "approximately half" instead of "portion.")  Though Boswell did elaborate on that and spoke of the occipital bone having to be put in place to see the whole hole.

The occipital fragment with its half of the EOP hole was understandably NOT a part of the official story, so nobody should have spoken of it before the Warren Commission. But Dr. Fink slipped in his WC testimony. When speaking of the entrance wound, Finck made the following comment:

"In the case we are discussing today, it was possible to have enough curvature and enough portion of the crater to identify positively the wound of entrance at the site of the bone."

Notice here that Finck is not talking about the intact bone near the EOP on JFK's skull. He in fact is talking about the OCCIPITAL FRAGMENT! How do we know that? Because the point of his saying "have enough curvature" is that it  could be determined from the curvature which side of the fragment was the interior and which side the exterior of the skull. (If you read what Finck says in context, this becomes clear.) If Finck were talking about the intact skull, there would be no need to determine the interior/exterior sides of the bone.

 

This, then, fed into mucho conspiracy theories. Aha! So the back of the head was missing! The problem is that this didn't pop up until years later, and that Boswell was almost certainly mistaken. You see, Humes testified and continued to claim till the end that the large fragment had a section of the bullet's exit on it, and not the bullet's entrance.

Pat, you apparently believe that Boswell was confusing the EOP hole/crater with the exit hole crater. Because the exit crater was reportedly located on a margin of a fragment. But the truth is that BOTH the entrance and exit wounds were located on fragments, according to the autopsists. The official story has only the exit cratering on the margin of a fragment. But, as I showed above, both Drs. Boswell and Finck revealed that the same was true of  the entrance (EOP) wound.

Above I quoted Dr. Finck's WC testimony regarding the partial crater on the occipital fragment (entrance). Here is what he said shortly thereafter, this time regarding the crater on the top-of-head fragment (exit).

"....when viewed from the inside of the skull, there was no crater, whereas when the wound is seen from the outside of the skull, there was beveling, cratering, or coning--this is possible to determine an exit even if only a portion [fragment] of the bone is submitted, for the reason that if there was enough bone submitted, there is enough curvature to identify the inside and outside of the skull. Therefore the fragment, to give you an example, this portion at the level of the wound of exit can be oriented, and the outer surface of the skull and the inner surface of the skull may be identified due to the curvature. And then you look at the direction of the beveling and you do see the beveling when looking from the outside and you can identify an exit wound. And that is what I did."

 

And Boswell signed the autopsy protocol saying as much. And Boswell insisted on the accuracy of the protocol till the end. It seems likely then that Boswell got mixed up on this issue, and took to spewing nonsense in the years to follow.

 

[Robert Prudhomme]

"

I didn't mean to mess with your religion, Robert. But this is the Education Forum, not the blind faith in all the crud that's previously been spewed forum. You're misrepresenting the issue. The issue is not can a person see the back of the head when crouched down at the side at eye level with the back of the head, but can a person get a good look at the back of the head when standing above someone laying on his back on a gurney, with a bunch of people gathered round."

Weak argument, Pat. You forget that I am a part time paramedic, and get the opportunity to stand beside patients lying supine in the ER on a regular basis. Not only does the skull curve from back to side, it also curves, at the back, from bottom to top. No crouching is necessary to view the right rear portion of the skull, especially if one takes a step back. Add to this that, unless someone is holding the head in C-spine immobilization, the head is free to move around while any procedures are being performed and, trust me, it will move around.

[Robert Prudhomme]

" Now let's go back to McCelland. He said he closely observed the wound while he was standing at the head of the table assisting in the tracheotomy. As I've demonstrated, the head is tilted back when a tracheotomy is performed. I don't see how he could see the hole in the so-called McClelland drawing (which he disavowed) from the position described in his statements. Do you?"

Use your imagination, Pat. The wound was in the right rear of the head. If McClelland was standing at the head of the table, he had only to shift to his right a few inches, and look at the view he would have had!

Remember, Pat, RIGHT rear, not just rear. That places the large gaping wound somewhere between the back centre of the head and the right ear; clearly visible in this photo, and without crouching or contorting.

Edited December 13, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Pat Speer]

49 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

The doctors testified to but one bone fragment that was brought to the autopsy which exhibited beveling. And it was exit beveling. From a piece of bone they concluded had exploded from the top of the head.

I think you're missing it. Humes testified that there was no signs of an exit on the intact skull, and that they only determined the exit location after studying the fragments brought in by the Secret Service. The Clark Panel later re-interpreted the so-called mystery photo, and claimed it showed a beveled exit on the intact skull. This was confirmed by their buddies on the HSCA panel, in particular Dr. Baden, who lied to the House committee when discussing the beveled exit in order to help sell that the bullet exited from the front, and that the mystery photo showed the forehead in the foreground. This is discussed in detail in chapters 13-14 at patspeer.com.

From chapter 13b:

On September 7, 1978, Dr. Michael Baden testified before the HSCA and presented the findings of the Forensic Pathology Panel. His testimony was long and thorough, and frequently mind-boggling. Incredibly, his panel had concluded that the mystery photo almost certainly showing skull at the back of Kennedy's head, had instead showed his forehead.

