Robert Prudhomme Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 You need some serious help, Pat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Pat, The fact that Humes, Boswell and Finck identified the photos as being legitimate was hardly surprising. After all, this was their autopsy. And since not a single aspect of their autopsy is free from suspicion, again I ask- why would you believe the photos and x-rays resulting from this "Bowery bum" fiasco are legitimate? They prove there was more than one shooter. Why should I NOT believe them? I mean, what kind of a conspiracy to convince us there was no conspiracy fakes evidence that prove a conspiracy? Isn't that a wee bit counter-productive? No sir, the work done by Humes on the skull which was photographed and xrayed does NOT prove anything about a 2nd shooter. The only thing the medical evidence proves is that the wound in DALLAS and the wounds as recorded in Bethesda are no where near the same and that any evidence for frontal shots was obliterated with the conclusion that one bullet from behind did ALL the damage recorded. The fact that there are entrance wounds on the front of the body and that JC was not hit with the SBT - and all the DP/Parkland witnesses who say so - PROVES there was more than one shooter. The medical evidence as prepared offers no such thing until it is put within the context of the event. The EVIDENCE proves conspiracy Pat, nothing else... Unless you know a bit about what happened in DP and what ALL the witnesses say you would have a tough time finding evidence of a shot from the front in the WCR evidence. The report and every report since has confirmed only one thing - Oswald shot three times from the rear. The medical conspiracy/cover-up had much more to do with hiding who did it and how, than proving Oswald did it... it doesn't SHOW anything it HIDES everything. Maybe help us out here Pat and show us one thing in the medical record which proves multiple shooters - that you can PROVE was seen in Dallas and not created in the morgue. and that you would believe the conspiracy was created to convince us there was no conspiracy is just sad... The conspiracy was designed to be seen thru so that we would spend 50+ years doing what we are doing while the perpetrators continue to do their thing - us none the wiser. To this day we still have very little real idea who did what, when and how... and Oswald is still guilty in the history books. I'd say the conspiracy worked just fine Pat... you should not believe them because they are not believable, they can't be authenticated, and it's as plain as the nose on your face... I sure hope you get around to finding that out... you defending the WCR medical evidence is just weird. It is not the "WCR medical evidence" as the medical evidence is in opposition to the WCR's conclusions. If you believe this is false, then please please please explain why Specter lied about the back wound location? And the strap muscles? And the shrinkage of the skull? And why did the Rydberg drawings depict Kennedy leaning further forward than he was in the Zapruder film? And why did the mystery photo change from being a photo of the back of the head to a photo of the front of the head? And why did the Clark Panel suddenly find a new location for the head wound? And why did the HSCA FPP choose to pretend the scalp was intact at the supposed exit, and that the bullet broke up after leaving the skull? When one reads medical textbooks and studies the medical evidence, as opposed to the nonsense published by the likes of Harrison Livingstone, who has no understanding of x-rays, it becomes clear that the autopsy photos and x-rays (WHICH WE WERE NEVER SUPPOSED TO SEE) strongly suggested that there was more than one shooter, and that the justice department used experts to cover this up. But feel free to chase goblins if that floats your boat. Vince Palamara asked me to clarify a point about what I thought. I have done so numerous times. If you honestly feel the autopsy photos and x-rays suggest there was but one shooter, feel free to start a new thread on why this is, and I will meet you there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Sorry Pat - but you don't seem to be getting this at all... WHAT in the medical evidence strongly suggests there was more than one shooter which can be distinguished from the work HUMES did on the skull, brain and spinal cord? HOW would you know the difference between a scalpel cut of the spinal cord at the base of the brain... and second bullet? Were any of these paths illustrated and recorded in the medical evidence YOU are referring to here? And Pat, we don't NEED the medical eviodence to deduce there was more than one shooter... we need NOTHING PAST what was seen in DALLAS to prove this. EVERYTHING else was created to point to Oswald on the 6th floor... which, given the shot from the front that tore out the back of his head, was a pretty daunting task. Do you simply not understand that the skull does not FALL EASILY AWAY from the scalp, nor does the brain simply FALL out of the skull once opened? That there is connective tissue all around the brain... The LEFT SIDE of the brain was supposedly completely undamaged according to HUMES/BOSWELL HUMES: We found that the right cerebral