Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?

[Cliff Varnell]

"I am sorry to say, Pat, that you are either the most dishonest student of JFK or else the most incompetent to ever address the medical evidence, bar none."

You are so predictable, Professor. Pat has made some excellent points concerning what the witnesses actually said. He made these points by citing real evidence. You just can't leave it at debate can you? You have offer your own opinion as to Pat's honesty and competence. Apparently, you don't yet get it. We've all seen you pull this again and again and no one really gives a damn what sort of pompous judgments you choose to make about others.

JT

Since Pat and Tink are both on this thread, I'd like discuss a position Pat referred to upthread claiming the throat wound was caused by an exiting skull fragment, a position Tink has taken in the past.

Gentlemen (Pat and Tink), are we to believe that JFK started reacting to throat trauma intuitively 6 seconds before he suffered said throat trauma, or did the witnesses who described him as reacting to throat trauma (Nellie Connally, Linda Willis) in response to the first shot get it wrong?

And how do we account for the Zapruder film showing JFK reacting to throat trauma 6 seconds before the head shot?

I've never been able to figure out any argument for your positions on this.

Thanks in advance.

Cliff, in my case, I suspect Kennedy was hit in the back of the head by a low velocity missile circa frame 224, and that this bullet traveled down his neck and exited his throat. So there is no contradiction between my theory (more like my suspicion, based upon my study of the evidence) and the Z-film.

Pat, with all due respect, JFK frantically clawing at his throat is not consistent with your theory, and neither is the witness testimony.

A low velocity bullet struck him in the back of the head without pushing his head forward, travels downward, exits the throat through a small hole consistent with an entrance wound, and in response JFK grabs for his throat, keeping his elbows elevated until he's shot in the head again?

Rube Goldberg comes to mind.

Jackie testified that there was a "quizzical" look on JFK's face. Is that the look of someone who has just been shot in the head, quizzical?

How do you reconcile this with the neck x-ray, which shows a bruised lung tip, a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process and an air pocket overlaying C7 and T1?

Doesn't it give you pause when there were so many people who described the wound as an entrance?

What was it about JFK's wounds, Pat, that made everyone who saw them get them wrong?

Edited January 17, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Pat Speer]

Now hold on Dr. Thompson and Bill, Dr. Fetzer was offering testimony -- ironclad in my opinion -- that herniating cerebellum was recorded contemporaneously in Trauma Room 1 by physicians competent to tell the difference between cerebral and cerebullar tissues, and you, Bill, bring up a photographic issue unrelated to Pat Speer's claim that the Dallas physicans were confused about where the wound was and what kind of brain they saw herniating from that wound. I fancy on one has perfect knowledge on this case, but in this case it is Pat Speer who has to rationalize away the contemporaneous record of what was seen at Parkland. That Pat actually finds some comfort in later Dallas retractions is most disturbing to me. Whom do you trust, a doctor's observations with the patient in front of him, or a doctor weeks, months or years later under pressure to revise his report by persons highly placed? I simply cannot fathom Pat's confidence in Dallas' retractions, nor his claim that a neurosurgeon like Kemp Clark or other doctors could confuse brain tissue. I cannot read Best Evidence, pp. 321-326, and believe it possible for such confusion. Dr. Peters' (p. 324)mention of the occipital lobes almost resting on the foramen magnum could only hold if the cerebellum/brainstem were injured, or, as Peters says, "missing." Cerebellum "protruding" from the wound (Jenkins) puts the wound low (in the occiput). I think it critical to remember that reports of cerebellum oozing from the wound were made before it was realized how this was contradicted by official government x-rays and photos, and before pressure was brought to bear on the doctors to bend their conclusions. Tell me Bill, what "real evidence" does Pat have to counter these Dallas claims? Or at least in this case do you agree Pat is just dead wrong, however else he may understand the case in other areas? Best, Daniel

Daniel, you need to go back to the original sources. NO notes were taken in Trauma Room 1, so there is no contemporaneous record of cerebellum dripping from the wound. Most of what people think the doctors said comes from their testimony more than four months later, after no doubt DOZENS of conversations with their friends and fellow physicians. Even so, I do not dispute that at least some of the doctors thought they saw cerebellum. The problem is that two of the key cerebellum witnesses--Carrico and Jenkins--later admitted or accepted that they were mistaken, and claimed that they'd mistaken macerated brain for cerebellum, or words to that effect. Now, I have taken them at their word that such a mistake is possible. If you think not, I suggest you do a photo study of macerated brain and cerebellum, and show us why such a mistake would be impossible. Perhaps you then can tell us why, if their "seeing" cerebellum PROVES the wound was low on the back of the head, so few of the Parkland doctors claimed the autopsy photos were in error.

From patspeer.com, chapter 18c:

The Parkland Doctors' First Statements

As one reads the following statements, one should keep in mind the manner in which these statements have been presented by conspiracy theorists of all stripe and color. In his 2006 book The JFK Assassination Debates, historian Michael Kurtz relates that "Every physician and nurse at Parkland Hospital who examined the President's head wounds described a large wound in the right rear of the head. In other words, they described a bullet wound of exit in the back of the head, which meant that the bullet came from in front of Kennedy because he faced forward. In their original descriptions of the wound in Kennedy's head, Dr.s Malcolm Perry, James Carrico, Robert McClelland, Paul Peters, Ronald Jones, and others clearly described a large wound of exit in the occipital region. In addition, they observed both cerebral and cerebellar tissue coming from the wound."

This passage, then, implies that all the doctors and nurses saw the same thing: an exit wound in the occipital region oozing cerebellar tissue. Let us see, then, how many doctors, on the day of the assassination, actually claimed 1) the wound was in the occipital region, 2) this wound was an exit wound, and 3) they saw cerebellar tissue coming from this wound.

Appendix VIII - Medical Reports from Doctors at Parkland Memorial Hospital, Dallas, Texas

Commission Exhibit No. 392

The President arrived in the Emergency Room at exactly 12:43 p. m. in his limousine. He was in the back seat, Gov. Connally was in the front seat of the same car, Gov. Connally was brought out first and was put in room two. The President was brought out next and put in room one. Dr. Clark pronounced the President dead at 1 p. m. exactly. All of the President's belongings except his watch were given to the Secret Service. His watch was given to Mr. O. P. Wright. He left the Emergency Room, the President, at about 2 p.m. in an O'Neal ambulance. He was put in a bronze colored plastic casket after being wrapped in a blanket and was taken out of the hospital. He was removed from the hospital. The Gov. was taken from the Emergency Room to the Operating Room.

The President's wife refused to take off her bloody gloves, clothes. She did take a towel and wipe her face. She took her wedding ring off and placed it on one of the President's fingers.

Summary

The President arrived at the Emergency Room at 12:43 P. M., the 22nd of November, 1963. He was in the back seat of his limousine. Governor Connally of Texas was also in this car. The first physician to see the President was Dr. James Carrico, a Resident in General Surgery.

Dr. Carrico noted the President to have slow, agonal respiratory efforts. He could hear a heartbeat but found no pulse or blood pressure to be present. Two external wounds, one in the lower third of the anterior neck, the other in the occipital region of the skull, were noted. Through the head wound, blood and brain were extruding. Dr. Carrico inserted a cuffed endotracheal tube. While doing so, he noted a ragged wound of the trachea immediately below the larynx.

At this time, Dr. Malcolm Perry, Attending Surgeon, Dr. Charles Baxter, Attending Surgeon, and Dr. Ronald Jones, another Resident in General Surgery, arrived. Immediately thereafter, Dr. M. T. Jenkins, Director of the Department of Anesthesia, and Doctors Giesecke and Hunt, two other Staff Anesthesiologists, arrived. The endotracheal tube had been connected to a Bennett respirator to assist the President's breathing. An Anesthesia machine was substituted for this by Dr. Jenkins. Only 100% oxygen was administered.

A cutdown was performed in the right ankle, and a polyethylene catheter inserted in the vein. An infusion of lactated Ringer's solution was begun. Blood was drawn for type and crossmatch, but unmatched type "O" RH negative blood was immediately obtained and begun. Hydrocortisone 300 mgms was added to the intravenous fluids.

Dr. Robert McClelland, Attending Surgeon, arrived to help in the President's care. Doctors Perry, Baxter, and McClelland began a tracheostomy, as considerable quantities of blood were present from the President's oral pharynx. At this time, Dr. Paul Peters, Attending Urological Surgeon, and Dr. Kemp Clark, Director of Neurological Surgery arrived. Because of the lacerated trachea, anterior chest tubes were placed in both pleural spaces. These were connected to sealed underwater drainage.

Neurological examination revealed the President's pupils to be widely dilated and fixed to light. His eyes were divergent, being deviated outward; a skew deviation from the horizontal was present. Not deep tendon reflexes or spontaneous movements were found.

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.

Further examination was not possible as cardiac arrest occurred at this point. Closed chest cardiac massage was begun by Dr. Clark. A pulse palpable in both the carotid and femoral arteries was obtained. Dr. Perry relieved on the cardiac massage while a cardiotachioscope was connected. Dr. Fouad Bashour, Attending Physician, arrived as this was being connected. There was electrical silence of the President's heart.

President Kennedy was pronounced dead at 1300 hours by Dr. Clark.

Kemp Clark, M. D.

Director

Service of Neurological Surgery

KC:aa

cc to Dean's Office, Southwestern Medical School

cc to Medical Records, Parkland Memorial Hospital

(Note: this summary was written by Dr. Clark. Here he describes the head wound as right occipito-parietal, which would place above and behind the right ear. As no notes were taken in the ER, however, it seems clear Dr. Clark was relying solely on his memory of a wound seen hours before. As a result, it is not unreasonable to suspect he made a rotation error.)

PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

ADMISSION NOTE

J. F. KENNEDY

DATE AND HOUR 11/22/63 1620

DOCTOR: Carrico

When patient entered Emergency room on ambulance carriage had slow agonal respiratory efforts and scant cardiac beats by auscultation. Two external wounds were noted. One small penetrating wound of ant. neck in lower 1/3. The other wound had avulsed the calvarium and shredded brain tissue present with profuse oozing. No pulse or blood pressure were present. Pupils were dilated and fixed. A cuffed endotracheal tube was inserted and through the laryngoscope a ragged wound of the trachea was seen immediately below the larynx. The tube was passed past the laceration and the cuff inflated. Respiration using the resp assistor on auto-matic were instituted. Concurrently an IV infusion of lactated Ringer solution was begun via catheter placed in right leg and blood was drawn for type and crossmatch. Type O Rh negative blood was obtained as well as hydrocortisone.

In view of tracheal injury and decreased BS a tracheostomy was performed by Dr. Perry and Bilat. chest tubes inserted. A 2nd 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 M.D

(Note: Dr. Carrico was the first doctor on the scene. Here he fails to specify the exact location of the head wound. Perhaps he, in fact, had no clear recollection of its location. In any event, he would later make statements suggesting that the wound was in the occipital bone, and then still later that it was chiefly a parietal wound, above the ear. After viewing the autopsy photos in the Archives, moreover, he would disavow his earlier references to occipital and cerebellar damage, and insist instead that he'd been mitsaken and that Kennedy’s wounds were as shown in the photos.

