The forward head movement - an illusion?

[Daniel Gallup]

DVP, these pictures are supposedly taken at the onset of the autopsy. How can they show a bullet entrance wound to the back of the head, when, according to Boswell, there was no evidence of such an entrance wound until the aformentioned bones brought in at midnight?

WTF?

What on Earth do the bones being brought in have anything whatsoever to do with the entry hole in the outer SCALP of JFK as seen in the picture below?

Are you seriously saying that Boswell said that this red spot (which is so obviously the one and only wound of entrance on the back of JFK's head) couldn't be seen until the bones were brought in from Dallas to reconstruct the underlying skull of the President? That's nuts.

ADDENDUM:

Interesting HSCA interview with Dr. Pierre Finck in March '78:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/interview-with-dr-pierre-finck.html

David, you asked a very good question, and one that is quite central to the question of the authenticity of the extant photos. In BE, page 614, Lifton unearths Finck's notes and Boswell's statements before a closed session of the HSCA in 1977. Boswell said there was no clear evidence of a bullet entrance wound in the back of the head until bones came in, presumably from Dallas, which completed a notch at the base of the large hole , and for the first time the doctors were able to ascertain that a bullet had struck Kennedy near the external occjipital protuberance. Lifton: "Since the record is unequivocal that Humes did not have these bone fragments until after midnight, it is obvious that, he not only had no evidence of exit, he had no separate entrance wound." (p. 615) This fact supports Jenkins claim that discussions about the head wound were speculative in nature until these bones arrived. This begs the question Lifton later asks: how can pictures reputedly taken when the body first arrived, show a wound that was not in evidence until after midnight? And Jenkins, when shown the back of the head photo, repudiated it completely (p. 617). So what is nuts, David Von Pein, is the photo. It shows a wound no autopsy doctor saw, and which no autopsy doctor could have seen, given the above facts in evidence. Hope this helps, best, Daniel

[Daniel Gallup]

Daniel:

With all due respect, why not tell DVP that the wound he is talking about is not the wound that you are talking about?

So how could it be "obvious"?

PS: And John, that is a nice photo excerpt. Yes, the texture does look off in that area. I think Mantik has mentioned that point also.

Jim, I see value in DVP drawing his own conclusions. My job was to add important information he apparently was not aware of. I hope it helps DVP better than a lecture. --Daniel

[David Von Pein]

Daniel Gallup:

In the final analysis: What difference does it really make as to WHEN the autopsy surgeons made the definitive conclusion that there was just one wound of entrance in JFK's head, with that definitive conclusion being that the one and only bullet entry wound on Kennedy's head was located in the BACK of the head, not the front of the head?

And that definitive and irrevocable conclusion* is reflected in many, many places, such as the testimony of all three autopsists and the verbiage that we find in the final autopsy report which was signed by all three autopsy physicians (which is a report that means zilch to a lot of conspiracy theorists, who have no choice but to believe in all kinds of shenanigans and fakery--if those CTs believe that ANY frontal bullet hit JFK, which 99% of all conspiracists do believe, of course).

* = Which is still definitive, even though there is, indeed, a discrepancy between the autopsists and the photos concerning where on the back of the head the entry wound was located. But either location is still located in the rear of the head, not the front, which totally destroys the theory that JFK was hit in the head from the Grassy Knoll.

And regardless of exactly WHEN during the 11/22/63 autopsy the doctors concluded that the wound of entrance on JFK's head was located "2.5 centimeters to the right of and slightly above the EOP", conspiracy theorists are forced to live with the fact that the autopsy report and the autopsy doctors concluded that Kennedy was NOT SHOT FROM THE FRONT.

The conspiracy mongers won't accept the fact that the entry wound was at the rear of the head, of course. They'll insist that a bunch of stuff was faked and/or that Boswell, Humes, and Finck were ALL liars.

But, as I've stated many times in the past: the constant whining and protests of conspiracists couldn't possibly matter less when stacked up against the mountain of evidence that indicates that President Kennedy was shot only from behind on November 22nd, 1963.

And there's also Dr. Boswell's face sheet, which indicates that the only wound of entry on JFK's head was in the BACK of the head. Do you think it matters exactly WHEN Dr. Boswell made out this face sheet? Whether it was early or late in the autopsy, what difference does it really make? The bottom-line fact is: this face sheet exists, and it verifies (for all time) that JFK had only TWO wounds of entry on his whole body--and they were both on the BACK side of the President....including the detailed "14 cm. below tip of right mastoid process" measurement provided by Boswell on this face sheet concerning the upper-back wound, which is another very important measurement that virtually all conspiracy theorists spit on (and totally ignore):

Edited May 31, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Daniel Gallup]

Daniel:

If you think that is going to help DVP, then you don't know him well.

Let's see what he does with the information I gave him. I'll know him well enough in time if he keeps in touch. This "midnight bones" issue is a very sticky one -- rather fly-paper. Once you accept the reality of these bones, lots of implications stick to them. Who knows? Best, Daniel

Edited May 31, 2011 by Daniel Gallup

[Daniel Gallup]

Daniel Gallup:

In the final analysis: What difference does it really make as to WHEN the autopsy surgeons made the definitive conclusion that there was just one wound of entrance in JFK's head, with that definitive conclusion being that the one and only bullet entry wound on Kennedy's head being in the BACK of the head, not the front of the head?

