Jump to content
The Education Forum

Lifton and Morningster, nice but no cigar.


Recommended Posts

My responses in bold.

Once again, Pat, I think you miss the forest for the trees. The McClelland drawing for Thompson was in 1966 shows bones sprung open in a manner required by an exiting bullet.

There is no McClelland drawing for Thompson. Ask Thompson. While the drawing was based upon McClelland's WC testimony, Thompson never spoke to McClelland about it. Ask Doug Horne, who was dedicated enough to read Thompson's book and see that Philip Johnson was credited for the drawing, not McClelland. Now ask yourself, if McClelland has been claiming for twenty years that he'd created a drawing that he in fact never drew, how much can we rely upon his other statements?

It matters little that McClelland loved Specter. He can say what he wants about where the shot came from; the drawing itself is definitive.

The drawing that was made by a college kid based on the testimony of a man testifying in direct opposition to his earliest statements? The drawing that McClelland later claimed was inaccurate, and incomplete?

As for your contention that missing scalp is evidence of an entrance wound,

Go back and read my post. This is not my contention. It is Forensic Pathology 101.

you are going to have to argue with Humes about that, because he stated in the autopsy that the head wound, chiefly paretial, was devoid of both bone and scalp.

There is no need for argument. Humes is dead, and his opinions on Forensic Pathology wouldn't carry much weight anyhow.

This large wound was therefore an entrance wound? That's a new one for me.

It shouldn't be. 6.5 mm FMJ ammunition was infamous for leaving gutter wounds of both entrance and exit on skulls. I've been pointing this out for years. I have several chapters devoted to discussing this fact.

That bone blasted out by a high velocity bullet would not take scalp with it is utter nonesense,

Says who? Scalp tears at the exit. Look it up.

and contradicts the Dallas observation that both one and scalp were missing in the rear defect.

It doesn't contradict it all. Why do you think Clark thought it was a gutter wound?

Why do you suppose Tom Robinson had to place a piece of rubber to patch the hold in the back of the head? Had there been scalp there this would not have been necessary.

Robinson didn't put the head together. He only helped at the end. If there was a hole on the back of the head at the end, it only means that the man who put the head together did his job correctly, which was to make sure the large defect was in a location that could be hidden by a pillow.

I stand by my observations that McClelland accurately described what he saw before the WC and has maintained that picture of the wounding ever since. I stand by my conviction that McClelland was influenced by the official autopsy and wanted to avoid controversy.

You can stand by the moon being cheese, but it doesn't make it true. Why not contact McClelland, and get him to say, for the record, that his comments to Dudman and others, in which he indicated he was satisfied the shots came from behind, were lies, and that he knew all along the large head wound was an exit on the far back of Kennedy's head for a bullet entering the front of his head?

He may have loved Specter but such was a necessary concession. I mean, what doctor is going to believe a murdered President would have a slipshod autopsy-- a deliberately false record of the way he was killed? It was just too insulting to the medical profession to even think such a thing.

And yet the Clark Panel had no problem believing such a thing. And yet the HSCA FPP had no problem believing such a thing.

You have also misquoted Clark. He gave the tangential wound as only one option.

Not exactly. He testified that he'd felt it was a tangential wound.

Dr. William Kemp Clark: "I was called by Dr. Perry because the President... had sustained a brain wound. On my arrival, the resuscitative efforts, the tracheostomy, the administration of chest tubes to relieve any...possibility of air being in the pleural space, the electrocardiogram had been hooked up, blood and fluids were being administered by Dr. Perry and Dr. Baxter. It was apparent that the President had sustained a lethal wound. A missile had gone in or out of the back of his head, causing extensive lacerations and loss of brain tissue. Shortly after I arrived, the patient, the President, lost his heart action by the electrocardiogram, his heart action had stopped. We attempted resuscitative measures of his heart, including closed chest cardiac massage, but to no avail." (When asked to describe the course of the bullet through the head) "We were too busy to be absolutely sure of the track, but the back of his head...Principally on his right side, towards the right side...The head wound could have been either the exit wound from the neck or it could have been a tangential wound, as it was simply a large, gaping loss of tissue."

Mr. SPECTER - What, if anything, did you say then in the course of that press conference?

Dr. CLARK - I described the President's wound in his head in very much the same way as I have described it here. I was asked if this wound was an entrance wound, an exit wound, or what, and I said it could be an exit wound, but I felt it was a tangential wound.

I quoted him accurately above. Go back and read the transcript of 11/22/63 at Parkland. And since it is clear cerebellum extruded from the wound, I will bet the farm the wound extended low enough behind the ears to lacerate the cerebellum.

That's not clear at all. Most of those once claiming to see cerebellum would later claim they'd been wrong.

Of course, I have no farm, but I'll put my Harley on the line on that point.

I love this exchange:

Dan Gallup: I quoted him accurately above. Go back and read the transcript of 11/22/63 at Parkland. And since it is clear cerebellum extruded from the wound, I will bet the farm the wound extended low enough behind the ears to lacerate the cerebellum.

Pat Speer: That's not clear at all. Most of those once claiming to see cerebellum would later claim they'd been wrong.

". . . later claim they'd been wrong. . . "?

Oh, you mean after Best Evidence was published, and, as a consequence of my book, some of these doctors started to realize the political implications of what they had reported? And then had (in some cases) a very public "Ooops!" moment?

And so at that point, as if they were on a skit on Saturday Night Live, they said "Never mind."

Jenkins --fyi--is Exhibit A of this sort of behavior.

As I personally know--when Pat Valentino and I met with him at Parkland, in January, 1983: Jenkins made clear (now coming face to face with the author whose book had caused him so much trouble), and said that it didn't matter what he had previously written or said; it didn't matter at all. Nope, none of it mattered. He agreed with the official version. And that was his final word on the subject.

In other words: in law school and in classes on evidence, one is taught the importance of the "earliest recorded recollection." But not with Dr. Jenkins, who apparently wanted to re-write the rule to read: "The earliest recollection is important, until and unless something is published which causes me embarrassment, at which point I have the right to retract. Indefinitely. "

Let's see. . what should we call this? The "Marion Jenkins Exception To the 'best evidence' concept?"

And you take that seriously?

That, to you, is significant?

Indeed, you do take that sort of "retraction" seriously, and you do find it significant; and that, in part, is precisely what is wrong with much of your work, which is pervaded with this type of mistaken and wrong-headed "analysis," based on this sort of "amended" record.

Oh pleez. . .

DSL

Edited by David Lifton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 149
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Once again Mikey... the evidence you offer is easily contradicted by the medical evidence available..

You want to help explain how, if the front of his skull, in the xrays, is missing (blown out by the back to front shot)... SOMETHING seems to be holding up his face... ??

1) How are these superimposed images consistent with each other?

2) you see that trail of particles across the TOP of his head... please point to the entrance would on the BACK of the skull that allows that trail to be in that place.

X_AUT_2overlayleftside.jpg

JFKfacialdamage.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat, I think David Lifton has put matters where they should be, but since you suggested McClelland did not draw the picture published in Thompson's book, I might draw your attention to Brad Parker's First on the Scene page 31. In 1994 McClelland wrote on the famous picture the following words: "Brad, the drawing below is an exact copy, in regard to the location and dimensions, of the drawing I made for Josiah Thompson in 1966. Best wishes, Robert McClelland, M. D."