Kurtz score: Carrico does not describe the location of the wound, although its location can be inferred from his reference to cerebellum. He does not, however, describe this wound as a wound of exit. Kurtz's summary of Carrico's statement is therefore accurate on 2 of 3 points. Somewhat misleading.)

PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

ADMISSION NOTE

J. F. KENNEDY

DATE AND HOUR 22 Nov 1963 DOCTOR: PERRY

Staff Note

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.

Pulse or heartbeat were not detectable but slow spasmodic respiration was noted. An endotracheal tube was in place and respiration was being assisted. An intravenous infusion was being placed in the leg.

At this point I noted that respiration was ineffective and while additional venisections were done to administer fluids and blood, a tracheostomy was effected. A right lateral injury to the trachea was noted. The tracheostomy tube was put in place and the cuff inflated and respiration assisted. Closed chest cardiac massage was instituted after placement of sealed drainage chest tubes, but without benefit. Electrocardiographic evaluation revealed that no detectable electrical activity existed in the heart. Resuscitation attempts were abandoned after the team of physicians determined that the patient had expired.

Malcolm O. Perry, M.D.

1630 hr 22 Nov 1963

(Note: Perry simply describes the large head wound as posterior. When Kennedy was lying flat on his back, of course, the wound on the top of his head was ...posterior. Perry has since stated that the autopsy photos accurately depict the wounds.

Kurtz score: Perry does not mention the occipital bone, nor cerebellum. Nor does he describe the wound as a wound of exit. In fact, in the initial press conference in which Kennedy's wounds were discussed, Perry said "The nature of the wound defies the ability to describe whether it went through it from either side." Kurtz's summary therefore is inaccurate on all 3 points. Misleading.)

PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

ADMISSION NOTE

DATE AND HOUR NOV 22, 1963 DOCTOR: BAXTER

Note of Attendance to President Kennedy

I was contacted at approx 12:40 that the President was on the way to the emergency room having been shot. On arrival there, I found an endotracheal tube in place with assisted respirations, a left chest tube being inserted and cut downs going in one leg and in the left arm. The President had a wound in the mid-line of the neck. 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. The pupils were fixed and deviated lateral and dilated. No pulse was detectable and respirations were (as noted) being supplied. A tracheotomy was performed by Dr. Perry and I and a chest tube inserted into the right chest (2nd intercostal space anteriorally). Meanwhile, 2 pts of O neg blood were administered by pump without response. When all of these measures were complete, no heart beat could be detected. Closed chest massage was performed until a cardioscope could be attached which revealed no cardiac activity was obtained. Due to the excessive and irreparable brain damage which was lethal, no further attempt to resuscitate the heart was made.

Charles R. Baxter M.D.

Associate Prof of Surgery

Southwestern Medical School

(Note: Baxter’s statement is a bit strange. If “the rt temporal and occipital bones were missing”, as Baxter claimed, there would be a huge hole on the side and back of Kennedy’s head. Perhaps then, he meant only that parts of the temporal and occipital bones were missing. Baxter would eventually try to clear this up. When he testified before the Warren Commission, at a time long before anyone was talking about the difference in wound descriptions of those viewing Kennedy in Parkland and Bethesda, he testified that "the temporal and parietal bones were missing". This, in effect, moved the wound from the side and back of the skull, to the side and top of the skull. Baxter also later told the ARRB "None of us at that time, I don't think, were in any position to view the head injury. And, in fact, I never saw anything above the scalpline, forehead line, that I could comment on.”

Kurtz score: by his inclusion of the temporal bone, it is clear Baxter was describing a wound on the side of the head, not the rear of the head. He also made no mention of cerebellum oozing from the wound, nor that this wound was an exit wound. Kurtz's summary of Baxter's statements therefore is inaccurate on all 3 points. Misleading.)

DATE AND HOUR 22 Nov 1963

12:20pm to 13:00 hrs

Called by EOR while standing in (illegible) Laboratory at SWMS. Told that the President had been shot. I arrived at the EOR at 1220 - 1225 and .The President was bleeding profusely from the back of the head. There was a large (3 x 3cm) amount of cerebral tissue present on the cart. There was a smaller amount of cerebellar tissue present also.

A tracheostomy was being performed by Drs. Perry, Baxter and McClelland. Exam of the President showed that an endotracheal tube was in place and respiratory assistance was being given by Dr. Akins and Jenkins. The pupils were dilated, fixed to light and his eyes were deviated outward and the right one downward as as well .

The trach was completed and I adjusted the endotracheal tube a little bit. Blood was present in the oral pharynx. Suction was used to remove this. Levine Catheter was passed into the stomach at this time.

He was (illegible) that I (illegible) no carotid pulse. I immediately began closed chest massage. A pulse was obtained at the carotid and femoral pulse levels.

Dr. Perry then took over the cardiac massage so I could evaluate the head wound.

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.

By this time an EKG was hooked up. There was no electrical activity of the heart and no respiratory effort - He was pronounced dead at 1300 hrs by me.

W. Kemp Clark

22 Nov 1963 1615 hrs -

(Note: although Clark describes cerebral and cerebellar tissue on the cart, his colleagues have noted that macerated brain tissue is difficult to distinguish from cerebellar tissue, and that he, as they, could have been mistaken. His statement that “much of the skull appeared gone” is problematic for those who try to make the Dallas doctors' descriptions of a wound on the back of the head jive with the Zapruder film and autopsy photos' depiction of a wound on top of the head by speculating that the Dallas doctors did not see the large head wound on top of the head because Mrs. Kennedy had put the bones back in place, and that they instead saw the posterior aspect of this wound behind the ear, which was not recorded in the autopsy photos due to the autopsists' closing of the bone flaps on back of the head. Clark claimed to see a large hole in the skull, and not a hole beneath some bone flaps. This means that either the large head wound was on the top of the head and Clark was mistaken as to its exact location, or it was on the back of the head as described by Clark and the Zapruder film and autopsy photos have been faked. I choose the first alternative.

Kurtz score: by mentioning the parietal bone, Clark was describing a wound higher on the skull than the one implied by Kurtz. Even so, Clark does mention the occipital bone, and the oozing of cerebellar tissue from the wound. He does not, however, describe the wound as a wound of exit. In fact, Clark, a man from whom all the other doctors would take their cue, made clear in the initial press conference that the wound could be either an exit for a shot fired from the front OR a wound of both entrance and exit for a shot fired from the rear. Kurtz's summary of Clark's statement, then, is accurate on 2 of 3 points. Somewhat misleading.)

PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

ADMISSION NOTE

DATE AND HOUR Nov. 22, 1963 4:45 P.M. DOCTOR: Robert N. McClelland

Statement Regarding Assassination of President Kennedy

At approximately 12:45 PM on the above date I was called from the second floor of Parkland Hospital and went immediately to the Emergency Operating Room. When I arrived President Kennedy was being attended by Drs Malcolm Perry, Charles Baxter, James Carrico, and Ronald Jones. The President was at the time comatose from a massive gunshot wound of the head with a fragment wound of the trachea. An endotracheal tube and assisted respiration was started immediately by Dr. Carrico on Duty in the EOR when the President arrived. Drs. Perry, Baxter, and I then performed a tracheotomy for respiratory distress and tracheal injury and Dr. Jones and Paul Peters inserted bilateral anterior chest tubes for pneumothoracis secondary to the tracheomediastinal injury. Simultaneously Dr. Jones had started 3 cut-downs giving blood and fluids immediately, In spite of this, at 12:55 he was pronounced dead by Dr. Kemp Clark the neurosurgeon and professor of neurosurgery who arrived immediately after I did. The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple. He was pronounced dead after external cardiac message failed and ECG activity was gone.

Robert N. McClelland M.D.

Asst. Prof. of Surgery

Southwestern Med.

School of Univ of Tex.

Dallas, Texas

(Note: in this, his earliest statement on the assassination, Dr. McClelland reveals that he was easily confused and prone to speculation. First of all, he gets himself all turned around and mistakenly says there was a wound in the left temple. He says nothing of a wound on the back of the head or behind the ear. Second of all, he states, without offering any supporting evidence, that the throat wound was a fragment wound.

On March 21, 1964, Dr. McClelland testified before the Warren Commission. He said: “As I took the position at the head of the table that l have already described, to help out with the tracheotomy, I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered ... the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out.”

Since Kennedy was by all reports lying on his back, it is impossible to understand how McClelland could look down into a wound on the back of Kennedy’s head. It seems likely then that McClelland, as Clark, was confused by the rotation of Kennedy’s skull. Incidentally, McClelland, while insisting that the wound he saw was posterior, nevertheless defends the legitimacy of the autopsy photos. He explains that the back of the head photo depicts sagging scalp pulled over a large occipito-parietal wound. This assertion is utterly fantastic and is unsupported by every book on wound ballistics ever written. Scalp overlying explosive wounds does not sag, it tears. No such tears were noted on the back of Kennedy's head at autopsy.

Kurtz score: McClelland's original statement said none of the things Kurtz claims it did. Kurtz's summary of McClelland's statement is therefore inaccurate on all 3 points. Misleading.)

PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

ADMISSION NOTE

DATE AND HOUR Nov. 22, 1963 4:45 P.M. DOCTOR: BASHOUR

Statement Regarding Assassination of the President of the U.S.A., President Kennedy At 12:50 PM, we were called from the 1st floor of Parkland Hospital and told that President Kennedy was shot. Dr. D ?? and myself went to the emergency room of Parkland. Upon examination, the President had no pulsation, no heartbeat, no blood pressure. The oscilloscope showed a complete standstill. The president was declared dead at 12:55 P.M.

F. Bashour M.D.

Associate Professor of Cardiology

Southwestern Medical School Dallas, Texas.

(Note: there is not much to say about Dr. Bashour’s statement, but the next statement, holds the key.)

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL SCHOOL, DALLAS

November 22, 1963 1630

To: Mr. C. J. Price, Administrator Parkland Memorial Hospital

From: M. T. Jenkins, M.D., Professor and Chairman Department of Anesthesiology

Subject: Statement concerning resuscitative efforts for President John F. Kennedy

Upon receiving a stat alarm that this distinguished patient was being brought to the emergency room at Parkland Memorial Hospital, I dispatched Doctors A. H. Giesecke and Jackie H. Hunt with an anesthesia machine and resuscitative equipment to the major surgical emergency room area, and I ran down the stairs. On my arrival in the emergency operating room at approximately 1230 I found that Doctors Carrico and/or Delaney had begun resuscitative efforts by introducing an orotracheal tube, connecting it for controlled ventilation to a Bennett intermittent positive pressure breathing apparatus. Doctors Charles Baxter, Malcolm Perry, and Robert McClelland arrived at the same time and began a tracheostomy and started the insertion of a right chest tube, since there was also obvious tracheal and chest damage. Doctors Paul Peters and Kemp Clark arrived simultaneously and immediately thereafter assisted respectively with the insertion of the right chest tube and with manual closed chest cardiac compression to assure circulation.

