Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 191
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The uppermost dark mark has always looked like a superficial skin mark to me, such as an irregularly-shaped mole or birthmark.

Though the veracity of these editions of what are probably Knudsen's photos (per his own anecdote) is in question because of the back-of-head patch, the skin near the uppermost mark looks swabbed, though incompletely, and this mark was left, being intrinsic to the skin.

Importantly, the fingers of the two surgeons frame the lower mark, which I think was intentional.

Notice, however, that one surgeon is holding JFK upright by gripping JFK's right shoulder. What effect does this have on the placement of the two marks?

Edited by David Andrews
Link to post
Share on other sites

The uppermost dark mark has always looked like a superficial skin mark to me, such as an irregularly-shaped mole or birthmark.

Though the veracity of these editions of what are probably Knudsen's photos (per his own anecdote) is in question because of the back-of-head patch, the skin near the uppermost mark looks swabbed, though incompletely, and this mark was left, being intrinsic to the skin.

Importantly, the fingers of the two surgeons frame the lower mark, which I think was intentional.

Notice, however, that one surgeon is holding JFK upright by gripping JFK's right shoulder. What effect does this have on the placement of the two marks?

David, your comment about the "veracity of these editions" makes me wonder why in the world we place any confidence in this photo in the first place. The most prominent feature in the photo, since it shows the back of the head, should have been the avulsive wound described by Perry, McClelland et al. Since we do not see this, the photo has been doctored in some way to conceal it. The improprieties in protocol attached to the current set of photos is old news. Whatever this photo claims to show is for public consumption, not for a faithful rendering of the actual condition of the body at Parkland. If this is true for the back of the head, we cannot trust what it claims to show below on the back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The uppermost dark mark has always looked like a superficial skin mark to me, such as an irregularly-shaped mole or birthmark.

Though the veracity of these editions of what are probably Knudsen's photos (per his own anecdote) is in question because of the back-of-head patch, the skin near the uppermost mark looks swabbed, though incompletely, and this mark was left, being intrinsic to the skin.

Importantly, the fingers of the two surgeons frame the lower mark, which I think was intentional.

Notice, however, that one surgeon is holding JFK upright by gripping JFK's right shoulder. What effect does this have on the placement of the two marks?

David, your comment about the "veracity of these editions" makes me wonder why in the world we place any confidence in this photo in the first place. The most prominent feature in the photo, since it shows the back of the head, should have been the avulsive wound described by Perry, McClelland et al. Since we do not see this, the photo has been doctored in some way to conceal it. The improprieties in protocol attached to the current set of photos is old news. Whatever this photo claims to show is for public consumption, not for a faithful rendering of the actual condition of the body at Parkland. If this is true for the back of the head, we cannot trust what it claims to show below on the back.

I admit all that - though Bob Harris has a point when he claims to see an abrasion collar around the lower mark, and I believe the two surgeons have bracketed the wound with their fingertips on the ruler.

I recently heard repeated (I think on Black Op Radio) Knudsen's friend's anecdote about Knudsen showing him the back-of-head pictures with and without the wound patch, before the Secret Service arrived and confiscated Knudsen's originals. I don't have access to any better reporting than that, but in the several times I've heard this story I don't ever recall hearing Knudsen complain about the back wound being moved in the reshoots. I realize this constitutes proof of nothing.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

There are some nice posts here, where the location of the back wound--5.5" below the collar to the right of the spinal column--proves the existence of conspiracy by itself, since the wound to the throat and the wounds to John Connally have to be explained on the basis of other shots and other shooters. We know the location from the holes in the shirt and the jacket, Boswell diagram, Sibert diagram, Berkley's death certificate and reenactment photographs from the Warren Commission itself. We know that Ford had the description of the wound changed from his "uppermost back" to "the base of the back of the neck". We also know that the "magic bullet" trajectory is not even anatomically possible. Even Evan Thomas Robinson confirmed the location of the wound. I presented all of this during an international conference in Cambridge and published it in an international peer-reviewed journal. This is therefore one more example of an issue that has long since been resolves--though I like the idea of exploring another proof, as Robert Harris has done. See "Reasoning about Assassinations" for a compilation of the evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim,

You are spot on, commenting on the Connally wounds: it is fatal flaw of the assassination. As a researcher commented to me recently, it is an area that has attracted too little attention. I believe I can now prove exactly when it took place and from what source. Nor is it the only wound that John Connally suffered that day. I can't yet prove it, as I can with the thorax wound, but I believe I know precisely when the other wound occurred.