Now Pat, let us engage in some elementary deductions. One, it matters not a wit whether McClelland did the actual drawing or had someone do it for him. It represents what he wanted recorded for history, what he owned as his representation of the wounding. Thus he can call it his drawing even though he used an illustrator. You say a college student did the work. Well, under whose direction? McClelland, of course. A cooperative venture is just that. So McClelland's considers it his drawing. This does not make him a prevaricator.

Your comments on Robinson make no sense. He told the HSCA of a large wound in the back of the head about the size of a small orange, with a good amount of bone blown away. The defect was roughtly circular and ragged along the edges. At the embalming stage, rubber was required to cover the defect in the back of the head between the ears. He indicates the scalp was pulled back over the rubber as much as possible, and that placing President Kennedy's head on the pillow in the casket hid the damage that could not be completely repaired by the reconstruction. From Horne, p. 600: "This verifies that the area of both missing scalp and bone to which Robinson was referring was directly between the ears in the back of the head, and not at the top of the head or in the right side." You may not think that exit wounds cause a loss of scalp, and you may bolster your conclusions by appealing to professionals, but at Parkland, the wound in the back of the skull was devoid of bone and scalp, like it or not, and this is confirmed by Robinson. And to suggest the avulsive nature of that wound suggests entry, is absurd. Was Kennedy hit by a grenade?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's an easy request to agree to, as I don't recall ever saying such a thing. Of course they indicated, by and large, that there was a wound on the back of the head. My beef is with people pretending that the Parkland witnesses agreed this wound was LOW on the back of the head, below the ears, and that this confirms that the Harper fragment was occipital bone. That, David, is absolute balderdash

Pat, Do these images NOT accurately reflect what the Parkland Doctors and personnel said?

Wouldn't you agree that the Occipital is both BETWEEN and BELOW the ears?

Wouldn't you agree that based on this data there is simply no place FROM THE BACK for a bullet to leave a particle trail where it is seen?...

and finally, based on the side by side xrays... it appears as if there is still quite a bit of bone on the left side of the skull, even in the front... where on the lateral xray does all this bone go?

To the LEFT SIDE TEMPLE WOUND... McClelland was not the only witness to this wound... Didn't the last rites Father also describe a horrible wound over the left eye?

Or conversely, didn't Altgens and Brehm tell us that matter was ejected out of the left side of his head?

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes. What made me almost certain that the shot came from behind was because at the time I was looking at the President, just as he was struck, it caused him to move a bit forward. He seemed as if at the time----well, he was in a position-- sort of immobile. He wasn't upright. He was at an angle but when it hit him, it seemed to have just lodged--it seemed as if he were hung up on a seat button or something like that. It knocked him just enough forward that he came right on down. There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated to me that the shot came out of the left side of his head. Also, the fact that his head was covered with blood, the hairline included, on the left side all the way down, with no blood on his forehead or face--- suggested to me, too, that the shot came from the opposite side, meaning in the direction of this Depository Building, but at no time did I know for certain where the shot came from.

Thanks

DJ

xraysversusreality.jpg.

bestevidence.jpg

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My responses in bold.

Once again, Pat, I think you miss the forest for the trees. The McClelland drawing for Thompson was in 1966 shows bones sprung open in a manner required by an exiting bullet.

There is no McClelland drawing for Thompson. Ask Thompson. While the drawing was based upon McClelland's WC testimony, Thompson never spoke to McClelland about it. Ask Doug Horne, who was dedicated enough to read Thompson's book and see that Philip Johnson was credited for the drawing, not McClelland. Now ask yourself, if McClelland has been claiming for twenty years that he'd created a drawing that he in fact never drew, how much can we rely upon his other statements?

It matters little that McClelland loved Specter. He can say what he wants about where the shot came from; the drawing itself is definitive.

The drawing that was made by a college kid based on the testimony of a man testifying in direct opposition to his earliest statements? The drawing that McClelland later claimed was inaccurate, and incomplete?

As for your contention that missing scalp is evidence of an entrance wound,

Go back and read my post. This is not my contention. It is Forensic Pathology 101.

you are going to have to argue with Humes about that, because he stated in the autopsy that the head wound, chiefly paretial, was devoid of both bone and scalp.

There is no need for argument. Humes is dead, and his opinions on Forensic Pathology wouldn't carry much weight anyhow.

This large wound was therefore an entrance wound? That's a new one for me.

It shouldn't be. 6.5 mm FMJ ammunition was infamous for leaving gutter wounds of both entrance and exit on skulls. I've been pointing this out for years. I have several chapters devoted to discussing this fact.

That bone blasted out by a high velocity bullet would not take scalp with it is utter nonesense,

Says who? Scalp tears at the exit. Look it up.

and contradicts the Dallas observation that both one and scalp were missing in the rear defect.

It doesn't contradict it all. Why do you think Clark thought it was a gutter wound?

Why do you suppose Tom Robinson had to place a piece of rubber to patch the hold in the back of the head? Had there been scalp there this would not have been necessary.

Robinson didn't put the head together. He only helped at the end. If there was a hole on the back of the head at the end, it only means that the man who put the head together did his job correctly, which was to make sure the large defect was in a location that could be hidden by a pillow.

I stand by my observations that McClelland accurately described what he saw before the WC and has maintained that picture of the wounding ever since. I stand by my conviction that McClelland was influenced by the official autopsy and wanted to avoid controversy.

You can stand by the moon being cheese, but it doesn't make it true. Why not contact McClelland, and get him to say, for the record, that his comments to Dudman and others, in which he indicated he was satisfied the shots came from behind, were lies, and that he knew all along the large head wound was an exit on the far back of Kennedy's head for a bullet entering the front of his head?

He may have loved Specter but such was a necessary concession. I mean, what doctor is going to believe a murdered President would have a slipshod autopsy-- a deliberately false record of the way he was killed? It was just too insulting to the medical profession to even think such a thing.

And yet the Clark Panel had no problem believing such a thing. And yet the HSCA FPP had no problem believing such a thing.

You have also misquoted Clark. He gave the tangential wound as only one option.

Not exactly. He testified that he'd felt it was a tangential wound.

Dr. William Kemp Clark: "I was called by Dr. Perry because the President... had sustained a brain wound. On my arrival, the resuscitative efforts, the tracheostomy, the administration of chest tubes to relieve any...possibility of air being in the pleural space, the electrocardiogram had been hooked up, blood and fluids were being administered by Dr. Perry and Dr. Baxter. It was apparent that the President had sustained a lethal wound. A missile had gone in or out of the back of his head, causing extensive lacerations and loss of brain tissue. Shortly after I arrived, the patient, the President, lost his heart action by the electrocardiogram, his heart action had stopped. We attempted resuscitative measures of his heart, including closed chest cardiac massage, but to no avail." (When asked to describe the course of the bullet through the head) "We were too busy to be absolutely sure of the track, but the back of his head...Principally on his right side, towards the right side...The head wound could have been either the exit wound from the neck or it could have been a tangential wound, as it was simply a large, gaping loss of tissue."

Mr. SPECTER - What, if anything, did you say then in the course of that press conference?