For better control of artificial ventilation, I exchanged the intermittent positive pressure breathing apparatus for an anesthesia machine and continued artificial ventilation. Doctors Gene Akin and A. H. Giesecke assisted with the respiratory problems incident to changing from the orotracheal tube to a tracheostomy tube and Doctors Hunt and Giesecke connected a cardioscope to determine cardiac activity.

During the progress of these activities, the emergency room cart was elevated at the feet in order to provide a Trendelenburg position, a venous cutdown was performed on the right saphenous vein, and additional fluids were begun in a vein in the left forearm while blood was ordered from the blood bank. All of these activities were completed by approximately 1245, at which time external cardiac massage was still being carried out effectively by Doctor Clark as judged by a palpable peripheral pulse. Despite these measures there was no electrocardiographic evidence of cardiac activity.

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 .

It is my personal feeling that all methods of resuscitation were instituted expeditiously and efficiently. However, this cranial and intracranial damage was of such magnitude as to cause the irreversible damage. President Kennedy was pronounced dead at 1300.

Sincerely, M. T. Jenkins, M.D .

At first glance, Dr. Jenkins’ statement is not particularly eye-opening. As with Baxter, he describes the wound as “temporal and occipital.” As with Clark he makes sure we know there is missing bone, describing “a great defect in the skull plate” incompatible with the “sprung-bone theory” so popular with so many conspiracy theorists and later pushed by McClelland. Although an 11-10-77 report on an interview with Jenkins conducted by the HSCA staff specified that "Dr. Jenkins said that only one segment of bone was blown out--it was a segment of occipital or temporal bone" and that "a portion of the cerebellum (lower rear brain) was hanging out," he would later claim his estimation of the wounds was incorrect, and decide he did not see cerebellum protruding from the large defect. In 1992, after having viewed the autopsy photos, he told writer Gerald Posner that "The description of the cerebellum was my fault…When I read my report over I realized there could not be any cerebellum. The autopsy photo, with the rear of the head intact and a protrusion in the parietal region, is the way I remember it. I never did say occipital." (Oh yes, you did.)

Almost hidden in Jenkins’ November 22, 1963 statement, however, is something which convinces me that my theory about the Parkland witnesses is not just reasonable, but absolutely correct. When discussing Kennedy’s early treatment, he reports: “During the progress of these activities, the emergency room cart was elevated at the feet in order to provide a Trendelenburg position. I looked up the term "Trendelenburg Position", and found this description: “In the Trendelenburg position the body is laid flat on the back with the head lower than the pelvis in contrast to the reverse Trendelenburg position. This is a standard position used in surgery in gynecology. It allows better access to the pelvic organs as intestines move cranially by gravity. It was named for the German surgeon Friedrich Trendelenburg.” Elsewhere, I found an even better description: “Tren·de·len·burg position n. A supine position with the patient inclined at an angle of 45 degrees; so that the pelvis is higher than the head, used during and after operations in the pelvis or for shock.”

Well, this surprised me, as no one else had mentioned that Kennedy was not only flat on his back, but topsy-turvy. Perhaps they’d simply forgotten. If so, it may not have occurred to them that a wound on the top of the head slightly in front of the ear would appear posterior to the ear if the patient was in the Trendelenburg position. This problem with orientation, moreover, would help explain how Dr. Robert McClelland could testify he “could actually look down into the skull cavity itself” whilst simultaneously embracing the contradictory attitudes that the wound was on the back of Kennedy’s head and that Kennedy was lying on his back. It seems more than a coincidence, after all, that if the wound was on top of Kennedy’s skull, as presumed, while Kennedy was in the Trendelenburg Position, as asserted, the wound would have been observed as claimed.

Should one still be skeptical that the confusion over the location of Kennedy’s head wound came from the rotation of his body when observed by the doctors, one should feel free to go back to the Lincoln/Kennedy comparison slide here , and take a closer look at the locations of the red stars over President Lincoln.

(In September 2008, I put this slide up on an online forum, and asked if anyone noticed anything. After a few days passed, and no one responded, I offered the hint that there was something odd about the red stars I'd placed on the images of President Lincoln. Finally, after more than 500 views, a member offered that the red stars were not in the same location on the images of Lincoln, and that one was above Lincoln's ear, and the other was on the back of his head. That it took so long for someone to state something so obvious, once one compares the red stars to the top of the ear, supports my suspicion that the majority of those viewing this slide did not perceive the red stars in relation to the top of the ear, but to the middle of the ear. This, in turn, supports my suspicion that the Parkland witnesses were similarly confused.)

"Well, hold on right there," you must be thinking, "is it really likely every doctor seeing Kennedy at the hospital on 11-22 would make this same mistake?" No, probably not. Which is why it's important to recall that every doctor didn't. As discussed, Dr. Burkley was aware of but one wound on Kennedy's head, a large wound by his temple. As far as the Parkland staff, well, Dr. Baxter testified before the Warren Commission that the wound was temporal and parietal, and thus near the ear, and not on the back of the head. Dr. Salyer, as well, testified that the wound was in the temporal region, and thus near the ear, and not on the back of the head. While Dr. Giesecke thought the wound was on the left side of the head, he nevertheless testified before the Warren Commission that it was a large wound stretching from the vertex to the ear, and the browline to the occiput, and thus not the hole on the back of the head recalled by others.

And then there's the Johnny-come-lately, Dr. Grossman... While there is almost no record of Dr. Grossman's presence in Emergency Room One on 11-22-63, he emerged in the 1990's 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 a large exit wound on the right side of Kennedy's head above his ear.

Should one still refuse to believe that the rotation of Kennedy on the hospital stretcher led to the apparent confusion about his head wound location, one should know that, no matter the explanation, such confusions occur. In the early 1990's, now Associate Professor Daniel Simons of the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana created a video of six people passing basketballs back and forth, while moving around in a circle. Simons played this video to unsuspecting subjects, asking them how many passes were made, or whether the women in the video made more passes than the men. No matter. The passing was just a distraction. During the middle of the short video-taped passing demonstration, a man in a gorilla suit walked into frame and stood in the middle of the basketball players. What Simons really wanted to know was if anyone counting the number of passes would notice this man in the gorilla suit. He got his answer, which continues to confound people to this day. He found that, upon first viewing, only about 50% of those looking straight at--no, actually studying--a video of a man in a gorilla suit, had any recollection of seeing him, when their attention was drawn to unrelated details. One can view this video, here. http://viscog.beckman.illinois.edu/flashmovie/15.php

The application of Simons' experiment to the Kennedy case should be obvious. From the failure of so many to note the gorilla in the room one can easily extrapolate that the team trying to save Kennedy's life was so focused on trying to save his life that the exact location of his head wound was only a fuzzy afterthought.

And should this explanation not suffice, and should one still refuse to believe that the excitement of a trauma room can lead to mistakes in bullet wound identification (and/or that trauma room physicians are not properly trained to judge the direction of bullet wounds) one should know that Wake Forest University indirectly studied this from 1987-1992, by comparing the reports of trauma specialists with the corresponding reports of forensic pathologists. This study, as described in an April 28, 1993 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that, with multiple gunshot wound victims, trauma specialists mistakenly identified the number of shots or the direction of fire 74% of the time, and that, even with single shot victims with through and through wounds, they were mistaken 37% of the time. Doctors make mistakes. Lots of 'em...

As do historians...

Kurtz score on Jenkins: The wound described by Jenkins was along the right side of the head, not back of the head. While Jenkins mentioned cerebellum, he did not describe the wound as a wound of exit. Kurtz's summary of Jenkins' statements is therefore inaccurate on 2 of 3 points. Misleading.

Final Kurtz score: Kurtz has misrepresented every initial statement to some degree. Four of the six doctors to comment on the head wound on 11/22/63 mentioned locations more to the side of the head and/or top of the head than the wound described by Kurtz. Others made no mention whatsoever of the occipital bone or the cerebellum. None described the wound as an exit. Even worse, Kurtz has deliberately ignored Clark's and Perry's statements suggesting the wound could be a wound of both entrance and exit, and the likelihood that ALL the other doctors would defer to this analysis. By including Paul Peters and Ronald Jones in his list of doctors making these statements, moreover, Kurtz implied they'd made statements in the days after the assassination that could be considered "fresh," when, in fact, the earliest statements one can attribute to them were made several months later, after no doubt dozens of discussions on the assassination with their fellow Parkland physicians and nurses. Kurtz's summary, then, which was accurate on only 6 of 18 points in the initial statements of the Parkland doctors, can only be considered misleading.

Sadly, this is typical of what one finds in the conspiracy literature. While I don't expect to change the minds of those utterly and permanently convinced there was an exit wound on the back of Kennedy's head, I do hope to curtail the spread of such smoke. Please help me in this cause.

Edited January 17, 2011 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

Fetzer: None of these witnesses, no matter how hard you attempt to distort them, support the wound as having been on

the side of his head as opposed to the right rear. They are all completely uniform about that.

Speer: WRONG. Look again. The witnesses on the following slide are more supportive of the wound on the autopsy photos than they are of the wound behind and below the right ear you claim they are describing.

Fetzer: For your position to be defensible, it has to be the case that witnesses from Dealey Plaza are wrong.

Speer: this is absolute rubbish. It is YOU who claim the Dealey witnesses are wrong! Here is what they had to say...

From chapter 18c:

At approximately 12:45 P.M., within 15 minutes of Kennedy's being shot, assassination witness William Newman, who was less than 30 feet to the side of Kennedy when the fatal bullet struck, was interviewed live on television station WFAA. This was 45 minutes before the announcement of Kennedy’s death. Newman told Jay Watson: “And then as the car got directly in front of us, well, a gun shot apparently from behind us hit the President in the side, the side of the temple.” As he said this, he pointed to his left temple, with his only free hand. (This image is reversed on the slide above.)

At 1:17, about a half hour later, Watson interviewed Gayle Newman, who'd been standing right beside her husband and had had an equally close look at the President's wound. She reported: "And then another one—it was just awful fast. And President Kennedy reached up and grabbed--it looked like he grabbed--his ear and blood just started gushing out." (As she said this she motioned to her right temple with both of her hands. In 1969, while testifying at the trial of Clay Shaw, Mrs, Newman would make the implications of this even more clear, and specify that Kennedy "was shot in the head right at his ear or right above his ear…")

Okay so that's two for two. Two witnesses, BOTH of whom saw the bullet impact by Kennedy's ear. But they only saw Kennedy for a second. Maybe they were mistaken. If they were correct, certainly someone seeing Kennedy at Parkland Hospital would have noticed the wound they describe by Kennedy's temple, and have mentioned it on 11-22-63.

Someone did. At 1:33 p.m. on November 22, 1963, Assistant Press Secretary Malcolm Kilduff announced President Kennedy’s death from Parkland Hospital. He told the country: “President John F. Kennedy died at approximately one o’clock Central Standard Time today here in Dallas. He died of a gunshot wound in the brain…Dr. Burkley [Kennedy's personal physician] told me it is a simple matter…of a bullet right through the head.(at which time, as shown on the slide above, he pointed to his right temple) . . . It is my understanding that it entered in the temple, the right temple.” As Dr. Burkley had seen Kennedy in the Dallas emergency room and was later to tell the HSCA that Kennedy’s wounds didn’t change between Dallas and Bethesda, the site of the autopsy, Kilduff’s statements are a clear indication that the large head wound depicted in the autopsy photos is in the same location as the large head wound seen at Parkland Hospital. That no one at the time of Kilduff's statement had noted a separate bullet entrance anywhere on Kennedy's head, moreover, suggests that Burkley had seen but one wound, a wound by the temple, exactly where Newman and his wife had seen a wound.