This wasn't even buried in his testimony. At one point in his testimony, he presented Exhibit F-60, explaining “the semicircular defect that I am pointing to corresponds with the black dot present on the previous exhibit” (which was F-58). A quick look at F-60, however, reveals that it is a close-up of the beveled bone at the back of the head in the open cranium photo (previously discussed as Figure 15) What is suspicious, however, is that it was presented in the report not turned the way Baden purports to interpret it, but sideways from his interpretation, as if it was indeed a picture of the back of the head and not the forehead. It’s also a bit odd that, even though this blow-up was taken from one of four photographs--two black and white and two color--that demonstrate the open cranium, Baden made a point of telling the commission it was taken from “the only photograph that shows any internal structure of the President.” When one compares the open-cranium photo to F-58, and follows Baden’s interpretation of the outshoot, moreover, one can easily discern something is wrong. When one lifts the exit defect in the photo to the level of the defect in the drawing, and makes the size of the defects match, one can see that there is entirely too much forehead in the photograph above the defect, and that it clearly is not angled the way the skull would be near the defect in the drawing. There is also the problem, and it's a BIG one, in my opinion, that in this orientation the obvious bullet entrance in the photo is now on Kennedy's left forehead, and unexplained.

While the autopsy doctors have never voiced their disagreement with Baden's interpretation of the photo, it is nevertheless enlightening that they have repeatedly made statements indicating they remembered taking photographs depicting the bullet entrance on the back of the head, both from the outside and from the inside. Not once in all their statements, moreover, have they stated they took a photograph of a beveled outshoot at or near the President’s forehead. In Dr. Humes’ testimony before the Warren Commission, for that matter, he specifically denied there was such an outshoot, and said the only beveling indicating an outshoot discovered at the autopsy was on a large bone fragment discovered in the limousine by the Secret Service. He testified “A careful examination of the margins of the large bone defect at this point failed to disclose a portion of the skull bearing again a wound of--a point of impact on the skull of this fragment of the missile, remembering, of course, that this area was devoid of any scalp or skull at this present time. We did not have the bone” and stressed “the thing which we considered of importance about these three fragments of bone (the ones brought in by the Secret Service towards the end of the autopsy) was that at the margins of one of them which was roughly pyramidal in shape, there was a portion of the circumference of what we interpreted as a missile wound.”

Now compare Dr. Humes' testimony before the Warren Commission to what Dr. Baden told the House Select Committee fourteen years later. He told a new and improved story, a story that, not surprisingly, supported his contention the beveled bone apparent in the mystery photo was part of his proposed exit defect. He testified: “The doctors looked at the bone fragments, took x-rays of the bone fragments, inserted this particular bone fragment against this semi-circle and concluded that they matched and fitted together.”

[Robert Prudhomme]

" This brings us to Midgett. While Dr. William Midgett's presence in the emergency room was confirmed by the Warren Commission testimony of several nurses, his impressions were not recorded until decades later when he was interviewed first by Gerald Posner and then Wallace Milam. He is reported to have told Posner the wound was "more parietal than occipital" and to have told Milam it was an approximately 6 cm wound in the parietal area behind the ear. While this is not the wound shown in the autopsy photos it is also NOT the wound on the far back of the head in the occipital bone oozing cerebellum so many claim as the one true wound."

First off, I cannot believe you are quoting Posner. What is next, chapter and verse from John McAdams?

Next, you should look more closely at what you are saying, as you are openly contradicting yourself.  First, you tell us that none of the doctors actually involved in attempting to save JFK's life could possibly have gotten a close look at the large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head, yet Midgett, who probably got to do nothing more than open the ER door for people coming and going, was able to accurately pinpoint the location of the wound, and was able to give its size in centimetres? Please do not take offence while I laugh myself silly here, Pat.

The fatal flaw in your argument, though, is that while Midgett claimed the wound was "more parietal than occipital", he does not rule out the wound as being partly occipital. Once again, I will give you a free lesson in bone structure of the human skull.

Looking again at this diagram, it is possible to see the occipital bone at the lower rear of the human skull. The juncture between occipital and parietal bone rises from each side and the two junctures meet at the centre of the back of the head; making this the highest point of the occipital bone. EVEN AT the highest point, it is NOWHERE NEAR the top of the skull. However, as the wound was in the right rear, this would place the occipital-parietal juncture even lower; easily as low as the middle of the ear.

Though I doubt Midgett got close enough to get a good look, this still would make him a Back of Head witness.

[Sandy Larsen]

Pat's theory uses as a premise that the autopsy photos and x-rays have not been altered, and that lost photos and x-rays have innocent explanations. Because of this he is forced to cherry pick testimonies to bolster his case. He has to drastically downplay the early testimonies of the medical personnel at Parkland Hospital, the vast majority of whom reported a gaping wound on the lower right part of the back of the head.

A number of those witnesses changed their testimony as they learned that the WC report conflicted with it, and particularly when they discovered that the back-of-head autopsy photo shows absolutely no sign of a gaping wound on the back of the head. That's to be understood.

 

As a matter of fact, the BOH photo also shows no gaping wound nearer the top of the head, nor on the right side behind the ear. So even those witnesses who said that the wound was higher up or on the right side were shown to be wrong. That is, if one accepts that the photos are unaltered.

Looking at the above photo, one has to wonder how it is that so many witnesses at Parkland (nearly twenty) saw the gaping wound in the back. And how some saw cerebellar brain matter oozing from the wound. Keeping in mind that these are medical professionals trained to see things like that.

Pat is forced to come up with excuses as to how all those medical professionals saw something that didn't exist. (Or he ignores anybody who asks.)

Those who oppose Pat accept what I think is obvious, that the photos have indeed been altered. The back-of-head  photo in particular. Many of us also believe that the massive hole at the top was created by the cover-up artists, perhaps with a blunt instrument.

In order to support his theory, Pat has to choose primarily late-date testimony. Testimony that most of us realized changed because the witnesses discovered that their early testimonies were contradicted by the photos. And then, IMO, he leaves it up to his readers to find out for themselves that the testimony had changed over time.

Edited December 13, 2016 by Sandy Larsen