Dr. CLARK - I described the President's wound in his head in very much the same way as I have described it here. I was asked if this wound was an entrance wound, an exit wound, or what, and I said it could be an exit wound, but I felt it was a tangential wound.

I quoted him accurately above. Go back and read the transcript of 11/22/63 at Parkland. And since it is clear cerebellum extruded from the wound, I will bet the farm the wound extended low enough behind the ears to lacerate the cerebellum.

That's not clear at all. Most of those once claiming to see cerebellum would later claim they'd been wrong.

Of course, I have no farm, but I'll put my Harley on the line on that point.

I love this exchange:

Dan Gallup: I quoted him accurately above. Go back and read the transcript of 11/22/63 at Parkland. And since it is clear cerebellum extruded from the wound, I will bet the farm the wound extended low enough behind the ears to lacerate the cerebellum.

Pat Speer: That's not clear at all. Most of those once claiming to see cerebellum would later claim they'd been wrong.

". . . later claim they'd been wrong. . . "?

Oh, you mean after Best Evidence was published, and, as a consequence of my book, some of these doctors started to realize the political implications of what they had reported? And then had (in some cases) a very public "Ooops!" moment?

And so at that point, as if they were on a skit on Saturday Night Live, they said "Never mind."

Jenkins --fyi--is Exhibit A of this sort of behavior.

As I personally know--when Pat Valentino and I met with him at Parkland, in January, 1983: Jenkins made clear (now coming face to face with the author whose book had caused him so much trouble), and said that it didn't matter what he had previously written or said; it didn't matter at all. Nope, none of it mattered. He agreed with the official version. And that was his final word on the subject.

In other words: in law school and in classes on evidence, one is taught the importance of the "earliest recorded recollection." But not with Dr. Jenkins, who apparently wanted to re-write the rule to read: "The earliest recollection is important, until and unless something is published which causes me embarrassment, at which point I have the right to retract. Indefinitely. "

Let's see. . what should we call this? The "Marion Jenkins Exception To the 'best evidence' concept?"

And you take that seriously?

That, to you, is significant?

Indeed, you do take that sort of "retraction" seriously, and you do find it significant; and that, in part, is precisely what is wrong with much of your work, which is pervaded with this type of mistaken and wrong-headed "analysis," based on this sort of "amended" record.

Oh pleez. . .

DSL

Oh pleez is right. You know full well that historical (and legal) truth is not established by what is said first, but by what is said last. If someone says something that is inconsistent with what someone else said, or with photographic evidence, and this is made known to them, they should be given the chance to either withdraw their original statement, or double down. In this case, all the key Parkland witnesses either withdrew their original statements, or tried to find some middle ground whereby their statements could be consistent with the photographic evidence. Not one of the key witnesses went to his grave swearing the wound was on the back of Kennedy's head, and that the autopsy photos were fakes (or that the body had been altered).

And yet many CTs are not aware of this. Why? Because a certain element tries to shout anyone down who tries to point out the simple fact that, thanks largely to your efforts, the key Parkland witnesses were indeed given a chance to clarify the record...and did so...by admitting they were wrong.

Now, there is an important point to be made, that I believe you are trying to make...and that point is this... IF these witnesses were LIARS, and abandoned their earliest statements out of cowardice, or, even worse, a dislike of Kennedy and his policies, how could we tell?

Well, that's not an easy question to answer. But, even so, I don't think you or anyone else can just assume Jenkins was a xxxx because he said something once that you interpreted as anti-Kennedy. I don't think you or anyone else can just dismiss Carrico's and Perry's assertions that they'd actually seen no cerebellum.

Here's an analogy. 5 people witness a serious auto accident. They are interviewed later. They all claim the blue car ran the light and hit the red car. The traffic cops, the ambulance driver, and the tow truck driver brought in to collect the cars, however, when asked hours later, insist the red car was smashed in the front, and the blue car on the side. Photos of the cars at the wrecking yard, however, prove them wrong. A tape from a traffic camera is also made available, and it shows the blue car run the light and hit the red car. When shown the photos and the film, moreover, the traffic cops, the ambulance driver, and the tow truck driver, universally admit they were wrong when they said they thought the red car hit the blue car.

You are, in effect, saying that the red car really did hit the blue car, but that 1) the witnesses to the accident were mistaken, 2) someone fixed the cars and then re-smashed them, to hide that the red car actually hit the blue car, 3) the photos of the cars in the wrecking yard were taken after this took place, 4) the film of the accident is a fake, and 5) the witnesses who ultimately admitted they were wrong were for the most part conservative creeps whose words can not be trusted. In essence, then, you are saying that YOUR faith in some of the witness statements trumps not only the rest of the witness statements, but the subsequent statements of the witnesses upon whom you rely...along with ALL the other evidence.

And that is pretty silly, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"You know full well that historical (and legal) truth is not established by what is said first, but by what is said last." Pat, placing historical and legal truth in the same box is your first mistake. Second, you are simply disengenuous in stating that "Not one of the key witnesses went to his grave swearing the wound was on the back of Kennedy's head, and that the autopsy photos were fakes (or that the body had been altered)." Tell that to the surviving members of Dr. Charles Chrenshaw. Tell that to the FBI agents who expressed disagreement with the back of the head photo. I suggest you reread David Mantik's forward to William Law's book In the Eye of History. And you are logically absurd, for you imply the very thing that must be proved: that the Parkland witnesses needed clarification from accurate autopsy photos, but it is the photos themselves that have come under withering scrutiny, and not just from Parkland testimony, but from Bethesda personnel as well. Read James Jenkins in Best Evidence or in Law's In the Eye of History as just one example. Your red car blue care scenario is utterly irrelevant, therefore, because again, it assumes the accuracy of the traffic camera etc. when by comparison the stench surrounding the official x-rays and photos is another matter entirely, and anomalies in that record rather point to the initial observations of Parkland personnel as the more accurate depiction of the wounding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My responses in bold.

Pat, I think David Lifton has put matters where they should be, but since you suggested McClelland did not draw the picture published in Thompson's book,

I didn't "suggest" it, Daniel, I reported the fact that Thompson has long claimed McClelland had nothing to do with the creation of the drawing, and that Horne figured out the name of the young artist hired by Thompson, Philip Johnson.

I might draw your attention to Brad Parker's First on the Scene page 31. In 1994 McClelland wrote on the famous picture the following words: "Brad, the drawing below is an exact copy, in regard to the location and dimensions, of the drawing I made for Josiah Thompson in 1966. Best wishes, Robert McClelland, M. D."

I'm well aware of McClelland's latter day claims he created the drawing. This is one of the many reasons I told you to look at all of McClelland's statements before embracing his words as the end-all/be-all. He is just not reliable.

Now Pat, let us engage in some elementary deductions. One, it matters not a wit whether McClelland did the actual drawing or had someone do it for him.

Hello? You really need to understand this, Daniel. McClelland had NOTHING to do with the drawing. Nada. Thompson had the drawing created based on McClelland's testimony. This was 1967. Notes on a 1969 interview with McClelland found in the Weisberg Archives, moreover, demonstrate that he was not a conspiracy theorist at that time, and support McClelland's own claim that he only became a conspiracy theorist years later, with the broadcast of the Zapruder film on TV.