hemisphere was markedly disrupted. (1)There was a longitudinal laceration of the right hemisphere which was parasagittal in position. By the saggital plane, as you may know, is a plane in the midline which would divide the brain into right and left halves. This laceration was parasagittal. It was situated approximately 2.5 cm. to the right of the midline, and extended from the tip of occipital lobe, which is the posterior portion of the brain, to the tip of the frontal lobe which is the most anterior portion of the brain, and it extended from the top down to the substance of the brain a distance of approximately 5 or 6 cm. The base of the laceration was situated approximately 4.5 cm. below the vertex in the white matter. By the vertex we mean--the highest point on the skull is referred to as the vertex. (DJ: Now Pat - Humes here is saying that this laceration - which runs the entire length of JFK's Brain - extends 5-6cms into the brain...yet he follows with the BASE of the same laceration, as measured from a point HIGHER than the brain, the VERTEX of the skull, and yet the depth is LESS than is seen within the brain itself.... what do you think "it extended from the top down to the substance of the brain a distance of approximately 5 or 6 cm" means?) The area in which the (2) greatest loss of brain substance was particularly in the parietal lobe, which is the major portion of the right cerebral hemisphere. The margins of this laceration at all points were jagged and irregular, with additional lacerations extending in varying directions and for varying distances from the main laceration. In addition, there was (3) a laceration of the corpus callosum which is a body of fibers which connects the two hemispheres of the brain to each other, which extended from the posterior to the anterior portion of this structure, that is the corpus callosum. Exposed in this laceration were portions of the ventricular system in which the spinal fluid normally is disposed within the brain When viewed from above the left cerebral hemisphere was intact. There was engorgement of blood vessels in the meninges covering the brain. We note that the gyri and sulci, which are the convolutions of the brain over the left hemisphere were of normal size and distribution. Those on the right were too fragmented and distorted for satisfactory description.When the brain was turned over and (4) viewed from its basular or inferior aspect, there was found a longitudinal laceration of the mid-brain through the floor of the third ventricle, just behind the optic chiasma and the mammillary bodies.This laceration partially communicates with an oblique (4) 1.5 cm. tear through the left cerebral peduncle. This is a portion of the brain which connects the higher centers of the brain with the spinal cord which is more concerned with reflex actions.There were irregular superficial lacerations over the basular or inferior aspects of the left temporal and frontal lobes. We interpret that these later contusions were brought about when the disruptive force of the injury pushed that portion of the brain against the relative intact skull. Now - add that to the Boswell image post I made and the location of THOSE injuries - and once again please point to what in that evidence convinces YOU there is evidence of a shooter and not HUMES. Okay now Pat... here is a detailed image if the description offered above with the numbers listed matched to their locations...: The BLUE LINE is my best guess as to the single frontal shot that hit him, exploded and sent fragments in a variety of direction. The BLUE arrows at the back of the skull point to the EOP and Humes' entry point. PAT - you are claiming that the wounds labeled 1 and 3 were caused by other shots... that THIS is the evidence for additional shooters found in the medical evidence? I seem to rememebr one Dr described it as someone having taken an ax to the top of JFK's head, slightly to the right of midline, that a bullet does NOT dig a trough thru the body but leaves a path.. "it extended from the top down to the substance of the brain a distance of approximately 5 or 6 cm" That's a pretty DEEP trough for a single bullet no matter which direction it came... IMO this TROUGH is what HUMES cut to get the path of the bullet OUT of the brain... the EVIDENCE does not suggest another bullet, the EVIDENCE shows the obliteration of the shot people witnesses in DP... That WE KNOW it was a shot is not the same as the evidence proving it was... It is MY OPINION that the brain had to be "lost" since the right hemisphere would have shown the trail of particles from the right temple to the right rear... with the brain gone (huge portions removed prior to 8pm) there was only the TOP trail of particles remaining... if those are even JFK's skull. The LEFT SIDE shows no damage, andn o sawing was needed so maybe help us understand what separated the Brain from Skull from Scalp on the LEFT side so that virtually no craniotomy was necessary Q: Had any work been done on President Kennedy's body in regard to the performing of the autopsy by the time you got there?FINCK: As I recall, the brain had been removed. Dr. Humes told me that to remove the brain he did not have to carry out the procedure you carry out when there is no wound in the