The JFK Back Wound

[Daniel Gallup]

Excellent exchanges, for a change! Pat claims that no serious thinker

would acknowledge that the photo is fake, but we already know that

it's fake from the cover-up of the massive blow-out at the back of his

head. I don't understand how he can "stand pat" on issues like this.

As for Robert, Cliff has nailed it. Assuming that it has been accurately

located, the spinal injury appears to have resulted from the bullet that

entered his throat, which explains why the argument for T-1 based on

it doesn't work. The argument was based upon a false presupposition.

Bob Livingston, M.D., by the way, explained to me that it would have

been impossible for cerebellar as well as cerebral tissue to have been

extruding from the wound as it was observed at Parkland unless the

tough membrane covering the cerebellum had already been ruptured.

Known as the "tentorium", he told me that even the occurrence of two

closely-spaced (even nearly simultaneous) shots to the back and front

of his head would not have been able to disrupt cerebellar tissue and

suggested that the bullet that entered his throat had also struck bone.

It was his inference that it had fragmented, with part going downward

into the right lung, the other upward and rupturing the tentorium. So

the death of JFK was caused by the causal interaction of three shots,

the throat shot, the near-to-the-EOP shot, and the right-temple shot.

Two things: Dr. Kemp Clark told the New York Times that the bullet entered the throat, ranged downward, and did not exit. This was only days after the assassination, and from what I can tell this information comes directly from Perry. How did Perry know? Evidently the bullet path was clear to him after he made the trach incision. But how did he know that the bullet did not exit? He either saw it, felt it, or ???. Perry took the reason to the grave. Second: if part of a photograph shows evidence of tampering the evidentiary value of that photo is zero. The back of the head is darkened (just as in the Z-film) to obscure the avulsive wound described by Perry et al. That in and of itself disqualifies the photo as a true representation of Kennedy's wounds as they originally occurred. So far as the head wound, this is a staged photo, designed to conceal, not reveal. Why then should we suppose this is not the case with the bullet hole(s) in Kennedy's back? I don't understand the intense scrutiny paid to the bullet hole(s)? that appear on the film. Why trust these as the head area shows some form of alteration? Why is not more attention paid to the ruler which is not place next to the mastoid process so that the 14 cm can be clearly read. Its position in fact measures nothing of importance in the photo. But it could be concealing something beneath it. Jenkins, O Connor and others said Humes, who had big hands, put his finger into the shallow back wound and could find no bullet track. This would have disrupted the appearance of the wound. and made it unsuitable for photography. Of course this photo was supposed to have been shot before the autopsy began, but as the body was apparently at the morgue by 6:40 p.m., all bets are off on that score. It is anyone's guess when this photo was taken, and by whom.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Cliff,

Take those bunching photos: whether they are authentic or not

DOESN'T EVEN MATTER. My inference has been that there was

no bunching. But so what? If they were, then it's almost perverse

that they show the bullet holes where they correspond with the

rest of the evidence. If they weren't, then it is not perverse but

they still show the bullet holes where they correspond with the

rest of the evidence. Lamson's argument is pointless either way.

So I am certainly willing to grant that either those photographs

are authentic or they are not, because either way doesn't matter!

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Do we really have to reinvent the wheel? Malcolm Perry described the wound as a wound of entrance THREE TIMES during the Parkland Press Conference, which I published as Appendix C to ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998). As Appendix A, I published two sets of diagrams by Charles Crenshaw, the first of the throat wound before and after the tracheostomy, the other of the back of the head wound from behind and from the side. There is no doubt that the wound to the throat was a wound of entry. Robert Livingston, a world authority on the human brain, observed that the physicians reported cerebellar as well as cerebral tissue was extruding from the wound. But the cerebellum is covered by a tough membrane (called the "tentorium") that would have made that impossible UNLESS IT HAD BEEN RUPTURED. Neither the EOP shot nor the right-temple shot could have done that. The shot to his back OBVIOUSLY did not do that. His inference was that the shot to the throat had to have hit bone and fragmented, with one part going down into the right lung, the other upward and severing the tentorium. So Bob has explained where the bullet went.