It represents what he wanted recorded for history, what he owned as his representation of the wounding. Thus he can call it his drawing even though he used an illustrator. You say a college student did the work. Well, under whose direction? McClelland, of course. A cooperative venture is just that. So McClelland's considers it his drawing. This does not make him a prevaricator.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. He had nothing to do with the creation of the drawing. Thompson has never even spoken to McClelland. If you read McClelland's ARRB testimony, for that matter, he made it clear the drawing did not reflect the wound as he remembered it, and that the wound he remembered stretched much further forward on the head. Here is his testimony;

MR. GUNN: I'd like to hand out a document to each of you that first appeared in a book by Josiah Thompson, which I assume that you all are familiar with. We can mark this as Exhibit Number 264.

DR. PETERS: I think when Mr. Posner is looking at it was the 707, so I'm not sure I've seen Mr. Thompson's.

DR.McCLELLAND: And you got to copy of it?

DR. PETERS: No. You can be the spokesman.

DR. PERRY: Who is Josiah Thompson?

DR. McCLELLAND: He's a private investigator now, but he was a professor of history at this time -

MR. GUNN: Professor of philosophy at -

DR. McCLELLAND: --somewhere in Pennsylvania.

MR. GUNN: --Temple or Villanova. I'm forgetting which. There's a picture on Page 707 of Exhibit 264. I'd like to ask those of you who saw the head wound if this corresponds to what you observed or if any of you has -- based upon your own observations, it seems inaccurate in any way. Obviously, it's a drawing and so there will be a problem with it, but just your observations on it for those of you who observed the head wound. Does this look like what you saw in Parkland Memorial Hospital?

DR. McCLELLAND: I told him when he was asking me to describe that picture from which you reviewed this that the first thing I saw when I came in the room in addition to that attempted agonal respiration was the edge of the parietal bone was sticking up through the scalp. And that's not on this picture, but what we were trying to depict here was what the posterior part of the wound looked like. In other words, is not the entire wound. It's simply the posterior part of it and what I thought of as the critical part of it at that time and still do.

Your comments on Robinson make no sense. He told the HSCA of a large wound in the back of the head about the size of a small orange, with a good amount of bone blown away. The defect was roughtly circular and ragged along the edges. At the embalming stage, rubber was required to cover the defect in the back of the head between the ears. He indicates the scalp was pulled back over the rubber as much as possible, and that placing President Kennedy's head on the pillow in the casket hid the damage that could not be completely repaired by the reconstruction. From Horne, p. 600: "This verifies that the area of both missing scalp and bone to which Robinson was referring was directly between the ears in the back of the head, and not at the top of the head or in the right side." You may not think that exit wounds cause a loss of scalp, and you may bolster your conclusions by appealing to professionals, but at Parkland, the wound in the back of the skull was devoid of bone and scalp

Robinson described the wound as he saw it at the end of the reconstruction. This wound was in the middle of the back of the head, where it could be hidden in a pillow. The Parkland witnesses, while thinking the wound was on the "back of Kennedy's head," thought it to have been at the top right side of the back of the head. This is inches away from where it was observed by Robinson. It only makes sense, then, to believe Robinson's co-worker, who was never interviewed, did his job properly and reconstructed the skull and scalp in a manner that would conceal the wound.

, like it or not, and this is confirmed by Robinson. And to suggest the avulsive nature of that wound suggests entry, is absurd.

Your saying it is absurd demonstrates that you've still not done the reading necessary to understand the wound ballistics of 6.5 mm ammunition. Here are some autopsy protocols from a publication on wound ballistics put out by the U.S. Army.

  • Case 10: A Fijian soldier, peering over the edge of an open foxhole to fire at the enemy, was struck by a .25 caliber Japanese bullet fired from a distance of 15 yards. He was killed instantly at 1400 hours on 1 April 1944. Examination revealed a perforating wound of the head and multiple wounds of the extremities. The head wound of entry (3.7 cm. in diameter) was located at the inner canthus of the left eye and the exit wound (8.7 cm. in diameter) at the vertex of the skull. The skull was comminuted, and there was almost complete destruction of the left half of the brain.
  • Case 2: A Fijian soldier, while on patrol, was standing behind a tree when he was struck by a .25 caliber Japanese bullet fired from a distance of 20 yards. He was killed instantly on 31 March 1944. Examination revealed a perforating wound of the head. The entrance wound (0.5 cm. in diameter) was situated over the lateral border of the right supraorbital ridge and the exit wound (1.2 cm. in diameter) over the occipital bone. Stellate fractures of the frontal and occipital bones radiated from both perforations. The frontal and parietal lobes of the brain were perforated, and the cerebellum was grooved.
  • Case 11: A soldier of the 129th Infantry was crouching and moving forward in a skirmish line when he was struck by a Japanese .25 caliber bullet fired from a distance of 20 yards. He was killed instantly at 1300 hours on 24 March 1944. Cursory examination revealed an extensive gutter wound 15 x 10 cm. involving the left temporal, occipital, and parietal regions. Large portions of these bones and underlying brain were absent. Extensive comminution of the remaining cranial vault was present.
  • Case 8: A soldier of the 129th Infantry, 37th Division, was standing on his bunk in an open tent in battalion headquarters firing at the enemy, when he was struck by a .25 caliber Japanese bullet fired from a distance of 25 yards. He was killed instantly at 0630 hours on 24 March 1944. Examination revealed a gutter wound (5 x 2½ cm.) of the left parietal region. Brain tissue exuded through the perforation in his helmet. Lacerated brain tissue, portions of the frontal and parietal lobes, was herniated through the wound. Marked subgaleal hemorrhage was present. The cranial vault was comminuted by stellate fractures. Both hemispheres of the brain were extensively lacerated. A mushroomed .25 caliber bullet was found in the right anterior fossa.
  • Case 20: A soldier of the 129th Infantry was sitting on a log holding a flamethrower when he was struck in the head by a .25 caliber Japanese bullet fired from a distance of 75 yards. His perforated helmet was found lying on the ground. He was killed instantly at 1130 hours on 27 March 1944. Examination revealed a gutter wound 17.5 x 4 cm. involving the right temporal and frontal regions. There were deep lacerations of the frontal, parietal, and temporal lobes. Disorganized brain tissue filled the wound. Extensive comminution of the cranial vault was found.
  • Case 25: A soldier of the 129th Infantry was standing in an open foxhole when he was struck by a .25 caliber Japanese bullet fired by a sniper from a distance of 75 yards. His helmet was perforated. He was wounded in action at 1430 hours on 24 March 1944 and died 5 hours later, despite shock therapy. Examination revealed a gutter wound (15 x 7½ cm.) occupying the right parieto-occipital region. Portions of these bones as well as the underlying cerebral hemisphere were absent. A small metal fragment was recovered from the remaining brain tissue and was identified as part of the jacket of a .25 caliber Japanese bullet. The right lateral ventricle was filled with blood. Petechial hemorrhages were present in the left half of the brain. Stellate fracture lines coursed through the bones of the vault.
  • Case 59: A soldier of the 24th Infantry, while running forward in a skirmish line, was struck by .25 caliber Japanese machinegun bullets fired from a distance of 75 yards. He was killed instantly at 1100 hours on 14 April 1944. Examination revealed multiple wounds. (One) bullet struck the left side of the face producing a gutter wound 12.5 x 3.7 x 0.25 cm., which destroyed the left temporomandibular joint.
  • Case 17: A soldier of the 129th Infantry, while walking up a jungle trail, was struck by a Japanese .25 caliber bullet fired from a distance of 100 yards. He was killed instantly at 1320 hours on 24 March 1944. Examination revealed a perforating wound of the head. The wound of entrance (2.5 cm. in diameter) traversed the right infraorbital ridge; the exit wound (3 cm. in diameter) was located in the left parieto-occipital region. When the body was received, the helmet had not been removed and brain tissue was extruded over its surface.
  • Case 5: A Fijian soldier, while on patrol, peered over a ridge and was struck in the head by a .25 caliber Japanese machine gun bullet fired from a distance of 150 yards. He was killed instantly at 1000 hours on 26 March 1944. Examination revealed a gutter wound (6.5 x 2.5 cm.) in the center of the forehead with a portion of the frontal bone blown away. Fracture lines radiated through the temporal, parietal, and occipital bones. Both frontals and the right temporal lobes were lacerated. A bullet was recovered from the right temporal fossa.
  • Case 18: A U.S. soldier was standing in a cleared area digging a foxhole when he was struck in the head by a .25 caliber bullet. The shot was fired by a Japanese sniper at a distance of over 150 yards. The soldier was killed instantly at 1500 hours on 26 March 1944. Examination revealed a perforating wound of the head. The entrance wound (0.6 cm. in diameter) was posterior to the left mastoid process, and the exit wound (1.2 cm. in diameter) was at the outer canthus of the right eye. The bullet coursed in a superior and anterior direction and perforated the atlas; it then crossed the foramen magnum and severed the brain stem at the lower level of the pons. The track continued through the base of the skull, right ethmoid, and right orbit to the point of exit.
  • Case 19: A U.S. soldier, while on duty as a sniper in the jungle, peered over a protecting log and was struck in the head by a .25 caliber bullet. The shot was fired by a Japanese sniper from an unknown distance. The soldier was killed instantly on 24 March 1944. Cursory examination revealed a penetrating wound of the skull, with the wound of entrance in the left orbit. A compound comminuted fracture of the skull with marked brain destruction was present. (NOTE: while this entrance wound was not measured, it was photographed, and revealed to be many times the purported size of the entrance on the back of Kennedy's head.)
  • President Kennedy: The President of the United States was shot while driving down the street in an open limousine. The shot was believed to have been fired from a distance of 90 yards. The doctors at his autopsy claimed that a 1.5 x .6 cm entrance wound was found low on the back of his head, and that a 13 cm exit was found on the top of his head above his right temple. They also claimed that a large amount of skull was missing at the exit, and that the right side of his skull was largely fractured.