I am not sure whether I read your article, however I made a copy to read later.

One error, I have noticed and I am sorry to point out, in that article is the MRI scan by Dr. Mantik. Unless he has inverted the image, and I apologise in advance if he has, he has placed the entry point in JFK's left side of the back... not his right.

In MRI scans I believe the identification of Right and Left is highlighted from the posterior side and not the anterior.

Put another way. In your mind rotate the image 180º on the vertical - so it is standing upright.

Now rotate another 180º leftwards - so we are looking at the image from the left.

If you do that you will see the line is entering from the left and not the right.

James

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some nice posts here, where the location of the back wound--5.5" below the collar to the right of the spinal column--proves the existence of conspiracy by itself, since the wound to the throat and the wounds to John Connally have to be explained on the basis of other shots and other shooters. We know the location from the holes in the shirt and the jacket, Boswell diagram, Sibert diagram, Berkley's death certificate and reenactment photographs from the Warren Commission itself. We know that Ford had the description of the wound changed from his "uppermost back" to "the base of the back of the neck". We also know that the "magic bullet" trajectory is not even anatomically possible. Even Evan Thomas Robinson confirmed the location of the wound. I presented all of this during an international conference in Cambridge and published it in an international peer-reviewed journal. This is therefore one more example of an issue that has long since been resolves--though I like the idea of exploring another proof, as Robert Harris has done. See "Reasoning about Assassinations" for a compilation of the evidence.

Clint Hill was also called in late at night (2:45 a.m.) by Kellerman to verify the location of the wound which Hill then called an "opening in the back." This was about 6 inches below the top of his shoulder.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

Nice! Kellerman also confirmed Clint Hill's description of his actions in his testimony to the Warren Commission, during which he stated that he "looked back and saw Clint Hill lying across the trunk". It was really the back seat, but all before reaching the TUP.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

James, I will ask David about this. The same scan with the same orientation appears in COVER-UP (1998) by Stewart Galanor as Document 45. There is a scale on the right side of the image as published. I can't imagine David would make such a mistake, but I will inquire.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have removed this post.

I apologise, I was in error about how to read a CT scan.

Pat is right about what how a CT scan should be read. I had not realised that.

The suggestion that David Mantik's was in error is also wrong. I was the one who was in error.

James.

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

Wow. . I have a whole bunch of points to make.

1. Robert is wrong in claiming no one has used the ruler to measure before. I did it 6 pr 7 years ago, and have posted my slide on this on this forum several times. I'm fairly certain I showed this slide at the 2009 COPA conference as well. It's currently on my website. The top wound is the wound measured by Humes. And you don't have to take my say-so on it. Assume the smaller wound is 7mm wide, and then extrapolate from that the size of the body, and you'll see that the body would have to have been gigantic for that wound to be 7mm.

2. The reason people think the bullet passed through Connally, and not on the outside of his rib, is the exit location, combined with the exit on the jacket. They are both near the middle of his body, and not at the right side. If Gary Murr, or some other expert on Connally thinks otherwise, I'd appreciate their chiming in.

3. I suspect James Gordon assumes we are looking up in Mantik's cross-section when it seems pretty clear we're looking down. I don't recall if there's a proper way to present a cross-section, but I'm pretty sure most layman would look at one under the assumption we a re looking down.

4. Shortly after I used the ruler to measure the wound, I was contacted by, if I'm not mistaken, Martin Hinrichs,. He'd cleaned up the back wound photo considerably, and was able to demonstrate to my satisfaction that the ruler in the photo was not 12 inches, but a centimeter ruler closer to 15 inches, if I recall. So Robert's assumption the ruler is 12 inches long--the assumption I'd made as well--is incorrect.