But wait, there's more... Less than forty minutes after the announcement of Kennedy's death, eyewitness Abraham Zapruder took his turn before the cameras on WFAA, and confirmed the observations of Burkley and the Newmans. Describing the shooting, Zapruder told Jay Watson: “Then I heard another shot or two, I couldn't say it was one or two, and I saw his head practically open up, all blood and everything (at this time, and as shown on the slide above, Zapruder grabbed his right temple), and I kept on shooting. That's about all, I'm just sick, I can't…”

This means that there were four witnesses to comment on the location of Kennedy's head wound prior to the approximately 3:15 press conference at Parkland Hospital, in which Dr. William Kemp Clark claimed the wound was on the "back of his head," and all of them had specified the wound to have been on the side of Kennedy's head, where it was later shown to be in the autopsy photos and Zapruder film. Now ain't that a humdinger!

Now, I know what some of you are thinking. You're thinking, "but Pat you're cherry-picking witnesses to support your silly notion that the Parkland witnesses were wrong and that the bullet striking Kennedy at frame 313 did not exit the back of his head." Well, first of all, I don't believe my noting that the earliest witnesses all said that a bullet hit Kennedy by the temple is silly, particularly in that three participants to Kennedy's autopsy--radiologist Dr. John Ebersole, radiology technician Jerrol Custer, and autopsy assistant James Curtis Jenkins--all left the autopsy with a similar impression a bullet struck Kennedy by the temple. And second of all.... Well, have it your way. Let's go through the statements of the best witnesses to the shooting.

Dealey Plaza groundskeeper Emmett Hudson, who was standing on the steps to the right and front of Kennedy at the moment of the fatal head shot, also discussed its impact. In his testimony before the Warren Commission, Hudson asserted: "it looked like it hit him somewhere along a little bit behind the ear and a little bit above the ear." While this is a few inches back of the location described by the Newmans and Zapruder, it is more significantly not a description of a bullet exit on the far back of Kennedy's head, where most conspiracy theorists have long held the large head wound was located.

"Well, wait a second"--I'm sure some of you are thinking--"maybe Hudson, along with the other witnesses, saw the bullet's entrance, and missed seeing the exit of this bullet from the back of Kennedy's head due to their being slightly in front of Kennedy." Well, no, that doesn't work, either.

In 1966, Marilyn Sitzman, Abraham Zapruder’s secretary, who'd stood beside him on 11-22-63, confirmed his observation of the wound location. To writer Josiah Thompson, she related: “And the next thing that I remembered correct ... clearly was the shot that hit him directly in front of us, or almost directly in front of us, that hit him on the side of his face ...” When asked then by Thompson to specify just where she saw the large head wound, she continued: “I would say it'd be above the ear and to the front…Between the eye and the ear…And we could see his brains come out, you know, his head opening. It must have been a terrible shot because it exploded his head, more or less”. Hmmm... Sitzman, as Zapruder, was almost directly to the right of the President at the moment of the fatal bullet's impact. This put them in perfect position to note an explosion from the back of Kennedy's head. And yet neither of them saw such an explosion.

Even worse, at the moment of the fatal bullet's impact, the Newmans were approximately 6-8 feet behind the President, and about 20 feet to his right. Kennedy, at this time, was turned slightly left. This means the Newmans were looking directly at the back of Kennedy's head at the moment of the fatal bullet's impact... And yet both of them noted that this impact was by his ear!

Still, that's just four witnesses in a strong position to note whether the bullet exploded from the side or back of Kennedy's skull, all of whom said side. What about the closest witnesses in the motorcade behind Kennedy? Didn't any of them see an explosion from the back of his head?

Uhhh...nope. Motorcycle officer James Chaney, riding just a few yards off Kennedy's right shoulder, was interviewed by WFAA on the night of the shooting. He reported: "We heard the first shot. I thought it was a motorcycle backfiring and uh I looked back over to my left and also President Kennedy looked back over his left shoulder. Then, the, uh, second shot came, well, then I looked back just in time to see the President struck in the face by the second bullet." Wait... What? Struck in the face? Apparently, Chaney, as Sitzman, considered the space between the eye and the ear the side of the face. While some might wish to believe Chaney was describing the impact of a bullet entering Kennedy's face and exiting from the back of his head, this in fact makes little sense, as Chaney said in this same interview that he thought the shot had come from "back over my right shoulder." We should also consider that WFAA's interview of Chaney took place on the night of the assassination...in the hall of the Dallas Police Station as Oswald was being questioned. By that time, Chaney had to have been told a rifle had been found in the depository behind Kennedy's position at the time of the shooting. If Chaney believed Oswald had fired the shots, as one would suspect since he thought the shots came from behind, and had seen an explosion of any kind from the back of Kennedy's head--entrance or exit--wouldn't he have said so?

And shouldn't the motorcycle officer riding directly to his right, Douglas Jackson, also have reported such an explosion? Jackson's notes, written on the night of the assassination and published in 1979, relate: "I looked back toward Mr. Kennedy and saw him hit in the head; he appeared to have been hit just above the right ear. The top of his head flew off away from me."

Well then, what about the officers riding on the other side, unable to see the right side of the President's face? If there had been an explosion from the back of Kennedy's head, entrance or exit, they would not have been distracted by an entrance or exit by Kennedy's ear. So what did they see?

While the motorcycle officer on the far left of the limo, B.J. Martin, said he did not even see the head shot, the officer to his right, Bobby Hargis, riding off Mrs. Kennedy's left shoulder, was not so lucky. In an 11-24-63 eyewitness account published in the New York Sunday News, he wrote: "As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned toward him, and that was when he got hit in the side of the head, spinning it around. I was splattered by blood." In 1968, in an interview with Jim Garrison's investigators, Hargis would later confirm: "If he'd got hit in the rear, I'd have been able to see it. All I saw was just a splash come out on the other side."

Okay, now, that's eight witnesses, all of whom said the kill shot impacted on the side of the President's head, and none of whom noted an explosion or wound on the back of his head.

We now move to the witnesses directly behind Kennedy, in perfect position to note an explosion from the back of his head. These witnesses rode in the Secret Service back-up car, trailing the limousine by just a few yards. Sam Kinney, the driver of this car, wrote a report on the night of the assassination which asserted "At this time, the second shot was fired and I observed hair flying from the right side of his head…" Sitting next to Kinney was Emory Roberts, sitting directly behind Kennedy. If a bullet hit Kennedy on the back of the head, or erupted from the back of his head, he would have been the one to notice. Instead, in an 11-29-63 report, he wrote "I saw what appeared to be a small explosion on the right side of the President’s head, saw blood, at which time the President fell further to his left."

On the left running board of the back-up car were two agents, neither of whom commented on the bullet's impact or wound location in their initial reports.

One of the agents on the right side of the limo, Paul Landis, however, described the impact in a graphic manner. In a report written 11-29-63, he noted "I heard a second report and saw the President’s head split open and pieces of flesh and blood flying through the air." While vague, this might indeed suggest a bullet's exploding from the back of Kennedy's head.

But between the agents on the left and right sides of the limo sat four more witnesses, two on the jump seat, and two on the rear seat. While Kennedy's close aide Kenneth O'Donnell failed to describe the impact of the fatal bullet or head wound location in his Warren Commission testimony, he and the man sitting next to him on the jump seat, Dave Powers, would in 1970 publish a book on Kennedy, which described: "While we both stared at the President, the third shot took the side of his head off. We saw pieces of bone and brain tissue and bits of his reddish hair flying through the air..." These were Kennedy's friends, both of whom felt one or more shots came from the front, and yet neither of them claimed to see an explosion from the back of Kennedy's head. Years earlier, in fact, Powers had provided a statement to the Warren Commission, which described: "there was a third shot which took off the top of the President’s head..." Thus, O'Donnell and Powers felt the explosion was on the top and side of the President's head--and not on the far back of his head, where so many conspiracy theorists fervently believe the wound was located.

Their impression was shared by George Hickey, one of the two Secret Service agents on the rear seat of the back-up car. On the night of the assassination, he wrote a report on what transpired in Dallas, and noted: "it seemed as if the right side of his head was hit and his hair flew forward." Next to Hickey sat Glen Bennett, who noted, in a handwritten 11-22-63 report, that the fatal bullet "hit the right rear high of the President’s head." While some might take Bennett's statement to indicate he saw the entrance of a bullet near Kennedy's cowlick, the entrance location later "discovered" by the Clark Panel, a more logical assessment would be that he saw an explosion of brain and blood from the right side of Kennedy's skull, to the rear of his head, as in not on his face, and high, as in the highest part of his head visible from behind. This, not coincidentally, would be the top of Kennedy's head above his ear, the location of the impact shown in the Zapruder film. (Should one not agree with this assessment one should feel free to explain how Bennett could have seen an impact at the small red shape seen in the autopsy photos, and fail to note the massive explosion from the gaping hole on the right side of Kennedy's head seen in the Zapruder film, especially when no blood can be seen exploding from the back of Kennedy's head in the film.)

In sum, then, none of the closest witnesses to the side or back of the President saw a bullet impact on or explode from the back of his head. So why is it, again, that so many believe there was a wound on the back of his head? Oh, that's right. ALL those who saw Kennedy at Parkland Hospital said the wound they saw was on the back of his head.

Well, not all... As we've seen, Dr. Burkley, long before the Dallas doctors convened their press conference and told the world the large head wound was on the back of Kennedy's head, had already explained to press secretary Malcolm Kilduff that the wound was in fact by the temple.

And he wasn't the only one at Parkland to make this assessment. Texas Highway Patrolman Hurchel Jacks, the driver of Vice-President Johnson's car in the motorcade, arrived at the hospital just moments after the limousine, and witnessed the removal of the President's body from the limo. On 11-28-63, less than week after the assassination, he filed a report (18H801) and noted: "Before the President's body was covered it appeared that the bullet had struck him above the right ear or near the temple." Well, then, what gives? Didn't any of the closest witnesses to the shooting or Kennedy's body before it entered the hospital say anything suggesting they saw a large wound on the back of Kennedy's head?

Yeah...one did... Clint Hill, the Secret Service agent riding to the hospital on the back of the limo, while making no initial comment on the impact location of the fatal bullet, would later describe the appearance of Kennedy's head wound both en route to 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 returned to this later. When describing the aftermath to Kennedy's autopsy in his report, 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. (In 2010, while promoting The Kennedy Detail, a book written by his fellow agent Gerry Blaine, Hill would repeat many times that the wound was above Kennedy's right ear.)