Was Kennedy hit by a grenade?

No, he was shot twice in the head. One of these bullets created a large gutter wound (aka tangential wound), as proposed by Dr. Clark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's an easy request to agree to, as I don't recall ever saying such a thing. Of course they indicated, by and large, that there was a wound on the back of the head. My beef is with people pretending that the Parkland witnesses agreed this wound was LOW on the back of the head, below the ears, and that this confirms that the Harper fragment was occipital bone. That, David, is absolute balderdash

Pat, Do these images NOT accurately reflect what the Parkland Doctors and personnel said?

Wouldn't you agree that the Occipital is both BETWEEN and BELOW the ears?

Wouldn't you agree that based on this data there is simply no place FROM THE BACK for a bullet to leave a particle trail where it is seen?...

and finally, based on the side by side xrays... it appears as if there is still quite a bit of bone on the left side of the skull, even in the front... where on the lateral xray does all this bone go?

To the LEFT SIDE TEMPLE WOUND... McClelland was not the only witness to this wound... Didn't the last rites Father also describe a horrible wound over the left eye?

Or conversely, didn't Altgens and Brehm tell us that matter was ejected out of the left side of his head?

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes. What made me almost certain that the shot came from behind was because at the time I was looking at the President, just as he was struck, it caused him to move a bit forward. He seemed as if at the time----well, he was in a position-- sort of immobile. He wasn't upright. He was at an angle but when it hit him, it seemed to have just lodged--it seemed as if he were hung up on a seat button or something like that. It knocked him just enough forward that he came right on down. There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated to me that the shot came out of the left side of his head. Also, the fact that his head was covered with blood, the hairline included, on the left side all the way down, with no blood on his forehead or face--- suggested to me, too, that the shot came from the opposite side, meaning in the direction of this Depository Building, but at no time did I know for certain where the shot came from.

Thanks

DJ

xraysversusreality.jpg.

bestevidence.jpg

1. McClelland did not see an entrance by the left temple. He said the wound was "of the left temple" which implies to me that he thought the large head wound others said was on the right rear side of the head was on the left side. In other words, he got mixed up. Later, when his mistake was pointed out to him, he tried to blame Jenkins for his mistake, and said that Jenkins had pointed to Kennedy's left temple at one point. But I don't really buy this excuse, as I don't think a competent doctor would report a small wound he never even saw, while failing to report the large wound he would later claim he'd studied.

2. Look at the supposed back of the head witnesses. How many of them pointed to a wound location on the back of the head, below the ears, where it would have to have been for the Harper fragment to have been occipital bone?

3. As far as the particle trail...it is a mistake, IMO, to assume it is a trail heading from the front to the back, or the reverse. A number of these particles were on the outside of the scalp. These fragments, then, reflect that a bullet broke up upon entrance by the right temple. I think this shot came from behind, but have no problem with others thinking otherwise. The fact that CTs need to come to grips with is that this IS what the x-rays show, once one studies the x-rays, and stops buying into all this nonsense about them being fake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


 Without getting into the details just now, you can add Stewart to the list of those who believe (in Stewart''s case, because of what he was told by Perry) that JFK was struck in the left temple.


David,

There is a serious contradiction to the idea that JFK was shot in the left temple. As the copy of Z 312 below shows his left temple was turned away from a shooter in the North Plaza.

Z312.png

Anyone shooting from the North Plaza would be unable to make a hit there. The only area that had access to that aspect of JFK’s body would have to be on the South Plaza.

There has been no evidence that there ever were gunmen in the South Plaza.

The problem for a shot from the South Plaza is that the target has changed. From the North Plaza Jackie is behind JFK. From the South Plaza, JFK is behind her. Any shot requiring to strike JFK would first have to go through Jackie.

I do not question your research. It is amongst the finest in the history of the JFK assassination. However when the results of that research are placed on the historical reality of Dealey Plaza serious questions are immediately raised.

One response to this conflict of evidence is to just ignore it. However “Best Evidence” does not show you to be that kind of a researcher. So I am wondering, do you have a response and solution to this conflict?

James.

My responses in Bold

First of all, I'm not saying that I have "all the answers," but. . . :

It is refreshing to see someone honestly comment that they do not have all the answers.

You are making certain assumptions.

(1) That the Zapruder film imagery is the final word

On this point we are on opposite sides of the fence. In your recent responses it is clear to me that you are making reference to your upcoming book, which I am eagerly awaiting. I will await what you have to say on the subject of Zapruder, but at present my view is that it is an authentic document.