And that definitive and irrevocable conclusion is reflected in many, many places, such as the testimony of all three autopsists and the verbiage that we find in the final autopsy report which was signed by all three autopsy physicians (which is a report that means zilch to a lot of conspiracy theorists, who have no choice but to believe in all kinds of shenanigans and fakery--if those CTs believe that ANY frontal bullet hit JFK, which 99% of all conspiracists do believe, of course).

Regardless of exactly WHEN during the 11/22/63 autopsy the doctors concluded that the wound of entrance on JFK's head was located "2.5 centimeters to the right of and slightly above the EOP", those ARE the figures that conspiracy theorists are forced to live with.

The conspiracy mongers won't accept the fact that the entry wound was at the rear of the head, of course. They'll insist that a bunch of stuff was faked and/or that Boswell, Humes, and Finck were ALL liars.

But, as I've stated many times in the past: the constant whining and protests of conspiracists couldn't possibly matter less when stacked up against the mountain of evidence that indicates that President Kennedy was shot only from behind on November 22nd, 1963.

And there's also Dr. Boswell's face sheet, which indicates that the only wound of entry on JFK's head was in the BACK of the head. Do you think it matters exactly WHEN Dr. Boswell made out this face sheet? Whether it was early or late in the autopsy, what difference does it really make? The bottom-line fact is: this face sheet exists, and it verifies (for all time) that JFK had only TWO wounds of entry on his whole body--and they were both on the BACK side of the President....including the detailed "14 cm. below tip of right mastoid process" measurement provided by Boswell on this face sheet concerning the upper-back wound, which is another very important measurement that virtually all conspiracy theorists spit on (and totally ignore):

Ok David, but at least, if we accept these late-arriving fragments (Humes reported three of them) as "making the case" for a shot to the head from behind, then it follows irrevocably that the back of the head photo is a forgery, which I would think you would have to agree, for it shows an entrance wound 4 inches or so above the site the autopsy doctors noted in the autopsy report. You too are stuck with the autopsy report and face sheet. Am I making a compelling argument? Best, Daniel

[David Von Pein]

Am I making a compelling argument?

No. Not really. Your case is not compelling--and for one very big reason (for me anyway). I argued some of these same basic points with John Canal in the last few years, and I'll repeat the same thing for you:

In my opinion, the was simply no good enough reason for any of the autopsy doctors to want to fake any of their conclusions regarding the autopsy of the deceased President of the United States.

You can say that the above italicized declaration is merely a lowly "LNer" trying to cop out. But that's my true and honest opinion about the matter nevertheless.

Of course, when discussing the "BOH" issues with John A. Canal, I must also add that he (like me) is convinced that Lee Oswald was the one and only shooter of JFK. But John has some additional (and quite strange, IMO) opinions regarding the autopsy and the testimony of Humes and Boswell. He thinks the doctors deliberately "underestimated" the damage to the back of JFK's head--even though those doctors knew beyond ALL doubt that JFK was struck in the head only from behind.

Canal thinks it would have been impossible for the doctors to have conveyed in their reports and testimony any type of BOH damage in JFK's cranium without having lay people automatically thinking that Kennedy had been shot from the front--even though Humes, et al, would also be declaring in those reports and testimony that Kennedy WAS, in fact, shot only from the rear.

Weird, huh?

More:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JFK-Head-Wounds

Edited May 31, 2011 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

He doesn't even acknowledge that the wound at the EOP is not the one that he said was the entry wound.

Of course it's the same wound, Jimbo. And that's because we KNOW (via ALL the autopsy doctors) that there was ONLY ONE wound of entry in JFK's head. Period.

Therefore, even with some discrepancy (4 inches or so) as to the exact piece of real estate that that wound occupied on JFK's head--it was still the one and only entry wound in JFK's head.

Would you now like to argue that JFK was shot in the back of the head TWICE on Nov. 22nd? (That'd make an interesting theory, huh?)

Edited May 31, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Daniel Gallup]

Am I making a compelling argument?

No. Not really. Your case is not compelling--and for one very big reason (for me anyway). I argued some of these same basic points with John Canal in the last few years, and I'll repeat the same thing for you:

In my opinion, the was simply no good enough reason for any of the autopsy doctors to want to fake any of their conclusions regarding the autopsy of the deceased President of the United States.

You can say that the above italicized declaration is merely a lowly "LNer" trying to cop out. But that's my true and honest opinion about the matter nevertheless.

Of course, when discussing the "BOH" issues with John A. Canal, I must also add that he (like me) is convinced that Lee Oswald was the one and only shooter of JFK. But John has some additional (and quite strange, IMO) opinions regarding the autopsy and the testimony of Humes and Boswell. He thinks the doctors deliberately "underestimated" the damage to the back of JFK's head--even though those doctors knew beyond ALL doubt that JFK was struck in the head only from behind.