"But the men behind Kennedy were all government employees!", some might claim. "What about the witnesses in back of Kennedy on the south side of the street? Certainly, they saw an explosion from the back of his head..." No, no such luck. There were three witnesses behind Kennedy on his left who would have been in a position to see an explosion from the back of his head, should a shot from the grassy knoll truly have exploded from the back of his head, as so many believe. Mary Moorman, whose photo of Kennedy taken just after the shot's impact shows no evidence for such a wound, was interviewed numerous times on the day of the shooting, and would say only that she saw Kennedy grab his chest and slump down in the car. Her friend, Jean Hill, moreover, the woman in red in the Zapruder film, said much the same thing on the day of the shooting. Four months later, however, after much more spectacular reports had been printed, Hill claimed to have seen "the hair on the back of President Kennedy’s head fly up." Note that she still was not claiming to have seen an explosion from the back of his head. No, she didn't even claim such a thing when tracked down and interviewed decades later by conspiracy writer Jim Marrs. Instead, she told Marrs simply that "a bullet hit his head and took the top off." "Top." Not "back." Ms. Hill, in fact. made no claims of seeing the explosion from the back of Kennedy's head so many conspiracy theorists assume she saw until her book The Last Dissenting Witness appeared in 1992. It related "The whole back of his head appeared to explode and a cloud of blood-red mist filled the air." That this was "poetic license" inserted by her co-writer, Bill Sloan, should be readily apparent. If not, one should take into account that by 1992 Ms. Hill was still so confused by what she saw that she told interviewer James Earl Jones and a national television audience that, as "shots rang out", Kennedy "grabbed his throat, and that was the horrible head shot." Kennedy, of course, grabbed his throat long before the head shot.

Well, what of the third witness, then? Well, in his earliest interviews, Charles Brehm claimed to see Kennedy really get blasted and get knocked down in the car. No mention of an explosion from the back of his head. A few days later, however, newspaper accounts of the shooting quoting Brehm claimed he saw "the President’s hair fly up." In 1966, when interviewed by Mark Lane, moreover, he filled in the details, and claimed "When the second bullet hit, there was—the hair seemed to go flying. It was very definite then that he was struck in the head with the second bullet…I saw a piece fly over in the area of the curb…it seemed to have come left and back." While some might wish to take the flight of this one piece of skull as an indication the fatal shot came from the front, they really shouldn't rush to such a judgment. You see, not only did Brehm long claim he thought the shots came from behind, but he paused before he told Lane "the hair seemed to go flying." During this pause, in an obvious indication of where he recalled seeing a wound, he motioned not to the back of his head but to...his right ear.

Well, were there any other known witnesses to report on this wound from further back? Yes. Marilyn Willis, standing quite some distance behind Kennedy, told the FBI in June, 64 that she saw the "top" of Kennedy's head blown off, only to turn around and tell a TV audience in 1988 that she saw brain matter blown out the "back of his head," only to turn around yet again and tell Robert Groden in 1993 that the wound she saw was on "this side," while grabbing the right side of her head above her ear.

Fetzer: the physicians from Parkland are wrong;

Speer: Yep. That's exactly what I think. And what you think, too. There is no uniformity in their statements. Some of them have to be wrong.

Fetzer: the witnesses from Bethesda (even including Boswell and Humes, who acknowledge the blow-out at the back of the head but extend it upward and forward) must be wrong; Gary Aguilar's study of the evidence of the location of the wound across from Parkland to Bethesda must be wrong; David W. Mantik's studies of the X-rays must be wrong; the reports of the FBI agents at Bethesda must be wrong--pretty much everyone who saw the wound on the 22nd of November 1963 has to be wrong, including Clint Hill!

Speer: Yep, a lot of mistakes have been made.

Fetzer: Frame 374 must be be faked,since it actually shows the blow-out to the right rear; and of course the Hollywood experts who had concluded that the blow-out is missing from key frames such as 313-316 because it was painted over in black have to be wrong! Apparently, according to you, the only one who has it right is PAT SPEER! Why am I not impressed?

Speer: And this from a man who just claimed the head wound was below the ear, and that photos of witnesses placing the wound above their ear PROVE IT!

Fetzer: Let me invite you to read Doug Horne's INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), which is chock full of testimony, depositions,

photographs and drawings related to the medical evidence. I presume you are not familiar with his massively

documented and meticulously detailed analysis of the medical evidence, since I cannot imagine how anyone--

even you!--could continue with this charade other than by persisting in a state of denial.

Speer: LOL. You're priceless, Jim. Have you actually forgotten that in our most recent tussle I had to school you and point out that in his book Horne helped straighten out that the so-called McClelland drawing was not actually drawn by McClelland, but by Philip Johnson?

Fetzer: I must say that it is simply astonishing that anyone could claim to be an expert on the medial evidence, as you pretend to be, who

is so ready and willing to dismiss what the witnesses, including thoroughly competent and highly qualified

physicians at Parkland, have to tell us about the wound, including, of course, diagrams that they prepared,

including those by Dr. McClelland and by Dr. Crenshaw. Since all of this is brought together in one place in

Doug's book, let's start with Vol. I, which initiates his discussion of the medical evidence. Better yet, not to

overstrain your cognitive abilities, let's start with Chapter 1. Read it and tell us what it says about all of this

and why Doug and the witnesses are wrong as a nice test of your intellectual competence and your integrity.

Speer: We've been over this before. Horne relies on the half-baked memories of seniors, and tries to create a narrative in which all of those supporting that the medical evidence is cooked are telling the truth, and all of those supporting that the evidence is legit, are lying. I am more discriminating in what I choose to believe, e.g., Horne uses Joe O'Donnell--a man whose family later admitted had been suffering from dementia at the time of the ARRB--to support that a second set of autopsy photos were taken by Robert Knudsen, when Knudsen himself said nothing of the sort when interviewed by the HSCA.

Fetzer: The only support for your bizarre theory stems from the skull flap, which was blown open when the frangible

bullet exploded after entering his right temple. We know the Newmans, for example, reported seeing the side

of his head blow open. That is because they were at the right-hand side of the limousine and saw it blow open.

Speer: Balderdash. The Newmans were looking at the back of JFK's head from a distance of 15 feet or so when the fatal bullet struck...and noted NO blow-out to the back of the head. As discussed above, NONE of the authenticated Dealey witnesses noted a blow-out to the back of the head.

Fetzer: But that does not contradict the massive blow-out to the back of the head. I have explained all these things

in many places, including "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid", which is archived here:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Zapruder-JFK-Film-Impeache-by-Jim-Fetzer-090324-48.html We can see both the massive blow-out and the bluish-gray brains

AS WELL AS the pinkish skull flap in frame 374, which I have already published here several times. We can

also see the skull flap (but not the massive blow out) in the HSCA photograph and diagram.

Fetzer: And we know from Thomas Evan Robinson that there were BOTH a massive blow out to the back of the skull AND a skull

flap to the side of the head. THESE WERE DISTINCT.

Speer: Tom Robinson saw the skull during its reconstruction. There is no evidence whatsoever that the skull was meticulously pieced back together. Much as a a mortician will leave the back side of the clothes tore open, one would simply reconstruct the face as best one can, and leave whatever hole is left for the back of the head.

Fetzer: And it would be preposterous to maintain cerebellum would have been extruding from the wound at your location. So the only way you can maintain your position

is by ignoring the evidence and not distinguishing the distinct. I am sorry to say, Pat, that you are either the most dishonest student of JFK or else the most incompetent to ever address the medical evidence, bar none.

Speer: Yawn. Another day at the office. Jim can't handle what the evidence shows, so he attacks the person showing him the evidence. Sigh.

Edited January 17, 2011 by Pat Speer

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff,

It has been very common over the past 46+ years for researchers to claim that JFK "grabbed at his throat"

Martin, it isn't researchers who matter, it is the witnesses and the film that matter. The witnesses describe JFK as grabbing at his throat and the Z-film shows JFK frantically clawing at his necktie at the front of his throat.

This is what the evidence shows, not just what researchers say.

but it seems to me from what you wrote above ["you can see JFK's hands in the vicinity of his throat...his left hand grabbed at his throat (or his tie)"] that you realize this is not true.

No,Martin, please desist from telling me what I realize. The evidence shows JFK grabbing at his throat, which is where the tie is, quite consistent with the witness statements.

Like everyone else, I've watched the Zapruder film far too many times and it has always been obvious to me that at no point do his hands actually appear to clutch his throat - though one can understand why it might have appeared that way to witnesses.

You're splitting hairs. His left hand was working at his throat, whether he actually touched his throat or not is irrelevant.

Put your hands to your throat, where do your elbows end up? Across your chest, right? This would seem to be the "natural" reaction but this is nothing like the odd motion President Kennedy makes.

What you think a "normal" reaction is or isn't does NOT constitute evidence or an argument.

What the witnesses described was consistent with the actions JFK took in the limo. Period.

His elbows seem to flip right up in the air and his right hand moves up in front of his face, not his throat.

Just as Gil Jesus described it, cupped in front of his mouth while his left hand clawed at the tie. He was obviously responding to throat trauma.

I think researchers have been taking it for granted for far too long that because there was a throat wound Kennedy must have been reacting to it when he appeared from behind the sign.

Understanding clear evidence is not "taking it for granted." It is what the witnesses

describe, it is what the film shows. A throat entrance wound is what the Parkland doctors described.

[quote[

It would appear just as likely that he was reacting to the bullet that struck him in the back.

[/quote

A shot in the back is going to make him frantically claw at his tie?

As for the nature of the wound itself, yes the doctors who saw it thought at first that it might have been an entrance but let's face it, they didn't inspect the wound to find out for sure - that wasn't their job.

Let's face it, they all described it as an entrance wound. The neck x-ray shows a clear front to back path with a bruised lung tip, a hair-line fracture of the T1 transverse process, and an air pocket overlaying C7 and T1.

And the back wound was too low, as proven by the bullet hole in JFK's shirt. The claim that such a shirt bunched up 2 inches is a scenario contrary to the nature of reality.

As Dr. Thompson pointed out in 1967, the Dallas physicians also discussed the possibility that it was a tangential wound from a fragment and ultimately agreed that it could have been an exit

No they didn't. Specter put forth the magic bullet theory as a given in order to provide a context for the wound being "either an entrance or exit." It was consistently described as a wound of entrance, and two doctors made contemporaneous notes to that effect.

so let's not pretend that they were absolutely certain that it was an entrance.

Oh, we can say the wound was an entrance given the neck x-ray and the low back wound, the doctor's descriptions are but icing on the cake.

Tell us, Martin, what was it about JFK's wounds that made everyone who laid eyes on them uniformly incorrect?

Edited January 17, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff,

I noticed that you didn't respond to my example of how atypical wounds can confuse intitial inspections

As I pointed out, there is more evidence of the throat entrance wound than the doctors' descriptions of it.

The neck x-ray shows a straight-line path from front to back given the fact there was no posterior entrance at C7/T1.

The back wound was too low to be associated with either the throat wound or the damage on the neck x-ray.

The Dealey Plaza witnesses described JFK as grabbing his throat.

The Zapruder film shows JFK's left hand frantically clawing at his throat.

The claim that he was responding to a shot in the back of the head (Speer) or the shot in his back (Hay) finds no purchase in the evidence, but merely in the fertile imaginations of these worthy gentlemen.

and I know why - because you have already made up your mind therefore any attempt to make you question your beliefs is destined to be fruitless. Its this type of closed-mindedness that prevents JFK research from moving forward.