Edited February 26, 2013 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

And yet you and Lamson are saying that the Croft photo shows there was 3+ inches of jacket and 3+ inches of shirt fabric bunched up entirely above the bottom of the jacket collar without pushing up on the jacket collar itself?

This is the operative definition of idiotic.

Yep. That's exactly what it shows. You are done cliff. Maybe you should heed your own "oversold" words.

CV" 2-23-13

"I've only read a few posts. I'm not going there, to the EF. I'm not going back."

Once an "OVERSELLER" always an "OVERSELLER!

[Craig Lamson]

Cliff,

Take those bunching photos: whether they are authentic or not

DOESN'T EVEN MATTER. My inference has been that there was

no bunching. But so what? If they were, then it's almost perverse

that they show the bullet holes where they correspond with the

rest of the evidence. If they weren't, then it is not perverse but

they still show the bullet holes where they correspond with the

rest of the evidence. Lamson's argument is pointless either way.

So I am certainly willing to grant that either those photographs

are authentic or they are not, because either way doesn't matter!

And yet since there IS a fold, the rest of your so called evidence fails.

And FAIL it does.

[Craig Lamson]

This is hilarious.

Craig Lamson and Jim Fetzer agree: the Dealey Plaza photos show 6+ inches of shirt and jacket fabric bunched up entirely above the bottom of JFK's jacket collar without pushing up on JFK's jacket collar.

David Von Pein and Cliff Varnell agree: the Weaver photo on the corner of Main and Houston shows no significant elevation of the jacket, and subsequently the jacket collar dropped on Houston St.

Who'da thunk it?

Von Pein fails photo 101 just like Cliff Varnell.

Done in by the sun.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

The point, of course, is that photos are easy to fake: we have lots

of fake autopsy photos, including the one we have been discussing,

since the massive hole in the back of the head has been covered up.

Here is another diagram from Charles Crenshaw of that wound, too:

Of course, Lamson will discount any evidence that undermines his attempts to preserve

something close to THE WARREN REPORT (1964), in spite of all we know that refutes it.

But for Pat Speer to doubt that photos (or X-rays or films) have been faked is a stunning

indication of a complete absence of understanding of the medical evidence in this case.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

A summary of the observations of extruding tissue at Parkland:

This summary is thanks to Gary Aguilar. But as Bob Livingston explained,

the cerebellum (which is a compact part of the brain at the base just above

the spinal column) could not have extruded unless the tentorium had been

ruptured, where that has to have happened as he explained to me, namely:

that the bullet that entered the throat fragmented, part going downward into

the right lung, the other upward and severing the tentorium. He explained it!

Edited February 26, 2013 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

The point, of course, is that photos are easy to fake: we have lots

of fake autopsy photos, including the one we have been discussing,

since the massive hole in the back of the head has been covered up.

Here is another diagram from Charles Crenshaw of that wound, too:

Of course, Lamson will discount any evidence that undermines his attempts to preserve

something close to THE WARREN REPORT (1964), in spite of all we know that refutes it.

But for Pat Speer to doubt that photos (or X-rays or films) have been faked is a stunning

indication of a complete absence of understanding of the medical evidence in this case.

You can't just claim the photos are fake (unless you are intellectually dishonest) you actually have to PROVE the photos are fake.

Good luck with that. Give Cinque and Hooke a call. LOL!

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff,

Take those bunching photos: whether they are authentic or not

DOESN'T EVEN MATTER. My inference has been that there was

no bunching. But so what? If they were, then it's almost perverse

that they show the bullet holes where they correspond with the

rest of the evidence. If they weren't, then it is not perverse but

they still show the bullet holes where they correspond with the

rest of the evidence. Lamson's argument is pointless either way.

So I am certainly willing to grant that either those photographs

are authentic or they are not, because either way doesn't matter!

Good on you, Jim.

JFK's back wound was at T3. The round did not exit. No round was recovered at autopsy.

