The Trach Incision -

[Pat Speer]

19 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Pat,

I think it will be best to explain from the start how it is I developed the above hypothesis. It's really quite simple.

In his HSCA testimony, Dr Ebersole made the following statement:

"....a large fragment of the occipital bone was received from Dallas and at Dr. Finck's request I X rayed these."

Note that he's talking about the occipital bone... a single fragment. Yet he said he x-rayed "them," which implies he x-rayed more than one skull fragment. It is my belief that in his mind Ebersole was thinking of the multiple skull fragments he had x-rayed, and that explains his use of the word "them" instead of "it." Yet at the first part of the sentence he names only the occipital fragment. He did so because that is the fragment he had been asked about.

Dr. Ebersole also x-rayed the three other skull fragments, all of which came from the top of the head.

Now, one has to ask how it is that the doctors at Bethesda had the occipital bone the night of the autopsy when it wasn't even discovered till the following day (according to the official story). The answer, according to my hypothesis, is that the autopsists disavowed knowledge of that fragment the night of the autopsy, and it was sent back to Dallas. They (the Bethesda folks) rejected it because its presence suggested a shot from the front (grassy knoll).

In addition, at some point the x-ray of the occipital fragment -- taken by Ebersole -- was discarded. So there was no evidence remaining that the fragment  was ever in Bethesda the day of the autopsy.

The SS or FBI returned the fragment back to Dealey Plaza so that it could be "found" in a location ahead of where the limo was when the shots to the head occurred. That way the location of the fragment would support a shot from behind.

Mr. Harper subsequently found the fragment. He had it evaluated in Dallas where it was determined to be occipital bone. Photos were taken and the fragment was given to the FBI. I believe it was you who said that the FBI also took photos and x-rayed the fragment.

The FBI subsequently lost the fragment. And that concludes my hypothesis.

 

Now, you say that the HSCA tried to figure out where the Harper fragment fit in at the top of the skull. That being the case, it must have been understood that Kennedy's body was buried with a large piece of skull bone missing at the top of his head. (But not at the back of his head.) I'm not sure if the mortician's testimony agrees with that or not.

The hole remaining on the skull at the end of reconstruction was at the back of the head. They were told to prepare Kennedy for an open-casket funeral, so they re-constructed his skull so that the hole was at the back of the head, where it could be hidden in a pillow. It doesn't mean the hole was originally at the back of the head, however.

[Pat Speer]

12 hours ago, Richard Price said:

I am not real familiar with the medical testimony as it mostly goes over my head and I have to do additional research on the terminology sentence by sentence in order to understand it.  But, in a cursory reading of Dr. Ebersole's testimony, I get the impression he is throwing out bait trying to see if there is someone who will question his answers more deeply so that he can reveal more information without breaking his security vow.  Each time he throws out strange/contradictory information, NO ONE questions the terms he uses (even though some know they are nonsense) and most of the time, the questioner either backtracks or changes the subject.  I have no idea if my impression is correct or not.  Hopefully someone here can give me additional info.  Is this a possibility, or did he continually obfuscate and lie at each opportunity?

Ebersole was no longer working as a radiologist (one who analyzes x-rays) at the time of his HSCA testimony. He was a radiation oncologist (one who uses x-rays to fight cancer). He wasn't questioned by HSCA counsel, moreover, but by the HSCA pathology panel itself. Nine of the most famous forensic pathologists in America. It is my suspicion, then, that he was trying to impress them by using big words, and acting like he knew more than he did, in his testimony.

[Ray Mitcham]

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

The hole remaining on the skull at the end of reconstruction was at the back of the head. They were told to prepare Kennedy for an open-casket funeral, so they re-constructed his skull so that the hole was at the back of the head, where it could be hidden in a pillow. It doesn't mean the hole was originally at the back of the head, however.

Pat, if there was no hole in the back of the head, and the back of the head would be hidden by a pillow, why would they go to the trouble of making one? 

[Robert Prudhomme]

Pat

Are you trying to tell this forum that, by sheer cosmic coincidence, a hole was made in the back of JFK's head, during reconstruction, precisely where the Parkland surgeons all stated they observed a hole in Dallas? Seriously?

And just why would they make this hole in the back of JFK's head? Were they robbing bone material to fill the hole on top of JFK's head?

You wouldn't mind overly if we asked you for some evidence to support this, would you?