skull. The wound was of such an extent, over five inches in diameter, that it was not of a great difficulty for him to remove this brain, and this is the best of my recollection Your statement is that there is proof of multiple shooters in the medical evidence... all I see is proof of what Humes did... Can you link or paste or anything to convey your understanding of how these injuries are related to gunshots... Thanks DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crites Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 (from above, quoting Clint Hill) I observed another wound on the right rear portion of the skull." (Many years later, in numerous interviews and television appearances, Hill would clarify just what he meant by the “right rear portion” and would point to a location above his right ear.) and you wrote, While many people studying the Kennedy assassination have convinced themselves there was a “blow-out” wound involving chiefly occipital bone low on the back of Kennedy’s head, there is virtually nothing to support this in the earliest statements regarding Kennedy’s wounds… IT IS A MYTH. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Clint Hill was a back of the head witness when he testified UNDER OATH. Sorry, but he was. Now he changes his recollection so he can show his mug on corporate media, suck up $$ for a book deal, and cover the FBI's ass. But the Parkland Medical Professionals, dedicated people with no affiliation with the government, are a myth? You got that backasswards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 John... well put.. We need to remember that a lot of work from Mr Speer would be rendered moot should the postion we represent prevail in his mind... just like so many others who hinge their conclusions on assumptions which have no basis in factual evidence, only derived speculation based on their desired conclusions. If HUMES did what Horne and others say he did, Pat is SOL in proving this same evidence supports a conlcusion from Dealey Plaza.. so he cannot accept that premise and stay true to his work. Presents a real problem. If David and Custer are correct about Pitzer taking an 8mm movie of the arrival and condition of the head... at 6:45, the resulting medical evidence - as WE have speculated - does not reflect this condition.. He claims REED is reliable yet forgets that these cuts thru the forehead by HUMES was done prior to ANY official photos and xrays... When you actually LOOK at the brain, skull, and scalp - understand how they connect - and understand what is done in an autopsy to free the brain from the skull... it is VERY OBVIOUS that most of the brain was cut away and the remainder of the head was destroyed - Since this is not Adric's work, he may be a little more realistic in his review and analysis... sadly Pat has to defend his work and would rather not find out the basis for all of his time and effort is incorrect. “Jenkins stated that the standard incisions in the cranium required to remove the brain — a ‘skull cap’ (his term for a craniotomy) — were not done, because they were not necessary. He thought this might be explained by prior incisions, meaning that some surgery had been done prior to the autopsy [emphasis added by Horne]. He recalled that the damage to the top of the cranium was much more extensive than the damage to the brain itself, which he found unusual. Jenkins recalled Dr. Boswell asking if there had been surgery at Parkland Hospital. He recalled Dr. Humes saying: ‘The brain fell out in my hands,” as he removed the brain from the body.’” Jenkins spoke about the nature of Kennedy’s head wound: “Jenkins recalled the large posterior hole in JFK’s head, but also recalled a small (approximately 5 mm in diameter) hole in the right temporal bone, just forward of and just above the right ear. He saw this quite early in the autopsy, and recalls that Dr. Finck saw this and commented on it. The circumference was gray, which suggested to Jenkins the passage of a bullet. He said that even Dr. Finck speculated that a bullet might have caused this hole.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crites Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Can you believe these dr's saw a wound that large and had the balls to call it an entrance wound? OH, they said they saw some beveling; sure, that explains it all. The audacity of a coup d'état. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 (from above, quoting Clint Hill) I observed another wound on the right rear portion of the skull." (Many years later, in numerous interviews and television appearances, Hill would clarify just what he meant by the “right rear portion” and would point to a location above his right ear.) and you wrote, While many people studying the Kennedy assassination have convinced themselves there was a “blow-out” wound involving chiefly occipital bone low on the back of Kennedy’s head, there is virtually nothing to support this in the earliest statements regarding Kennedy’s wounds… IT IS A MYTH. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Clint Hill was a back of the head witness when he testified UNDER OATH. Sorry, but he was. Now he changes his recollection so he can show his mug on corporate media, suck up $$ for a book deal, and cover the FBI's ass. But the Parkland Medical Professionals, dedicated people with no affiliation with the government, are a myth? You got that backasswards. Clint Hill NEVER demonstrated where he recalled the wound until a decade or so ago, and when he did he placed his hand above his ear. While it's mighty convenient for some to assume he lied about it, this makes little sense in that in these same interviews--in which he pointed above his ear--he was often quite vocal in rejecting the single-bullet theory. One should also take into account that Hill spent some time with Mrs. Kennedy after the shooting, and that she discussed the wounds in private--but within his earshot--on numerous occasions. Well, she claimed the wound was on the top of the head... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 (edited) Sorry Pat - but you don't seem to be getting this at all... WHAT in the medical evidence strongly suggests there was more than one shooter which can be distinguished from the work HUMES did on the skull, brain and spinal cord? HOW would you know the difference between a scalpel cut of the spinal cord at the base of the brain... and second bullet? Were any of these paths illustrated and recorded in the medical evidence YOU are referring to here? And Pat, we don't NEED the medical eviodence to deduce there was more than one shooter... we need NOTHING PAST what was seen in DALLAS to prove this. EVERYTHING else was created to point to Oswald on the 6th floor... which, given the shot from the front that tore out the back of his head, was a pretty daunting task. Do you simply not understand that the skull does not FALL EASILY AWAY from the scalp, nor does the brain simply FALL out of the skull once opened? That there is connective tissue all around the brain... The LEFT SIDE of the brain was supposedly completely undamaged according to HUMES/BOSWELL HUMES: We found that the right cerebral hemisphere was markedly disrupted. (1)There was a longitudinal laceration of the right hemisphere which was parasagittal in position. By the saggital plane, as you may know, is a plane in the midline which would divide the brain into right and left halves. This laceration was parasagittal. It was situated approximately 2.5 cm. to the right of the midline, and extended from the tip of occipital lobe, which is the posterior portion of the brain, to the tip of the frontal lobe which is the most anterior portion of the brain, and it extended from the top down to the substance of the brain a distance of approximately 5 or 6 cm. The base of the laceration was situated approximately 4.5 cm. below the vertex in the white matter. By the vertex we mean--the highest point on the skull is referred to as the vertex. (DJ: Now Pat - Humes here is saying that this laceration - which runs the entire length of JFK's Brain - extends 5-6cms into the brain...yet he follows with the BASE of the same laceration, as measured from a point HIGHER than the brain, the VERTEX of the skull, and yet the depth is LESS than is seen within the brain itself.... what do you think "it extended from the top down to the substance of the brain a distance of approximately 5 or 6 cm" means?) The area in which the (2) greatest loss of brain substance was particularly in the parietal lobe, which is the major portion of the right cerebral hemisphere. The margins of this laceration at all points were jagged and irregular, with additional lacerations extending in varying directions and for varying distances from the main laceration. In addition, there was (3) a laceration of the corpus callosum which is a body of fibers which connects the two hemispheres of the brain to each other, which extended from the posterior to the anterior portion of this structure, that is the corpus callosum. Exposed in this laceration were portions of the ventricular system in which the spinal fluid normally is disposed within the brain When viewed from above the left cerebral hemisphere was intact. There was engorgement of blood vessels in the meninges covering the brain. We note that the gyri and sulci, which are the convolutions of the brain over the left hemisphere were of normal size and distribution. Those on the right were too fragmented and distorted for satisfactory description. When the brain was turned over and (4) viewed from its basular or inferior aspect, there was found a longitudinal laceration of the mid-brain through the floor of the third ventricle, just behind the optic chiasma and the mammillary bodies. This laceration partially communicates with an oblique (4) 1.5 cm. tear through the left cerebral peduncle. This is a portion of the brain which connects the higher centers of the brain with the spinal cord which is more concerned with reflex actions. There were irregular superficial lacerations over the basular or inferior aspects of the left temporal and frontal lobes. We interpret that these later contusions were brought about when the disruptive force of the injury pushed that portion of the brain against the relative intact skull. Now - add that to the Boswell image post I made and the location of THOSE injuries - and once again please point to what in that evidence convinces YOU there is evidence of a shooter and not HUMES. Okay now Pat... here is a detailed image if the