This sort of rhetoric betrays the bankruptcy of your position. You can't argue the facts without getting nasty, can you, Martin?

I don't know of a single medical professional that claims "The neck x-ray shows a clear front to back path" - maybe you do but I've never come across it.

The damage is a clear path from a nicked trachea, bruised lung tip, hairline fracture of the T1 transverse, air pocket overlaying C7 and T1 -- are you denying that those injuries occupy the same horizontal plane in the body?

Since there was no posterior entrance at C7/T1 the path HAD to be from front to back.

The bruised lung tip (do you have any hard evidence that this even existed BTW), hair-line fracture of the T1 transverse process, and an air pocket overlaying C7 and T1 are no more proof of a front-to-back shot than they are of a back-to-front.

Since there was no entrance in the back at C7/T1 -- the back wound was provably at T3 -- the bullet path had to be front to back.

HSCA analysis of the neck x-ray observed the bruised lung tip.

It is all only circumstantial evidence that only a proper autopsy could confirm or refute.

No, as long as you understand the first thing about the JFK assassination -- the location of the back wound -- then you know that the throat wound was an entrance because there was no corresponding wound at C7/T1.

The latter is a fiction prepared by Nutters and maintained by some so-called "CT's", for reasons I'll never fathom.

I also noticed that you ignored the fact that the Dallas doctors dicussed the alternative possibility of a tangential wound from a fragment. If you'd rather believe the physicians never wavered from their intial entrance wound theory that's fine by me.

No, as I noted their wound descriptions are the icing on the cake. The fact that JFK's back wound was at T3 and the neck x-ray shows damage several inches higher is the strongest evidence of the throat entrance wound.

But unlike yourself, I'm not committed to a theory and will keep my mind open.

On the contrary, I posit no theories, I cite from the properly prepared medical evidence, a body of work to which you appear allergic. You peddle the theory that the autopsy photos are genuine evidence and everyone who saw JFK's wounds got it wrong. You accusing anyone of being narrow-minded smacks of projection, frankly.

You wrote: "The witnesses describe JFK as grabbing at his throat and the Z-film shows JFK frantically clawing at his necktie at the front of his throat." That's your interpretation. You do understand that, right? And how exactly is it "spliiting hairs" to point out that JFK never actually grabs his throat as tons of conspiracy theorists have claimed?

Because his left hand was at his throat. And it isn't "tons of conspiracy theorists" who describe him as grabbing at his throat -- it is people who actually witnessed the event who described it that way.

Of course, this doesn't fit your pet theories of the case so the witnesses had to be wrong? Even though JFK's hands were in front of his throat he was actually responding to a shot in the back?

This is ridiculous pet theorizing on your part, frankly, Martin.

It's actually quite a relevant fact when we're discussing whether or not he was reacting to a wound in the throat as you contend. And not all of the witnesses had this impression. Jean Newman, for example said "I saw him put his elbows like this, with his hands on his chest." (19H489) Gayle Newman said "President Kennedy kind of jumped like he was startled and covered his head with his hands and then raised up."

(ibid 488) And of course Roy Kellerman was certain that Kennedy had yelled "My God!I'm hit!" - a seeming impossibility if a bullet had just exited the windpipe. Of course, we can all cherry-pick witness statements that seem to support our position but the hard evidence of the film is more important and the film does not show Kennedy grabbing his throat.

The Newman's were to JFK's right. They saw the right arm/hand, which was held in front of JFK's mouth.

Nellie Connally and Linda Willis were to the left of JFK and saw the left hand grabbing at the throat/tie.

Nellie Connally had the best view by far, and Linda Willis corroborates Nellie, and the Zapruder film showing JFK's left hand active at his throat corroborates them both.

His left hand grabbed at his throat. It's right there in the film, Martin. Nellie saw it. Linda Willis saw it. Anyone can see if their mind is open. I guess I can point out to you the location of JFK's left hand AT his throat, but nothing is going to get you off the notion that this was related to the back wound.

You asked: "what was it about JFK's wounds that made everyone who laid eyes on them uniformly incorrect?"

How about the fact that it looked like an entrance wound? You do understand that appearances can be decieving when we're talking about entrance and exit wounds, don't you? The fact that it looked like an entrance does not mean it was. I think I provided a pretty good example before, strange that you ignored it.

If there wasn't corroborative evidence you might have a point, but there is and you don't.

I notice you don't want to deal with the low back wound. That is the first thing one must understand in the case, frankly.

The back wound was several inches lower than the damage path in the neck x-ray. There

was no back entrance wound to correspond with a throat exit wound.

I'm sorry if this is inconvenient to your pet theories, Martin.

Edited January 17, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

This sort of rhetoric betrays the bankruptcy of your position. You can't argue the facts without getting nasty, can you, Martin?

Cliff,

My comment wasn't intended to be nasty. I don't see how the truth can ever be considered nasty.

What truth? All I see in those comments were ad hominem

Please note, gentle reader, that Martin Hay would prefer to attack me than my argument, which he cannot challenge.

You and I have been through your T3/blood soluble paralytic theory

No, there is no such thing as a "T3/blood soluble paralytic theory."

This is something you've made up because you don't have any facts to bring to your argument.

That JFK's back wound was at T3 is established by the physical evidence (the bullet holes in the clothes), the properly prepared medical evidence you like to pretend doesn't exist (Burkley's death certificate, the diagram on the autopsy face sheet, the FBI autopsy report), and the statements of over a dozen witnesses.

It is the autopsists who proposed the night of the autopsy that JFK was struck with blood soluble rounds, a conclusion supported by the neck x-ray and JFK's actions in the motorcade.

As I already noted, I'll leave the pet theorizing to the likes of you and Pat.

before so I know from first hand experience that you are closed-mindedly committed to an untenable theory that stops you from being able to properly understand the medical evidence.

I know from first hand, and anyone following this discussion can see, that you can't summon any facts to support your true belief system, so you get nasty.

Typical.

Seriously, you're welcome to your theories, Cliff.

I haven't presented any. The fact is the bullet hole in the shirt is 4 inches below the bottom of the collar. That location is not the base of the neck, it is in the vicinity of T3 where the properly prepared medical evidence places it, and where the overwhelming eye-witness testimony places it.

That you can't help but try to make this about me indicates the paucity of your argument.

Personally I'll stay right here in the real world where the autopsy photos and X-rays prove the bullet entered at T1 and you can go on pretending that the clothing - which was not glued to JFK's back - proves it entered lower.

Yes, you stay in a world where improperly produced autopsy photos, with no chain of possession and deemed inadmissible in court by the HSCA, trumps hard physical evidence and consensus witness testimony.

I'm sorry it destroys your pet theories, Martin, but the fact is no tucked in custom-made dress shirt ever produced had two inches of available slack. By design a fine men's dress shirt only involves a fraction of an inch of slack.

That you choose to remain ignorant of this doesn't make it any less a fact.

Edited January 17, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Pat Speer]

Pat, with all due respect, JFK frantically clawing at his throat is not consistent with your theory, and neither is the witness testimony.

A low velocity bullet struck him in the back of the head without pushing his head forward, travels downward, exits the throat through a small hole consistent with an entrance wound, and in response JFK grabs for his throat, keeping his elbows elevated until he's shot in the head again?

Rube Goldberg comes to mind.

Jackie testified that there was a "quizzical" look on JFK's face. Is that the look of someone who has just been shot in the head, quizzical?

How do you reconcile this with the neck x-ray, which shows a bruised lung tip, a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process and an air pocket overlaying C7 and T1?

Doesn't it give you pause when there were so many people who described the wound as an entrance?

What was it about JFK's wounds, Pat, that made everyone who saw them get them wrong?

Cliff, the evidence you point out above--which makes you think I'm wrong--is pretty much the same evidence that led me to believe a bullet (or fragment) passed down Kennedy's neck. This is discussed in detail in chapter 17.

Here is a piece of 17 dealing with Kennedy's movements after frame 2224.

"At the risk of pulling a Lattimer, who incorrectly tried to link Kennedy’s movements after this shot to something described as a Thorburn’s response, I decided to see if the President’s behavior after frame 224 was consistent with someone suffering damage to his cerebellum. According to the available literature, the symptoms of cerebellar damage include a weakness to the side of the body suffering the damage (ipsilateral hypotonia), a tendency to not stop a movement at its proper point (dysmetria), an inability to grasp objects (ataxia), an abnormal head attitude, and disturbances in speech, eye movement, and equilibrium. Between Zapruder frame 224, when the President seems to suffer a wound on his throat, and 313, when he is obviously hit in the head, the President reached in the direction of his throat without grabbing anything, lifted his arms past his throat, slumped to his left (perhaps as over-compensation for the sudden weakness on his right), and stared down without letting out so much as a scream. Ironically, a November 24, 1963 article in the New York Times by Dr. Howard Rusk described this very phenomenon. Mistakenly believing the theory proposed by the Dallas doctors on the afternoon of the 22nd, that one shot hit Kennedy in the throat and exploded out the back of his head, Dr. Rusk explained brain injuries as follows: “If the injury is in the posterior portion of the brain, where the bullet that killed the President made its exit, the cerebellum is damaged. Then the individual is left with ataxia, evidenced by severe intention type of tremors that occur when one tries to perform a basic act or grasp an object. Damage to the cerebellum is also usually accompanied by a loss of equilibrium."

Should one not be entirely satisfied with the explanation that Kennedy's strange movements were brought about by damage to his cerebellum, however, there is an additional explanation for his movements that can be added into the mix. This explanation, moreover, is equally suggestive he was struck in the skull before frame 313 of the Zapruder film. Since Brock’s Injuries of the Brain and Spinal Cord made note that “Posterior basilar fractures tend to gravitate towards the large foramina”, I decided to see if there were any behavioral symptoms for a fracture in this area. And I found something which again dropped my jaw. (My jaw has been dropped so many times during this investigation that it's a wonder it hasn't been broken.) Jugular Foramen Syndrome is described by Blakiston’s Pocket Medical Dictionary as “Paralysis of the ipsilateral glossopharyngeal, vagus, and spinal accessory nerves, caused by a lesion involving the jugular foramen, usually a basilar skull fracture.” According to the online article Craniofacial and Skull Base Trauma by Dr. Harry Shahinian and the Skull Base Institute the paralysis of the vagus nerve would manifest itself through a paralysis of the vocal cords, and a paralysis of the spinal accessory nerves would manifest itself through a paralysis of the neck muscle that flexes the head (the sternocleidomastoid) as well as a weakness of the trapezius muscle, which rotates it. The result is a “weakness in contralateral head rotation and shoulder elevation.” Contralateral, of course, means affecting the opposite side of the body. As we know all too well, Kennedy turned toward his left and dipped his left shoulder in his final, silent, moments."

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff,

When? When did Humes, Boswell and Finck ever say anything about blood soluble rounds? As I recall they were confused at not finding any bullets in the body and asked the FBI agents present if they'd ever heard of an "ice bullet" but later abandoned the idea.

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit:

(quote on)

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general

feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning

the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic]

bullet, one which dissolves after contact.

(quote off)

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit:

(quote on)

The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused

by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments

completely....Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I

left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic]

Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that

would almost completely fragmentize (sic).