This means the throat wound was an entrance. The round did not exit. No round was recovered at autopsy.

Any legitimate inquiry into the death of JFK MUST START with this set of proven fact (imho).

Edited February 26, 2013 by Cliff Varnell

[Mark Wengler]

Around 1990 i wrote to Dr. McCLELLAND and included the drawing that shows a wound in the lower back of the head and he said that is what he saw that day

[Pat Speer]

Around 1990 i wrote to Dr. McCLELLAND and included the drawing that shows a wound in the lower back of the head and he said that is what he saw that day

And yet... McClelland told Richard Dudman within a few weeks of the shooting that he'd seen nothing to indicate any shots came from other than the depository.

And yet... McClelland told an interviewer in 1969, in an interview available on the Weisberg Archives, that he thought Oswald acted alone.

So...the whole case for a wound LOW on the back of the head comes from the decades-after recollections of men who hadn't followed the case, who didn't realize what they were saying, and who, with the exception of Crenshaw, failed to be confident enough in their recollections to say the back of the head photos were fakes.

In short, there's no there there.

NOW, should those arguing the photos are fakes be willing to argue that the wound was further back on the TOP of the head than shown in the photos, they would at least have a leg to stand on. But they don't. They claim the wound was low on the far back of the head--where NONE of the witnesses originally commenting on the case, and only a handful of those to come later, thought they saw a wound.

[Pat Speer]

A summary of the observations of extruding tissue at Parkland:

This summary is thanks to Gary Aguilar. But as Bob Livingston explained,

the cerebellum (which is a compact part of the brain at the base just above

the spinal column) could not have extruded unless the tentorium had been

ruptured, where that has to have happened as he explained to me, namely:

that the bullet that entered the throat fragmented, part going downward into

the right lung, the other upward and severing the tentorium. He explained it!

Jim, you keep citing Livingston as an important source, so I have to keep asking: where are the TAPES Livingston made when he first came forward? He made one by himself, and there's one with him being interviewed by Mantik and Aguilar. And there's one somewhere of his first appearance at COPA. And yet NONE of these are readily available.

How can we judge his credibility when the best evidence for his credibility--unedited tapes of him telling his story--have all but disappeared?

If he's as important as you say, you could do a lot more to further the case by putting these videos online than you can do by repeating the same talking points ad nauseum. IMHO.

[Daniel Gallup]

[]

And yet... McClelland told Richard Dudman within a few weeks of the shooting that he'd seen nothing to indicate any shots came from other than the depository.

And yet... McClelland told an interviewer in 1969, in an interview available on the Weisberg Archives, that he thought Oswald acted alone.

So...the whole case for a wound LOW on the back of the head comes from the decades-after recollections of men who hadn't followed the case, who didn't realize what they were saying, and who, with the exception of Crenshaw, failed to be confident enough in their recollections to say the back of the head photos were fakes.

In short, there's no there there.

NOW, should those arguing the photos are fakes be willing to argue that the wound was further back on the TOP of the head than shown in the photos, they would at least have a leg to stand on. But they don't. They claim the wound was low on the far back of the head--where NONE of the witnesses originally commenting on the case, and only a handful of those to come later, thought they saw a wound.

Your selective use of McCllelland has and always will be disingenuous. Put all of his statements out on the table, and see what conclusion may be drawn. I know you must have Brad Parker's First on the Scene and of course Lifton's Best Evidence: two works which are full of early depositions of Parkland doctors and nurses. You're a smart guy, Pat. I can't believe you propound such nonesense. But alas, we've been through all this before....even arguing over McClelland's WC deposition which is about as clear as one can be on the head wounding. I am at a loss for words.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Daniel, I agree with you completely. He suggests that the physician who approved this sketch saw no indications of any shots having been fired from other than the Book Depository? How absurd is that! If McClelland didn't say so later, it was because he had to have been advised that it was not in his best interests. And how many witnesses identified the wound at the same location? There is something wrong with Pat's reasoning, which displays itself intermittently, as again here.

Edited February 27, 2013 by James H. Fetzer