(2) That its a choice between the north plaza and the south plaza.

To some degree you are right. There are certain 3D imperatives that define what is possible and what is not within the real world. From the geographical perspective of Dealey Plaza to be able to wound on the left temple, from JFK's position as seen at Z 312, insists that the position of such a gunman had to be somewhere south in the Plaza. The implication of your point is that there is another answer, which I assume you will disclose in your forthcoming book. Again I will await its publication and your explanation. But at present I am at loss to see how any other position but somewhere in the south of the plaza could create a wound in the left temple.

James

There are other possibilities. More significant, however. . : when you see the entire Dr. Stewart interview, there are other issues. And its very detailed. He's really a very important witness, not as to what he saw (he was not in the room) but because of the conversations he had afterwards.

Stay tuned.

DSL

Edited by James R Gordon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My responses in bold.

"You know full well that historical (and legal) truth is not established by what is said first, but by what is said last." Pat, placing historical and legal truth in the same box is your first mistake. Second, you are simply disengenuous in stating that "Not one of the key witnesses went to his grave swearing the wound was on the back of Kennedy's head, and that the autopsy photos were fakes (or that the body had been altered)." Tell that to the surviving members of Dr. Charles Chrenshaw.

I said KEY witnesses, Daniel. Crenshaw was only there for a moment, and failed to record or report what he'd witnessed for what? 20 years? One can hardly call him a key witness.

Tell that to the FBI agents who expressed disagreement with the back of the head photo.

Sibert and O'Neill both fervently believed Oswald acted alone. While they said--many years after the shooting--that the photo did not reflect what they'd remembered, I'm pretty sure--correct me if I'm wrong-- they never accused the government of faking the photos.

I suggest you reread David Mantik's forward to William Law's book In the Eye of History.

I read it just the other day. I also watched a video of Frank O'Neill, where he tried to impress upon the audience his fervent belief Oswald acted alone.

And you are logically absurd, for you imply the very thing that must be proved: that the Parkland witnesses needed clarification from accurate autopsy photos, but it is the photos themselves that have come under withering scrutiny, and not just from Parkland testimony, but from Bethesda personnel as well. Read James Jenkins in Best Evidence or in Law's In the Eye of History as just one example.

As I recall it, Jenkins was not a CT either.

Your red car blue care scenario is utterly irrelevant, therefore, because again, it assumes the accuracy of the traffic camera etc.

Nope, it does not. If one wishes to conclude the witnesses were all either wrong to begin with or liars when they recanted their early statements, and that the evidence was either altered or faked, one can go right ahead.

when by comparison the stench surrounding the official x-rays and photos is another matter entirely,

The stench surrounding the evidence comes from all the bogus interpretations of the evidence, not from the evidence itself. When one convinces oneself the evidence has been faked, IMO, one lets the many men who've lied about the evidence, e.g. Specter, Boswell, Humes, Fisher, Morgan, Lattimer, Baden, off the hook.

and anomalies in that record rather point to the initial observations of Parkland personnel as the more accurate depiction of the wounding.

Not at all. You have no evidence, and you have essentially no witnesses, just a few witness statements later disavowed. So what does that amount to? Speculation. In the meantime, when one actually studies the evidence, one finds a number of reasons...concrete and supported by the medical literature, to suspect a conspiracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's an easy request to agree to, as I don't recall ever saying such a thing. Of course they indicated, by and large, that there was a wound on the back of the head. My beef is with people pretending that the Parkland witnesses agreed this wound was LOW on the back of the head, below the ears, and that this confirms that the Harper fragment was occipital bone. That, David, is absolute balderdash

Pat, Do these images NOT accurately reflect what the Parkland Doctors and personnel said?

Wouldn't you agree that the Occipital is both BETWEEN and BELOW the ears?

Wouldn't you agree that based on this data there is simply no place FROM THE BACK for a bullet to leave a particle trail where it is seen?...

and finally, based on the side by side xrays... it appears as if there is still quite a bit of bone on the left side of the skull, even in the front... where on the lateral xray does all this bone go?

To the LEFT SIDE TEMPLE WOUND... McClelland was not the only witness to this wound... Didn't the last rites Father also describe a horrible wound over the left eye?

Or conversely, didn't Altgens and Brehm tell us that matter was ejected out of the left side of his head?

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes. What made me almost certain that the shot came from behind was because at the time I was looking at the President, just as he was struck, it caused him to move a bit forward. He seemed as if at the time----well, he was in a position-- sort of immobile. He wasn't upright. He was at an angle but when it hit him, it seemed to have just lodged--it seemed as if he were hung up on a seat button or something like that. It knocked him just enough forward that he came right on down. There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated to me that the shot came out of the left side of his head. Also, the fact that his head was covered with blood, the hairline included, on the left side all the way down, with no blood on his forehead or face--- suggested to me, too, that the shot came from the opposite side, meaning in the direction of this Depository Building, but at no time did I know for certain where the shot came from.

Thanks

DJ

xraysversusreality.jpg.

bestevidence.jpg

1. McClelland did not see an entrance by the left temple. He said the wound was "of the left temple" which implies to me that he thought the large head wound others said was on the right rear side of the head was on the left side. In other words, he got mixed up. Later, when his mistake was pointed out to him, he tried to blame Jenkins for his mistake, and said that Jenkins had pointed to Kennedy's left temple at one point. But I don't really buy this excuse, as I don't think a competent doctor would report a small wound he never even saw, while failing to report the large wound he would later claim he'd studied.

2. Look at the supposed back of the head witnesses. How many of them pointed to a wound location on the back of the head, below the ears, where it would have to have been for the Harper fragment to have been occipital bone?

3. As far as the particle trail...it is a mistake, IMO, to assume it is a trail heading from the front to the back, or the reverse. A number of these particles were on the outside of the scalp. These fragments, then, reflect that a bullet broke up upon entrance by the right temple. I think this shot came from behind, but have no problem with others thinking otherwise. The fact that CTs need to come to grips with is that this IS what the x-rays show, once one studies the x-rays, and stops buying into all this nonsense about them being fake.

Pat, I hope you know that I respect your work and think you've moved the case forward in many, many areas.... but I still believe there are areas in which some of your conclusions don't jive with how I see the evidence....

1. The notes are right there Pat - did he, like so many others, change the FIRST STORY to something that worked better for all involved... ? And if there was yet another DR and a priest who report even a wound on the left side, this is in direct contradiction to Specter's autopsy report

He said the wound was "of the left temple"

Dr. McClelland's report reflects a "...a gunshot wound of the left temple" (CE 392:17WCH 12)

http://www.maryferre...34&relPageId=38

Dr. Robert N. McClelland: WR 526-527/ 17 H 11-12/ CE 392

---"...The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from

a gunshot wound of the left temple."

Dr. JENKINS - No---I don't know whether this is right or not, but I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process.

Mr. SPECTER - The autopsy report discloses no such development, Dr. Jenkins.

The THIRD autopsy report - an oh so accurate representation of the wounds - doesn't mention it. So that's supposed to mean it didn't happen? as DSL says pleeez...

That autopsy report also doesn't mention the shallow , non-transiting wound seen by the three autopsists.... or the apparrent surgery to the head... did that not happen as well?