[Pat Speer]

The doctors always acknowledged that essentially the whole right side of the brain case was fractured beneath the scalp, and that skull fell to the table when they refracted the scalp. This was confirmed to me personally by James Jenkins. And Jerrol Custer said much the same. This allowed the doctors to remove the brain with minimal sawing. When the skull was reconstructed, mortician Ed Stroble was pretty much starting from scratch, under orders to make the president presentable for an open casket viewing.

So, of course, the hole at the end of the reconstruction was on the back of the head. Where else could he put it where it wouldn't be seen at the funeral?

P.S. The majority of the Parkland witnesses described and pointed out a wound location at the top of the back of the head, along the right side. This is not where the hole was at the end of the reconstruction. That hole, according to Tom Robinson, was centered in the middle of the back of the head, and not visible when the head was resting on a pillow. So, whether or not you think the Parkland witnesses were correct or not in their original statements, the evidence strongly suggests that the hole at the end of the reconstruction was not where the hole was at the start of the autopsy.

P.P.S. While I did some reading regarding post-mortem cosmetic reconstruction some years back, my initial feeling that the hole was moved came from watching the HBO program Six Feet Under. Almost every show started out with someone dying in some horrible accident, and proceeded to show the steps taken to reconstruct the body for the viewing at the end of the program. While the show was fictional, it was thoroughly researched, and widely praised for its accuracy. At the core of the program was this: open casket funerals are for the living, and morticians are essentially cosmetologists--tasked with making the corpse look good. They do not glue each tiny piece in place. They use wire and plaster, etc, to make the corpse presentable for its one and only showing. In Kennedy's case, we have it that the morticians were told to prepare the body for an open casket funeral. That means hide the head wound.

Edited December 10, 2016 by Pat Speer

[Ray Mitcham]

Sorry, Pat, there is no reason for the morticians to create a hole in the back of the head. The hole was either there or it wasn't. If it was there it shows a shot from the front. If it wasn't, they would have  had no need to create one.

What you appear to be  saying is that they made the hole to use the bits as filler elsewhere on the skull for cosmetic purposes. Really ?

[Robert Prudhomme]

Pat

You are incorrect about the description of the head wound by the surgeons at Parkland Hospital. In their first day statements, most of them described the large gaping wound in the rear of JFK's head as being in the right rear and involving occipital and parietal bone. Some, like Dr. M. T. Jenkins, described the wound as involving the occipital and temporal bones.

I will now show why, based on these descriptions, the large gaping wound could NOT have been near the top of JFK's head, and why many of the surgeons at Parkland were likely correct when they reported seeing cerebellar brain tissue exuding from the wound.

Look at this side view of the human skull:

Now look at this rear view of the human skull:

As can be seen, the parietal bone dominates the top rear of the human skull, and the juncture between parietal and occipital bone is nowhere near the top of the head, as you would have us believe. But it gets worse for your theory, Pat. This wound was described as being in the right rear of JFK's head and, if you look closely, you can see the juncture between parietal and occipital bones descends rather sharply as it goes to right or left; thus placing this wound in the lower right rear of JFK's skull, according to witnesses. If we go with Jenkins description, that being the wound was in the occipital-temporal region, it gets even worse for your theory, as it can be seen in the side view of the skull that the entire juncture between occipital and temporal bones is at the bottom of the rear side of the skull.

Many of these Parkland surgeons reported seeing cerebellar tissue (cerebellum) exuding from the wound in the lower right rear of JFK's skull. The diagram below shows the location of the cerebellum:

What an odd coincidence that the cerebellum should be directly beneath the site where the surgeons located the head wound.

You have worked very hard, Pat, at portraying the Parkland surgeons and other witnesses as being grossly mistaken about the location of the head wound but you have forgotten one very important thing. When eyewitnesses are mistaken, as they often are, they do not all make the same mistake and describe nearly identical, yet mistaken, scenarios.

Edited December 10, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Sandy Larsen]

On 12/9/2016 at 1:02 AM, Pat Speer said:

 

On 12/8/2016 at 5:45 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

Now, you say that the HSCA tried to figure out where the Harper fragment fit in at the top of the skull. That being the case, it must have been understood that Kennedy's body was buried with a large piece of skull bone missing at the top of his head. (But not at the back of his head.) I'm not sure if the mortician's testimony agrees with that or not.