(quote off)

But that's it. I know of no conversation about blood soluble rounds inducing paralysis.

They described a round that would "fragmentize completely" and "dissolve after contact."

This would be blood/water soluble material, would it not? They clearly thought it possible that JFK was struck with an exotic weapon where there was a "disintegration" of the bullet.

What they are describing is also referred to as "blood soluble."

And it was the Big Lie that had come into the FBI Lab in from Dallas -- the Magic Bullet -- that lead the autopsists to abandon further inquiry. If that inquiry started by FBI SA Sibert had proceeded they might have found that the Central Intelligence Agency had developed blood soluble paralytics which rendered the target incapacitated in two seconds.

This scenario is consistent with JFK's two-second on-set paralysis in the motorcade, it is also consistent with the wound pattern recorded in the neck x-ray.

Please share your source because I think you're the one making things up. I pointed out to you before that a concussive blow to the neck causing a fracture of the transverse process is likely to cause spinal trauma which would in turn lead to paralysis below the level of the wound - but you weren't interested.

Because it is sheer nonsense. You have to show more damage to the spine than a mere hairline fracture of right T1 transverse process. But you don't have any evidence of such base of the neck trauma, nor do you have any valid evidence of a wound in that location.

None.

There are dozens of photos of JFK's jacket showing various amounts of bunching throughout the motorcade, including on Elm St, and you know this as well as I do.

A non-sequitur. The Towner photo taken ten seconds before the shooting clearly shows a fraction of an inch fold at the back of JFK's neck. You and all the other high back wound cultists insist on exaggerating the size of this small fold.

So what do you do? You turn to the unprovable; the position of the shirt.

It is the most knowable thing on the planet. If you are sitting at your computer typing

away I know exactly what your shirt is doing -- it is moving in millimeter increments, if at all.

You spend most of your life wearing clothing and yet you have no idea how that material moves when you move?

You never stopped and observed the movement of your own clothing?

Casual movements of the body cause fractions of an inch of clothing to move with the body. That's how it works. When people stretch their bodies out, then it is possible for multiple inches of shirt fabric to move.

Normal body movement causes normal clothing movement, measured in fractions of an inch.

Such is the nature of reality, whether you like it or not.

Of course no one can know that JFK's shirt was laying flat against his back or that it was fully tucked in because it can't be seen.

You are honestly suggesting that JFK didn't tuck his shirt in when he changed it during the plane ride to Dallas from Ft. Worth?

We're discussing JFK, right? You think he left his shirt un-tucked? That's your argument?

Perhaps you could prepare a video demonstrating how someone leaves their shirt untucked when dressing in a suit. Should be worth a few chuckles.

What we can see is the back wound in the autopsy photographs which the nine-member expert forensic pathlogy panel for the HSCA agreed show a wound at the level of T1.

And the same panel denounced the quality of those photos and said it was "difficult or impossible" to ascertain wound locations, and that said photos were prima facie inadmissible in court.

That's some prime evidence you've got there, Martin. Turns out there is no chain of possession for these poor quality photos, degrading their value even further.

Ah, but you've got your little way around this haven't you, Cliff?

Ah, but you can't cite a single solid fact to base your case upon, so it has to be about me, right?

Yes, you just bring up your "properly prepared vs improperly prepared" argument again as a way to distract from the fact that the autopsy photos - which are the hard evidence that trumps witness recollections - show the wound to be at T1.

Yes, but you insist on cherry-picking the conclusions of the nine man HSCA panel to promote the very same photos that the same panel impeached, referring repeatedly to the "obvious deficiency of the autopsy photos as scientific evidence."

What part of "obvious deficiency" don't you grasp, Martin?

What I love is that you quote the HSCA as saying the photos would be inadmissible* whilst ignoring the fact that their expert panel also authenticated the photographs!

So? They said it was "difficult or impossible" to make an accurate measurement of the back wound -- and yet they made a determination about the back wound anyway!

Turns out there is no chain of possession for this phony evidence you peddle, a fact which carries no weight with the True Believers of the autopsy photos.

Martin Hay:

* Actually the HSCA didn't say the photos would be inadmissible they actually said, "the defense could raise some reasonable and, perhaps, sustainable objections to an attempt to introduce such poorly made and documented photographs as evidence in a murder trial." (7HSCA46) I recently asked a law professor about this and he felt that the problems with the chain of custody would go more towards weight than admissability.

[end quote]

I stand corrected: they were prima facie inadmissible.

You have no proof whatsoever that the body shown in the BOH photos is JFK.

None.

Edited January 17, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Pat, with all due respect, JFK frantically clawing at his throat is not consistent with your theory, and neither is the witness testimony.

A low velocity bullet struck him in the back of the head without pushing his head forward, travels downward, exits the throat through a small hole consistent with an entrance wound, and in response JFK grabs for his throat, keeping his elbows elevated until he's shot in the head again?

Rube Goldberg comes to mind.

Jackie testified that there was a "quizzical" look on JFK's face. Is that the look of someone who has just been shot in the head, quizzical?

How do you reconcile this with the neck x-ray, which shows a bruised lung tip, a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process and an air pocket overlaying C7 and T1?

Doesn't it give you pause when there were so many people who described the wound as an entrance?

What was it about JFK's wounds, Pat, that made everyone who saw them get them wrong?

Cliff, the evidence you point out above--which makes you think I'm wrong--is pretty much the same evidence that led me to believe a bullet (or fragment) passed down Kennedy's neck. This is discussed in detail in chapter 17.

Here is a piece of 17 dealing with Kennedy's movements after frame 2224.

"At the risk of pulling a Lattimer, who incorrectly tried to link Kennedy’s movements after this shot to something described as a Thorburn’s response, I decided to see if the President’s behavior after frame 224 was consistent with someone suffering damage to his cerebellum. According to the available literature, the symptoms of cerebellar damage include a weakness to the side of the body suffering the damage (ipsilateral hypotonia), a tendency to not stop a movement at its proper point (dysmetria), an inability to grasp objects (ataxia), an abnormal head attitude, and disturbances in speech, eye movement, and equilibrium. Between Zapruder frame 224, when the President seems to suffer a wound on his throat, and 313, when he is obviously hit in the head, the President reached in the direction of his throat without grabbing anything, lifted his arms past his throat, slumped to his left (perhaps as over-compensation for the sudden weakness on his right), and stared down without letting out so much as a scream. Ironically, a November 24, 1963 article in the New York Times by Dr. Howard Rusk described this very phenomenon. Mistakenly believing the theory proposed by the Dallas doctors on the afternoon of the 22nd, that one shot hit Kennedy in the throat and exploded out the back of his head, Dr. Rusk explained brain injuries as follows: “If the injury is in the posterior portion of the brain, where the bullet that killed the President made its exit, the cerebellum is damaged. Then the individual is left with ataxia, evidenced by severe intention type of tremors that occur when one tries to perform a basic act or grasp an object. Damage to the cerebellum is also usually accompanied by a loss of equilibrium."

Should one not be entirely satisfied with the explanation that Kennedy's strange movements were brought about by damage to his cerebellum, however, there is an additional explanation for his movements that can be added into the mix. This explanation, moreover, is equally suggestive he was struck in the skull before frame 313 of the Zapruder film. Since Brock’s Injuries of the Brain and Spinal Cord made note that “Posterior basilar fractures tend to gravitate towards the large foramina”, I decided to see if there were any behavioral symptoms for a fracture in this area. And I found something which again dropped my jaw. (My jaw has been dropped so many times during this investigation that it's a wonder it hasn't been broken.) Jugular Foramen Syndrome is described by Blakiston’s Pocket Medical Dictionary as “Paralysis of the ipsilateral glossopharyngeal, vagus, and spinal accessory nerves, caused by a lesion involving the jugular foramen, usually a basilar skull fracture.” According to the online article Craniofacial and Skull Base Trauma by Dr. Harry Shahinian and the Skull Base Institute the paralysis of the vagus nerve would manifest itself through a paralysis of the vocal cords, and a paralysis of the spinal accessory nerves would manifest itself through a paralysis of the neck muscle that flexes the head (the sternocleidomastoid) as well as a weakness of the trapezius muscle, which rotates it. The result is a “weakness in contralateral head rotation and shoulder elevation.” Contralateral, of course, means affecting the opposite side of the body. As we know all too well, Kennedy turned toward his left and dipped his left shoulder in his final, silent, moments."

This analysis ignores the damage recorded in the neck x-ray. Are we to believe that this bullet/fragment struck JFK in the back of the head, slid down the cervical vertebrae until it got to C7/T1, where it then sharply changed course leaving an air pocket overlaying C7/T1, a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process, a bruised lung tip and then exited leaving a nick to the trachea between the 3rd and 4th rings?

Again, Rube Goldberg stuff.

Edited January 17, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Pat Speer]

Pat, with all due respect, JFK frantically clawing at his throat is not consistent with your theory, and neither is the witness testimony.

A low velocity bullet struck him in the back of the head without pushing his head forward, travels downward, exits the throat through a small hole consistent with an entrance wound, and in response JFK grabs for his throat, keeping his elbows elevated until he's shot in the head again?

Rube Goldberg comes to mind.

Jackie testified that there was a "quizzical" look on JFK's face. Is that the look of someone who has just been shot in the head, quizzical?

How do you reconcile this with the neck x-ray, which shows a bruised lung tip, a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process and an air pocket overlaying C7 and T1?

Doesn't it give you pause when there were so many people who described the wound as an entrance?

What was it about JFK's wounds, Pat, that made everyone who saw them get them wrong?

Cliff, the evidence you point out above--which makes you think I'm wrong--is pretty much the same evidence that led me to believe a bullet (or fragment) passed down Kennedy's neck. This is discussed in detail in chapter 17.

Here is a piece of 17 dealing with Kennedy's movements after frame 2224.

"At the risk of pulling a Lattimer, who incorrectly tried to link Kennedy’s movements after this shot to something described as a Thorburn’s response, I decided to see if the President’s behavior after frame 224 was consistent with someone suffering damage to his cerebellum. According to the available literature, the symptoms of cerebellar damage include a weakness to the side of the body suffering the damage (ipsilateral hypotonia), a tendency to not stop a movement at its proper point (dysmetria), an inability to grasp objects (ataxia), an abnormal head attitude, and disturbances in speech, eye movement, and equilibrium. Between Zapruder frame 224, when the President seems to suffer a wound on his throat, and 313, when he is obviously hit in the head, the President reached in the direction of his throat without grabbing anything, lifted his arms past his throat, slumped to his left (perhaps as over-compensation for the sudden weakness on his right), and stared down without letting out so much as a scream. Ironically, a November 24, 1963 article in the New York Times by Dr. Howard Rusk described this very phenomenon. Mistakenly believing the theory proposed by the Dallas doctors on the afternoon of the 22nd, that one shot hit Kennedy in the throat and exploded out the back of his head, Dr. Rusk explained brain injuries as follows: “If the injury is in the posterior portion of the brain, where the bullet that killed the President made its exit, the cerebellum is damaged. Then the individual is left with ataxia, evidenced by severe intention type of tremors that occur when one tries to perform a basic act or grasp an object. Damage to the cerebellum is also usually accompanied by a loss of equilibrium."