5. David mentioned "Knudsen's friend." I assume he is thinking of Joe O'Donnell. After O'Donnell's death, it was discovered that he had been suffering from dementia since at least the early 90's, and that his dementia centered around the Kennedy family. He'd claimed he'd taken pictures of the Kennedys that were known to have been taken by others, etc. He'd also told Doug Horne he'd edited the Zapruder film at Mrs. Kennedy's instruction. The man was clearly loopy. And it's far worse than that. O'Donnell was brought to Horne's attention through the research community, not through the government's records. As a consequence, there is NO evidence O'Donnell even knew Knudsen. The Knudsen family had never heard of him, and several colleagues of Knudsen's were asked after O'Donnell's dementia became public if they recalled O'Donnell, and none did. So, just a thought... Until SOME researcher spends a day or two doing real research and is able to prove Knudsen and O'Donnell were in fact pals, let's stop pretending O'Donnell was anything more than some demented old man telling stories.

6. Paul Seaton's appraisal of T-1's location in the neck is laughably inaccurate, and should not be relied upon. The HSCA FPP determined the neck wound was slightly above a wound on Kennedy's back at the T-1 level of his spine, Seaton embraced an inaccurate depiction of T-1 within the neck so he could claim a bullet entering at T-1 would be well above the exit on the throat. It horrifies me that Robert fell for it.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to post
Share on other sites

5. David mentioned "Knudsen's friend." I assume he is thinking of Joe O'Donnell. After O'Donnell's death, it was discovered that he had been suffering from dementia since at least the early 90's.... As a consequence, there is NO evidence O'Donnell even knew Knudsen. The Knudsen family had never heard of him, and several colleagues of Knudsen's were asked after O'Donnell's dementia became public if they recalled O'Donnell, and none did.

You're right - I remember reading about O'Donnell's problems and unreliability, but I hadn't associated those with the originator of the unretouched photos anecdote, who has been given credence elsewhere. Thanks for putting me on the track to checking out exactly when O'Donnell's tales started being accepted and repeated.

I don't see anyone pretending about things, though, Pat. I brought up l'affaire Knudsen hoping someone else could shed some light on the pictures. Thanks for doing so.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to post
Share on other sites

2. The reason people think the bullet passed through Connally, and not on the outside of his rib, is the exit location, combined with the exit on the jacket. They are both near the middle of his body, and not at the right side. If Gary Murr, or some other expert on Connally thinks otherwise, I'd appreciate their chiming in.


Pat,

I have spent some time studying the John Connally wounds. Gary Murr is certainly the expert, but I believe I also have some knowledge in this area.

As you point out the bullet did not enter the thorax or body cavity. It traveled along the line of the fifth rib. Whem it did strike the 5th rib it caused considerable damage to the rib bone and it was the fragments caused by that strike that entered the body cavity and created the internal damage like the damage to the right lung.

You raise the issue of the damage to Connally’s clothes and the contradiction that raises. I believe that can be accounted for by the position John Connally was sitting in the car, at the time, as well as the source from where the bullet originated.

On Saturday 23rd November 1963 Robert Shaw and Tom Shires held a Press Conference. Robert Shaw is asked by a reporter how close the bullet came to striking a vital organ. In answering that question, Robert Shaw describes how the bullet passed through John Connally’s body.

http://s1187.photobu...zpsb4f4b063.mp4

James

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

Here is what I came up with.James. In retrospect I should have oriented the entrance and exit trajectories in the same manner.

connchest.jpg

P.S. The HSCA FPP concluded the bullet passed through the lung, and not just along the outside of the rib, a la Shaw. The lone supporter of Shaw's on the FPP was Charles Petty, a fellow resident of Dallas. I don't think this was a coincidence. Petty was perhaps the most adamant LN among the FPP. Having the bullet hit the rib just once, and then traveling along the outside of the rib, helped support that the bullet striking Connally was CE399. It should be noted, moreover, that the simulation performed for Beyond the Magic Bullet had the bullet impact on the rib just once...which was in direct opposition to the conclusions of the HSCA FPP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...