Canal thinks it would have been impossible for the doctors to have conveyed in their reports and testimony any type of BOH damage in JFK's cranium without having lay people automatically thinking that Kennedy had been shot from the front--even though Humes, et al, would also be declaring in those reports and testimony that Kennedy WAS, in fact, shot only from the rear.

Weird, huh?

More:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JFK-Head-Wounds

David,my only point was that if the autopsy face sheet is correct, reflecting the condition of the head after bones brought to the morgue at midnight gave the doctors the entrance wound they needed, then the BOH photo is most certainly a fake. Does this not follow? Please advise, and thanks in advance. Daniel

[David Von Pein]

David, my only point was that if the autopsy face sheet is correct, reflecting the condition of the head after bones brought to the morgue at midnight gave the doctors the entrance wound they needed, then the BOH photo is most certainly a fake. Does this not follow?

No, it doesn't "follow" at all. In fact, it makes no sense whatsoever.

Where are you going with this, Daniel?

You seem to be implying that the doctors did not tell any falsehoods regarding their mutual conclusion that JFK was only shot from behind, but yet you seem to want to believe that the "red spot" autopsy photo is a "fake".

This makes no sense at all. If there was, in fact, a beveled entry wound in the back of the President's SKULL (which, of course, there was, as Dr. Humes fully explained to the Warren Commission, the HSCA, the ARRB, and to CBS News in 1967), then quite obviously there HAD to be a corresponding wound of entry in the scalp of JFK as well (whether or not the doctors initially noticed such a wound early in the autopsy or not).

So, no, the red-spot autopsy photo is definitely not a fake, and your argument about that photo being a fake due to some late-arriving bones doesn't make a bit of logical sense either (for the reason I just mentioned above).

Or would you now like to say that Humes, et al, lied about the beveled wound of entry in the SKULL of President Kennedy?

Edited May 31, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Daniel Gallup]

David, my only point was that if the autopsy face sheet is correct, reflecting the condition of the head after bones brought to the morgue at midnight gave the doctors the entrance wound they needed, then the BOH photo is most certainly a fake. Does this not follow?

No, it doesn't "follow" at all. In fact, it makes no sense whatsoever.

Where are you going with this, Daniel?

You seem to be implying that the doctors did not tell any falsehoods regarding their mutual conclusion that JFK was only shot from behind, but yet you seem to want to believe that the "red spot" autopsy photo is a "fake".

Or would you now like to say that Humes, et al, lied about the beveled wound of entry in the SKULL of President Kennedy?

Actually, David, my argument is that the doctors were telling the truth. At midnight, or shortly thereafter, bones came in which enabled the doctors to identify an entrance wound near EOP. They told the truth about this in the autopsy face sheet and in the autopsy report. But the BOH photo shows no such entry wound. Therefore, if the doctors are truthful, then the photo has to be fake. If this does not follow, please explain why. Thanks in advance, Daniel

[David Von Pein]

So, Daniel, you think that there was actually a NEED to fake the red-spot photo?

Question: Why would there possibly be any need to fake the photo if the autopsy doctors were telling the truth in the autopsy report?

Did a bunch of photo-fakers just want something to do after the autopsy?

Also -- do you really think the HSCA photographic panel was wrong (or lying, as a unit) when they said this at 7 HSCA 41?:

"The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner."

[David Von Pein]

BOH Addendum:

Daniel,

You'd probably be interested in John Canal's theory about JFK's scalp being stretched in the red-spot photo. Canal thinks that the actual entry hole is much lower than it appears in that photo, but due to this "stretching" of the scalp, the picture gives the false impression that the entry wound was four inches higher than it really is.

Canal totally ignores the fact that the HSCA's FPP determined that the red-spot photo lines up nearly perfectly with the hole in the skull of JFK, with both wounds measuring 100mm. above the EOP.

Edited May 31, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Daniel Gallup]

So, Daniel, you think that there was actually a NEED to fake the red-spot photo?

Question: Why would there possibly be any need to fake the photo if the autopsy doctors were telling the truth in the autopsy report?

Yes, there was a need, because the location of the entrance wound was too low to have exited the right side of Kennedy's head. It would more than likely exit his throat, which I believe was a version of the autopsy Lipsey heard discussed Friday night, if memory serves. You'll have to read Horne for a more complete perspective. Bottom line: the conclusion about the EOP entrance wound comes after midnight. How then, can there be a legitimate autopsy photo taken at the onset of the atuopsy that shows an entrance wound 4 inches higher? If it were really there, Humes would have seen it, and measured it. But that didn't happen. Can you explain why? Thanks in advance, Daniel

[David Von Pein]

If it were really there, Humes would have seen it, and measured it. But that didn't happen. Can you explain why?

No, I can't explain it. But there would be no reason to falsify ANYTHING via your theory. A bullet entering at EOP level could exit higher than it entered. The bullet could easily have changed trajectory after striking the skull. In fact, I believe the bullet did change direction after entering JFK's head at the cowlick. If it hadn't, it would have likely exited JFK's face. But we know his face was intact.

I don't know why most people think a bullet that strikes a human skull can't change direction after impact.

Edited May 31, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Karl Kinaski]

This little statement should settle the affair.

Crenshaw is a hero