Should one not be entirely satisfied with the explanation that Kennedy's strange movements were brought about by damage to his cerebellum, however, there is an additional explanation for his movements that can be added into the mix. This explanation, moreover, is equally suggestive he was struck in the skull before frame 313 of the Zapruder film. Since Brock’s Injuries of the Brain and Spinal Cord made note that “Posterior basilar fractures tend to gravitate towards the large foramina”, I decided to see if there were any behavioral symptoms for a fracture in this area. And I found something which again dropped my jaw. (My jaw has been dropped so many times during this investigation that it's a wonder it hasn't been broken.) Jugular Foramen Syndrome is described by Blakiston’s Pocket Medical Dictionary as “Paralysis of the ipsilateral glossopharyngeal, vagus, and spinal accessory nerves, caused by a lesion involving the jugular foramen, usually a basilar skull fracture.” According to the online article Craniofacial and Skull Base Trauma by Dr. Harry Shahinian and the Skull Base Institute the paralysis of the vagus nerve would manifest itself through a paralysis of the vocal cords, and a paralysis of the spinal accessory nerves would manifest itself through a paralysis of the neck muscle that flexes the head (the sternocleidomastoid) as well as a weakness of the trapezius muscle, which rotates it. The result is a “weakness in contralateral head rotation and shoulder elevation.” Contralateral, of course, means affecting the opposite side of the body. As we know all too well, Kennedy turned toward his left and dipped his left shoulder in his final, silent, moments."

This analysis ignores the damage recorded in the neck x-ray. Are we to believe that this bullet/fragment struck JFK in the back of the head, slid down the cervical vertebrae until it got to C7/T1, where it then sharply changed course leaving an air pocket overlaying C7/T1, a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process, a bruised lung tip and then exited leaving a nick to the trachea between the 3rd and 4th rings?

Again, Rube Goldberg stuff.

LOL. This is pretty strong stuff coming from someone claiming there is no proof for a blood soluble bullet, and that this suggest a blood soluble bullet was used.

Again, we've been going round and round on this for years. In chapter 17 I look at all the evidence regarding the possibility a bullet descended within Kennedy's neck, including the x-rays. If you ever feel like studying the case, as opposed to merely repeating what you latched onto years ago, you might want to give it a read.

[Cliff Varnell]

Pat, with all due respect, JFK frantically clawing at his throat is not consistent with your theory, and neither is the witness testimony.

A low velocity bullet struck him in the back of the head without pushing his head forward, travels downward, exits the throat through a small hole consistent with an entrance wound, and in response JFK grabs for his throat, keeping his elbows elevated until he's shot in the head again?

Rube Goldberg comes to mind.

Jackie testified that there was a "quizzical" look on JFK's face. Is that the look of someone who has just been shot in the head, quizzical?

How do you reconcile this with the neck x-ray, which shows a bruised lung tip, a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process and an air pocket overlaying C7 and T1?

Doesn't it give you pause when there were so many people who described the wound as an entrance?

What was it about JFK's wounds, Pat, that made everyone who saw them get them wrong?

Cliff, the evidence you point out above--which makes you think I'm wrong--is pretty much the same evidence that led me to believe a bullet (or fragment) passed down Kennedy's neck. This is discussed in detail in chapter 17.

Here is a piece of 17 dealing with Kennedy's movements after frame 2224.

"At the risk of pulling a Lattimer, who incorrectly tried to link Kennedy’s movements after this shot to something described as a Thorburn’s response, I decided to see if the President’s behavior after frame 224 was consistent with someone suffering damage to his cerebellum. According to the available literature, the symptoms of cerebellar damage include a weakness to the side of the body suffering the damage (ipsilateral hypotonia), a tendency to not stop a movement at its proper point (dysmetria), an inability to grasp objects (ataxia), an abnormal head attitude, and disturbances in speech, eye movement, and equilibrium. Between Zapruder frame 224, when the President seems to suffer a wound on his throat, and 313, when he is obviously hit in the head, the President reached in the direction of his throat without grabbing anything, lifted his arms past his throat, slumped to his left (perhaps as over-compensation for the sudden weakness on his right), and stared down without letting out so much as a scream. Ironically, a November 24, 1963 article in the New York Times by Dr. Howard Rusk described this very phenomenon. Mistakenly believing the theory proposed by the Dallas doctors on the afternoon of the 22nd, that one shot hit Kennedy in the throat and exploded out the back of his head, Dr. Rusk explained brain injuries as follows: “If the injury is in the posterior portion of the brain, where the bullet that killed the President made its exit, the cerebellum is damaged. Then the individual is left with ataxia, evidenced by severe intention type of tremors that occur when one tries to perform a basic act or grasp an object. Damage to the cerebellum is also usually accompanied by a loss of equilibrium."

Should one not be entirely satisfied with the explanation that Kennedy's strange movements were brought about by damage to his cerebellum, however, there is an additional explanation for his movements that can be added into the mix. This explanation, moreover, is equally suggestive he was struck in the skull before frame 313 of the Zapruder film. Since Brock’s Injuries of the Brain and Spinal Cord made note that “Posterior basilar fractures tend to gravitate towards the large foramina”, I decided to see if there were any behavioral symptoms for a fracture in this area. And I found something which again dropped my jaw. (My jaw has been dropped so many times during this investigation that it's a wonder it hasn't been broken.) Jugular Foramen Syndrome is described by Blakiston’s Pocket Medical Dictionary as “Paralysis of the ipsilateral glossopharyngeal, vagus, and spinal accessory nerves, caused by a lesion involving the jugular foramen, usually a basilar skull fracture.” According to the online article Craniofacial and Skull Base Trauma by Dr. Harry Shahinian and the Skull Base Institute the paralysis of the vagus nerve would manifest itself through a paralysis of the vocal cords, and a paralysis of the spinal accessory nerves would manifest itself through a paralysis of the neck muscle that flexes the head (the sternocleidomastoid) as well as a weakness of the trapezius muscle, which rotates it. The result is a “weakness in contralateral head rotation and shoulder elevation.” Contralateral, of course, means affecting the opposite side of the body. As we know all too well, Kennedy turned toward his left and dipped his left shoulder in his final, silent, moments."

This analysis ignores the damage recorded in the neck x-ray. Are we to believe that this bullet/fragment struck JFK in the back of the head, slid down the cervical vertebrae until it got to C7/T1, where it then sharply changed course leaving an air pocket overlaying C7/T1, a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process, a bruised lung tip and then exited leaving a nick to the trachea between the 3rd and 4th rings?

Again, Rube Goldberg stuff.

LOL. This is pretty strong stuff coming from someone claiming there is no proof for a blood soluble bullet, and that this suggest a blood soluble bullet was used.

Excuse me? Who said there was no proof for a blood soluble bullet? There is dispositive proof that blood soluble paralytics existed on 11/22/63.

William Colby, Church Comm. testimony, September 16, 1975

(emphasis added)

The specific subject today concerns the CIA's involvement in the development of bacteriological warfare materials with the Army's Biological Laboratory at Fort Detrick, CIA's retention of an amount of shellfish toxin, and CIA's use and investigation of various chemicals and drugs. . . .

A large amount of Agency attention was given to the problem of incapacitating guard dogs. Though most of the dart launchers were developed for the Army, the Agency did request the development of a small, hand-held dart launcher for its peculiar needs for this purpose. Work was also done on temporary human incapacitation techniques. These related to a desire to incapacitate captives before they could render themselves incapable of talking, or terrorists before they could take retaliatory action....

Church: Is it not true, too, that the effort not only involved designing a gun that could strike at a human target without knowledge of the person who had been struck, but also the toxin itself would not appear in the autopsy?

Colby: Well there was an attempt--

Church: Or the dart?

Colby: Yes; so there was no way of perceiving that the target was hit.

Charles Senseney before the Church Committee, Sept. 18, 1975:

I worked in the Biological Warfare Section of Fort Detrick from 1953. . . . I was the project engineer of the M-1 dart launcher and following on microorganism projectiles and so forth.

[Church staffer]Smothers: Is this a device that looks roughly like a .45 caliber pistol with a sight mount at the top?

Senseney: This was a follow-on. It was to replace the M-1 projectile to go into the Army stockpile. It did look like a .45.

Smothers: Did the CIA have, Mr. Senseney, the wherewithal to utilize this dart launcher against humans?

Senseney: No, they asked for a modification to use against a dog. Now, these were actually given to them, and they were actually expended, because we got all of the hardware back. For a dog, the projectile had to be made many times

bigger. It was almost the size of a .22 cartridge, but it carried a chemical compound known as 46-40....

Yes, there was such a thing as blood soluble paralytics tested on humans by the CIA that paralyzed a target in two seconds and did not leave any round visible on x-ray.

Any questions?

Again, we've been going round and round on this for years.

Yes, I've been waiting for you to post actual fact-based argument but you refuse, and refer us instead to your website.

You have no argument for a high back wound. You have no argument for a throat exit wound.

If you did you would present it here, rather than refer us else where.

In chapter 17 I look at all the evidence regarding the possibility a bullet descended within Kennedy's neck, including the x-rays.

By all means, enter your argument here, instead of making this empty self-reference. Your entire case rests on a high back wound, but you know you can't actually argue for that.

Tell us, Pat, what was it about JFK's wounds that didn't allow any witness to observe them correctly?

Tell us how JFK's shirt moved 2 inches up when it only had a fraction of an inch of slack.

You know, the evidence?

Edited January 17, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Greg Burnham]

There was indeed a modified Colt .45 (1911-A) employed by the agency to fire Flechette darts that carried 46-40 to instantaneously paralyze the target. Originally, we used this to render attack/guard dogs immobile BEFORE they could sound an alarm (bark). The chemical and the delivery agent (dart) are both soluble within the body and leave no discernible trace without intense forensic examination. The dart was later modified to carry an extremely high explosive. The dart was powered by "solid rocket fuel" and was initiated by an ignition, as opposed to an explosion (such as a firing cap).

[Cliff Varnell]

If you ever feel like studying the case, as opposed to merely repeating what you latched onto years ago, you might want to give it a read.

No thanks, Pat. A couple readings of ALICE IN WONDERLAND and I'm good.

I'm currently studying the background of material presented by Greg Burnham at the recent COPA. JFK SE Asia policy 1963. My own research is quite incomplete, so I post on it sparingly.

[Greg Burnham]

Cliff,

I don't want to break thread integrity here, but I look forward to your thoughts and observations about that subject.

[Cliff Varnell]

There was indeed a modified Colt .45 (1911-A) employed by the agency to fire Flechette darts that carried 46-40 to instantaneously paralyze the target. Originally, we used this to render attack/guard dogs immobile BEFORE they could sound an alarm (bark). The chemical and the delivery agent (dart) are both soluble within the body and leave no discernible trace without intense forensic examination. The dart was later modified to carry an extremely high explosive. The dart was powered by "solid rocket fuel" and was initiated by an ignition, as opposed to an explosion (such as a firing cap).

Hey Monk,

Were your ears burning? I posted re your COPA presentation same time as you chimed in. Thanks!

I believe what they call that Church committee bit was a limited, modified hang-out.