Father Huber

Father Oscar L Huber was one of the priests that gave the last rites to the already dead JFK (11). Part of the ceremony included tracing a cross on the President's forehead using holy oil. Obviously, Father Huber would have been in an excellent position to look at JFK's head wounds. Father Huber was quoted in the press the weekend that the President died saying that he had seen a terrible wound over the President's left eye (12).

(11) William Manchester, "The Death of a President", p258

(12) Philadelphia Sunday Bulletin, November 24 1963

2. What about the actual DRAWINGS as I posted, suggests anything but right/middle of the back of the head...?

Do a few of the personnel reach a little higher, a little more to the right.... are you going to tell us that these were scientifically accurate to the millimeter... c;mon Pat... the wound depicted does not extend above the Occipital, which also extends above the ears

They are not pointing to the LEFT or FRONT Pat.... they are not pointing to a gaping hole in the FRONT as that xray suggests

S&O state that he could have been shown open casket as there was nothing from the front....

Jackie and others say the same thing....

3. Please look at the representation of the fragments on the skull at the top right - Irregardless of F2B or B2F... they exist at a level that would require them to FLOAT UPWARD BY 2-4 inches given where the back wound was placed... and where the xray shows the upper most rear wound opening... and isn't there an abscence of bone in the frontal xray at left temple with a crack extending directly right over the nose?

How can you possibly state that the frontal xray, and the Parkland descriptions are at all compatible? They contradict each other and every medical "expert" has said so.

I am not saying "FAKE" Pat... as Horne has let us know, they were STAGED, after 'Boswell/Humes/??' took a 3" occipital wound and small holes at the right and/or left temple and opened up his entire skull in order to obliterate it.

Pat... what is that obvious ROUND BLACK CIRCLE over his right temple - you see that naturally occurring?

andcompare the Parkland diagrams to BOSWELL's... that 3 inch hole is now 80% of the skull... Didn't someone say they took a hammer to his head... that it looked like an eggshell...

Again, not what was described BEFORE he entered the hands of our government...

xraysversusreality.jpg

holeorsurgery.jpg

f3withboswelldrawing.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's an easy request to agree to, as I don't recall ever saying such a thing. Of course they indicated, by and large, that there was a wound on the back of the head. My beef is with people pretending that the Parkland witnesses agreed this wound was LOW on the back of the head, below the ears, and that this confirms that the Harper fragment was occipital bone. That, David, is absolute balderdash

Pat, Do these images NOT accurately reflect what the Parkland Doctors and personnel said?

Wouldn't you agree that the Occipital is both BETWEEN and BELOW the ears?

Wouldn't you agree that based on this data there is simply no place FROM THE BACK for a bullet to leave a particle trail where it is seen?...

and finally, based on the side by side xrays... it appears as if there is still quite a bit of bone on the left side of the skull, even in the front... where on the lateral xray does all this bone go?

To the LEFT SIDE TEMPLE WOUND... McClelland was not the only witness to this wound... Didn't the last rites Father also describe a horrible wound over the left eye?

Or conversely, didn't Altgens and Brehm tell us that matter was ejected out of the left side of his head?

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes. What made me almost certain that the shot came from behind was because at the time I was looking at the President, just as he was struck, it caused him to move a bit forward. He seemed as if at the time----well, he was in a position-- sort of immobile. He wasn't upright. He was at an angle but when it hit him, it seemed to have just lodged--it seemed as if he were hung up on a seat button or something like that. It knocked him just enough forward that he came right on down. There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated to me that the shot came out of the left side of his head. Also, the fact that his head was covered with blood, the hairline included, on the left side all the way down, with no blood on his forehead or face--- suggested to me, too, that the shot came from the opposite side, meaning in the direction of this Depository Building, but at no time did I know for certain where the shot came from.

Thanks

DJ

xraysversusreality.jpg.

bestevidence.jpg

1. McClelland did not see an entrance by the left temple. He said the wound was "of the left temple" which implies to me that he thought the large head wound others said was on the right rear side of the head was on the left side. In other words, he got mixed up. Later, when his mistake was pointed out to him, he tried to blame Jenkins for his mistake, and said that Jenkins had pointed to Kennedy's left temple at one point. But I don't really buy this excuse, as I don't think a competent doctor would report a small wound he never even saw, while failing to report the large wound he would later claim he'd studied.

2. Look at the supposed back of the head witnesses. How many of them pointed to a wound location on the back of the head, below the ears, where it would have to have been for the Harper fragment to have been occipital bone?

3. As far as the particle trail...it is a mistake, IMO, to assume it is a trail heading from the front to the back, or the reverse. A number of these particles were on the outside of the scalp. These fragments, then, reflect that a bullet broke up upon entrance by the right temple. I think this shot came from behind, but have no problem with others thinking otherwise. The fact that CTs need to come to grips with is that this IS what the x-rays show, once one studies the x-rays, and stops buying into all this nonsense about them being fake.

Pat, I hope you know that I respect your work and think you've moved the case forward in many, many areas.... but I still believe there are areas in which some of your conclusions don't jive with how I see the evidence....

1. The notes are right there Pat - did he, like so many others, change the FIRST STORY to something that worked better for all involved... ? And if there was yet another DR and a priest who report even a wound on the left side, this is in direct contradiction to Specter's autopsy report

He said the wound was "of the left temple"

Dr. McClelland's report reflects a "...a gunshot wound of the left temple" (CE 392:17WCH 12)

http://www.maryferre...34&relPageId=38

Dr. Robert N. McClelland: WR 526-527/ 17 H 11-12/ CE 392

---"...The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from

a gunshot wound of the left temple."

Dr. JENKINS - No---I don't know whether this is right or not, but I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process.

Mr. SPECTER - The autopsy report discloses no such development, Dr. Jenkins.

The THIRD autopsy report - an oh so accurate representation of the wounds - doesn't mention it. So that's supposed to mean it didn't happen? as DSL says pleeez...

That autopsy report also doesn't mention the shallow , non-transiting wound seen by the three autopsists.... or the apparrent surgery to the head... did that not happen as well?

Father Huber

Father Oscar L Huber was one of the priests that gave the last rites to the already dead JFK (11). Part of the ceremony included tracing a cross on the President's forehead using holy oil. Obviously, Father Huber would have been in an excellent position to look at JFK's head wounds. Father Huber was quoted in the press the weekend that the President died saying that he had seen a terrible wound over the President's left eye (12).

(11) William Manchester, "The Death of a President", p258

(12) Philadelphia Sunday Bulletin, November 24 1963

2. What about the actual DRAWINGS as I posted, suggests anything but right/middle of the back of the head...?

Do a few of the personnel reach a little higher, a little more to the right.... are you going to tell us that these were scientifically accurate to the millimeter... c;mon Pat... the wound depicted does not extend above the Occipital, which also extends above the ears

They are not pointing to the LEFT or FRONT Pat.... they are not pointing to a gaping hole in the FRONT as that xray suggests

S&O state that he could have been shown open casket as there was nothing from the front....

Jackie and others say the same thing....

3. Please look at the representation of the fragments on the skull at the top right - Irregardless of F2B or B2F... they exist at a level that would require them to FLOAT UPWARD BY 2-4 inches given where the back wound was placed... and where the xray shows the upper most rear wound opening... and isn't there an abscence of bone in the frontal xray at left temple with a crack extending directly right over the nose?