The hole remaining on the skull at the end of reconstruction was at the back of the head. They were told to prepare Kennedy for an open-casket funeral, so [the morticians] re-constructed his skull so that the hole was at the back of the head, where it could be hidden in a pillow. It doesn't mean the hole was originally at the back of the head, however.

You make it sound like the morticians moved a piece of bone from the back of the skull to the top of the skull. I find that laughable. Do you have any examples of morticians doing reconstructive surgery like that? As opposed to using standard reconstructive materials like plaster of paris, clay, wax, and wire?

It makes a lot more sense that the reason the morticians left the hole in the back of the head is because there was no bone to put there. Because that bone fragment was in Dallas (or on its way there), and would not be found till the following day by Mr. Harper. This scenario is corroborated by the early testimonies of nearly every medical professional at Parkland, who said they saw a gaping hole in the back of the head, and some of whom said they saw cerebellum oozing out the hole.

[Sandy Larsen]

On 12/9/2016 at 1:10 AM, Pat Speer said:

Ebersole was no longer working as a radiologist (one who analyzes x-rays) at the time of his HSCA testimony. He was a radiation oncologist (one who uses x-rays to fight cancer). He wasn't questioned by HSCA counsel, moreover, but by the HSCA pathology panel itself. Nine of the most famous forensic pathologists in America. It is my suspicion, then, that he was trying to impress them by using big words, and acting like he knew more than he did, in his testimony.

Ebersole was trying to impress a group of pathology experts by using technical words he knew was gibberish?

Hmmm... I don't think so.

[Robert Prudhomme]

" These described resuscitative activities were indicated as of first importance, and after they were carried out attention was turned to all other evidences of injury. There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound. There were also fragmented sections of brain on the drapes of the emergency room cart. With the institution of adequate cardiac compression, there was a great flow of blood from the cranial cavity, indicating that there was much vascular damage as well as brain tissue damage. "

MT Jenkins, MD, Nov. 22, 1963

" There was a large wound in the right occipito-parietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring. 1500 cc. of blood were estimated on the drapes and floor of the Emergency Operating Room. There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound. "

Kemp Clark, MD, Nov. 22, 1963

" In view of tracheal injury and decreased BS an tracheostomy was performed by Dr. Perry and Bilat. chest tubes inserted. A 2^nd bld infusion was begun in left arm. In addition Dr. Jenkins began resp with anethesia machine, cardiac monitor, and stimulator attached. Solu cortef IV given (300mg), attempt to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue via packs instituted. Despite these measures as well as external cardiac massage, BP never returned and EKG evidence of cardiac activity was never obtained. "

Charles J Carrico, MD, Nov. 22, 1963

" At the time of initial examination, the pt. was noted as non-responsive. The eyes were deviated and the pupils were dilated. A considerable quantity of blood was noted on the patient, the carriage and the floor. A small wound was noted in the midline of the neck, in the lower third anteriorly. It was exuding blood slowly. A large wound of the right posterior cranium was noted, exposing severely lacerated brain. Brain tissue was noted in the blood at the head of the carriage. "

Malcolm O Perry, MD, Nov. 22, 1963

" On first observation of the remaining wounds the rt temporal and occipital bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table, with .extensive lacerations and contusions."

Charles R Baxter, D, Nov. 22, 1963

"There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region. Much of the skull appeared gone at brief examination . The previously described lacerated brain was present. "

Kemp Clark, MD, Nov. 22, 1963

 

[Robert Prudhomme]

Right occiput, right rear of head; how can so many witnesses all agree with each other, yet all be mistaken?

From the Warren Commission testimony of SA Clinton J Hill, Secret Service:

" Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe as to President Kennedy's condition on arrival at the hospital? 
Mr. HILL. 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."

Did Clint Hill tell them where the wound was, and that was why everyone was mistaken, Pat?

[Micah Mileto]

So, do you guys think the EOP wound was just slightly under the rear blowout?

[Robert Prudhomme]

It would have to be.

[Micah Mileto]

10 minutes ago, Robert Prudhomme said:

It would have to be.

Like this?

 

 

 

That would still require the head to be reconstructed in such a way that leaves the hole further back in the head (between the ears, slightly to the right), right?

Edited December 11, 2016 by Micah Mileto

[Robert Prudhomme]

It's possible. I've always found the autopsy photos very difficult to decipher; possibly intentionally so.