How can you possibly state that the frontal xray, and the Parkland descriptions are at all compatible? They contradict each other and every medical "expert" has said so.

I am not saying "FAKE" Pat... as Horne has let us know, they were STAGED, after 'Boswell/Humes/??' took a 3" occipital wound and small holes at the right and/or left temple and opened up his entire skull in order to obliterate it.

Pat... what is that obvious ROUND BLACK CIRCLE over his right temple - you see that naturally occurring?

andcompare the Parkland diagrams to BOSWELL's... that 3 inch hole is now 80% of the skull... Didn't someone say they took a hammer to his head... that it looked like an eggshell...

Again, not what was described BEFORE he entered the hands of our government...

xraysversusreality.jpg

holeorsurgery.jpg

f3withboswelldrawing.jpg

A couple of quick points before I head out for the day.

1.The x-rays do not depict a large hole on the front of the head, but at the right side and top of the head. The AP x-ray proves the face was intact. (Even Mantik agrees on that point.) If you are claiming the x-rays show a hole above the temple at the right side and top of the head, well, then, I agree with you. This corresponds with the hole depicted in the autopsy photos.

2. The large wound measured by Boswell was the wound AFTER scalp was peeled back and skull fell to the table. As shown in the x-rays, the back of JFK's head was badly smashed, but intact under the scalp. It only makes sense, then, that the skull would fall apart once the scalp was removed. The x-rays are thereby consistent with and supportive of Humes' testimony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again Mikey... the evidence you offer is easily contradicted by the medical evidence available..

You want to help explain how, if the front of his skull, in the xrays, is missing (blown out by the back to front shot)... SOMETHING seems to be holding up his face... ??

1) How are these superimposed images consistent with each other?

2) you see that trail of particles across the TOP of his head... please point to the entrance would on the BACK of the skull that allows that trail to be in that place.

You need to learn how to read an xray.

The president was struck by TWO bullets to the head.

Edited by Mike Rago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

{sigh}

The AP xray... that shows nothing from the midline down to the anatomical right ear corresponds to the Lateral which in my image above shows virtually no bone above the top arrow

This is the TOP of his head...

Not a single image of a medical person, also provided, has their hand on the TOP of their head.... where in the xray would correspond to McClellend's widow's peak.

and 2) if JFK's skull was falling all over the Bethesda table, why describe a neat, avulsed hole, as yet again, the illustrations show.... the laceration Boswell describes is as if an ax hit JFK in the head...

There is simply no way a brain comes out a 3" hole in the occipital Pat... these DOCTORS were inches from the man... BEFORE the government got involved.

Horrible wounds to left and right temples.. and the back of the head......

yet somehow, someway... that's not what we see at 8:15.

Commander HUMES -

Our interpretation is, sir, that the missile struck the right occipital region, penetrated through the two tables of the skull, making the characteristic coning on the inner table which I have previously referred to. That one portion of the missile and judging by the size of the defect thus produced, the major portion of the missile, made its exit through this large defect.

A second portion of the missile or multiple second portions were deflected, and traversed a distance as enumerated by this interrupted line, with the major portion of that fragment coming to lodge in the position indicated.

Perhaps some of these minor fragments were dislodged from the major one it traversed this course.

To better examine the situation with regard to the skull, at this time, Boswell and I extended the lacerations of the scalp which were at the margins of this wound, down in the direction of both of the President's ears. At that point, we had even a better appreciation of the extensive damage which had been done to the skill by this injury.

We had to do virtually no work with a saw to remove these Portions of the skull, they came apart in our hands very easily, and we attempted to further examine the brain, and seek specifically this fragment which was the one we felt to be of a size which would permit us to recover it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

{sigh}

The AP xray... that shows nothing from the midline down to the anatomical right ear corresponds to the Lateral which in my image above shows virtually no bone above the top arrow

This is the TOP of his head...

Not a single image of a medical person, also provided, has their hand on the TOP of their head.... where in the xray would correspond to McClellend's widow's peak.

and 2) if JFK's skull was falling all over the Bethesda table, why describe a neat, avulsed hole, as yet again, the illustrations show.... the laceration Boswell describes is as if an ax hit JFK in the head...

There is simply no way a brain comes out a 3" hole in the occipital Pat... these DOCTORS were inches from the man... BEFORE the government got involved.

Horrible wounds to left and right temples.. and the back of the head......

yet somehow, someway... that's not what we see at 8:15.

Commander HUMES -

Our interpretation is, sir, that the missile struck the right occipital region, penetrated through the two tables of the skull, making the characteristic coning on the inner table which I have previously referred to. That one portion of the missile and judging by the size of the defect thus produced, the major portion of the missile, made its exit through this large defect.

A second portion of the missile or multiple second portions were deflected, and traversed a distance as enumerated by this interrupted line, with the major portion of that fragment coming to lodge in the position indicated.

Perhaps some of these minor fragments were dislodged from the major one it traversed this course.

To better examine the situation with regard to the skull, at this time, Boswell and I extended the lacerations of the scalp which were at the margins of this wound, down in the direction of both of the President's ears. At that point, we had even a better appreciation of the extensive damage which had been done to the skill by this injury.

We had to do virtually no work with a saw to remove these Portions of the skull, they came apart in our hands very easily, and we attempted to further examine the brain, and seek specifically this fragment which was the one we felt to be of a size which would permit us to recover it.

David: Horrible wounds to left and right temples.. and the back of the head......

It appears you're playing mix n match, David, and pushing something totally out of line with what anyone claimed to witness. Not ONE witness, anywhere, ever, said there was a wound to the left temple AND right temple AND back of the head, or even left temple AND back of the head, or even right temple AND back of the head. The Parkland witnesses all saw ONE wound, but remembered it differently, and described it differently. Your pushing that there were three wounds, and that they all saw but one of three wounds, and that it is a pure coincidence that NONE of them saw more than one of these wounds--IF that is indeed what you're pushing--is more than silly.

I apologize if I'm misunderstanding you.

As far as Humes and Boswell and the crumpled skull... doctors wouldn't try to measure a wound on the skull with torn scalp and hair in the way. They would measure the skull wound after the scalp had been reflected. When they reflected the scalp, however, the skull was in pieces. They then removed some of the broken skull, and pulled out the brain.

There is no indication that they measured the wound before the brain was removed.

Commander HUMES - I would estimate that approximately one-quarter of that defect was unaccounted for by adding these three fragments together and seeing what was left. This is somewhat difficult, because as back to when we were actually looking for the fragments of metal, as we moved the scalp about, fragments of various sizes would fall to the table, and so forth, so it was difficult to put that exact figure into words.

Humes’ comments to the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1992 are also relevant. He said “The head was so devastated by the exploding bullet…that we did not even have to use a saw to remove the skullcap…We peeled the scalp back and the calvarium crumpled in my hands from the fracture lines…”

Humes' words to the ARRB in 1996 offer further support that the skull basically crumpled in his hands. He told Jeremy Gunn: "Once we got the scalp laid back, some of those pieces could just be removed, you know, by picking them up, picking them up because they were just not held together very well, other than by the dura, I suppose."

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...