description offered above with the numbers listed matched to their locations...: The BLUE LINE is my best guess as to the single frontal shot that hit him, exploded and sent fragments in a variety of direction. The BLUE arrows at the back of the skull point to the EOP and Humes' entry point. PAT - you are claiming that the wounds labeled 1 and 3 were caused by other shots... that THIS is the evidence for additional shooters found in the medical evidence? I seem to rememebr one Dr described it as someone having taken an ax to the top of JFK's head, slightly to the right of midline, that a bullet does NOT dig a trough thru the body but leaves a path.. "it extended from the top down to the substance of the brain a distance of approximately 5 or 6 cm" That's a pretty DEEP trough for a single bullet no matter which direction it came... IMO this TROUGH is what HUMES cut to get the path of the bullet OUT of the brain... the EVIDENCE does not suggest another bullet, the EVIDENCE shows the obliteration of the shot people witnesses in DP... That WE KNOW it was a shot is not the same as the evidence proving it was... It is MY OPINION that the brain had to be "lost" since the right hemisphere would have shown the trail of particles from the right temple to the right rear... with the brain gone (huge portions removed prior to 8pm) there was only the TOP trail of particles remaining... if those are even JFK's skull. The LEFT SIDE shows no damage, andn o sawing was needed so maybe help us understand what separated the Brain from Skull from Scalp on the LEFT side so that virtually no craniotomy was necessary Q: Had any work been done on President Kennedy's body in regard to the performing of the autopsy by the time you got there? FINCK: As I recall, the brain had been removed. Dr. Humes told me that to remove the brain he did not have to carry out the procedure you carry out when there is no wound in the skull. The wound was of such an extent, over five inches in diameter, that it was not of a great difficulty for him to remove this brain, and this is the best of my recollection Your statement is that there is proof of multiple shooters in the medical evidence... all I see is proof of what Humes did... Can you link or paste or anything to convey your understanding of how these injuries are related to gunshots... Thanks DJ As I suspected, you fell for Horne's nonsense, and now think it is a FACT that trumps all others. Humes did not perform a pre-autopsy autopsy. The nature of Kennedy's head wounds proves he was not shot as determined by Humes. So WHY is it that Humes supposedly performed this skullduggery? Just for the fun of it? Edited January 16, 2014 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 (edited) Pat - are you sure you are not now channeling the spirit of David Von Pein? HORNE unconvered more info based on the work of LIFTON - do you have a beef with him too?... If you wish to call out and refute each and every witness from the ARRB who tells of the early casket arrival, the witnessing of HUMES destroying the head, the refusal to allow dissection of the areas of the body HUMES had no time to work on... please do so. Dismissing the evidence cause it destroys your work is understandable... but it does not make it wrong to the rest of us... only to you. Humes himself says he sees the man BEFORE he supposedly arrived... and he goes earlier and earlier as the years pass until he is in the morgue at 6pm. So maybe there WAS a decoy situation put into play - do you believe that Pat? Do you think it was all on the up and up the JFK gets to the morgue so early yet it becomes necessary to FAKE HIS ENTRY again at 8pm, rather than inform everyone that for security the casket in the ambluance was a decoy... not to mention the 7:17 movement of the casket and the lying of the FBI agents as to how long they were left out in th cold at the morgue.... If, in turn, Lipsey is correct about "decoys" the casket taken off the plane did not have JFK in it... when was the switch made? If Lipsey is WRONG about the decoy, and JFK is IN the Casket IN the NAVY AMBULANCE... so who are the xrays of which were developed at the same time? It's what you believe yet you do not bother to even provide a link to your explanations - already thought out and written... YOU know your own work ? So why not simply link us to your extensive explanation of the issue and be done... I'm not wading thru EVERYTHING when you can point to your own work, right? Where do you address the corroborated testimonies of those involved with the 6:35 arrival of the steel casket and the FACT Humes has xrays of the man prior to his official arrival - so as to call Finck who confirms when he gets there the extent of the xrays taken... or the fact that xrays were being done while the ambulance pulls up out front? I'm not even talking about alteration of the wounds at this point... which is easily proven with the BOSWELL drawing... Simply explain what YOU THINK was happening at Bethesda between 6:30 and 8:00pm... Where was JFK all this time and how did he get there? ------------------ Pat - if what we contend is correct and there WAS surgery to the head and body prior to the autopsy... what does that mean to your work and conclusions? Can they coexist or are they mutually exclusive? PS - thanks for addressing the medical illustrations and explanations I took quite a bit of time compiling... the prove that HUMES obliterated the poor man's head and took a shot thru the head and turned it into a bomb going off... I am hoping there are those that appreciate the visual easily explaining the medical evidence to be the fraud it is. Edited January 16, 2014 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 (edited) I think Pat makes a LOT of sense. The more I study the evidence...and the conclusions of the Warren Omission report...the more I'm convinced that the conclusions are NOT supported by the Omission's own evidence. And that is FAR from DVP's position. The more I study the evidence...the more I'm convinced that the truth is found hidden in the available evidence...and that the truth is at odds with the conclusions of the Omission. Edited January 16, 2014 by Mark Knight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crites Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 (from above, quoting Clint Hill) I observed another wound on the right rear portion of the skull." (Many years later, in numerous interviews and television appearances, Hill would clarify just what he meant by the “right rear portion” and would point to a location above his right ear.) and you wrote, While many people studying the Kennedy assassination have convinced themselves there was a “blow-out” wound involving chiefly occipital bone low on the back of Kennedy’s head, there is virtually nothing to support this in the earliest statements regarding Kennedy’s wounds… IT IS A MYTH. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Clint Hill was a back of the head witness when he testified UNDER OATH. Sorry, but he was. Now he changes his recollection so he can show his mug on corporate media, suck up $$ for a book deal, and cover the FBI's ass. But the Parkland Medical Professionals, dedicated people with no affiliation with the government, are a myth? You got that backasswards. Clint Hill NEVER demonstrated where he recalled the wound until a decade or so ago, and when he did he placed his hand above his ear. While it's mighty convenient for some to assume he lied about it, this makes little sense in that in these same interviews--in which he pointed above his ear--he was often quite vocal in rejecting the single-bullet theory. One should also take into account that Hill spent some time with Mrs. Kennedy after the shooting, and that she discussed the wounds in private--but within his earshot--on numerous occasions. Well, she claimed the wound was on the top of the head... His testimony as to the back wound rejected the single bullet theory , his testimony to the rear head wound disproves the lone gunman theory. His statements now are not what he testified under oath to. Period. What he says now or 10 years ago contrary to that - well I already wrote what he's up to. Harold Weisberg said to the effect: "First, you cover the Bureau's ass, then you cover your own ass". Hill's WC testimony: The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head... I remained with Mrs. Kennedy except for one time when I was requested to come to the morgue [at Bethesda] to view the President's body...I saw an opening in the back, about 6 inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Hey Pat, I thought you said earlier that anything told to us by an old man is unreliable because his memory is shot. Or does that just apply to Parkland doctors and not to Clint Hill, who has had an "improvement" in his memory in the last ten years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Crane Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 (edited) I appreciate the visual David.IIRC I think that I read in Lifton`s book that a Dr of some sort who read the autopsy report or Humes descriptions,and stated that " it sounds like someone took a scalpel to JFK`s head" (1/2 inch deep?) One of the quotes by Humes that I don`t think that you mentioned....."Scientifically sir,it`s impossible for this bullet/wound to not have entered or exited" something to that effect. Little quotes like that,tell me that Humes did try to tell us at times what was going on. Edited January 16, 2014 by Michael Crane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crites Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 What he spoke with Jackie about concerning the wounds when he was her SS agent still doesn't change what he testified to under oath Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 (from above, quoting Clint Hill) I observed another wound on the right rear portion of the skull." (Many years later, in numerous interviews and television appearances, Hill would clarify just what he meant by the “right rear portion” and would point to a location above his right ear.) and you wrote, While many people studying the Kennedy assassination have convinced themselves there was a “blow-out” wound involving chiefly occipital bone low on the back of Kennedy’s head, there is virtually nothing to support this in the earliest statements regarding Kennedy’s wounds… IT IS A MYTH. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Clint Hill was a back of the head witness when he testified UNDER OATH. Sorry, but he was. Now he changes his recollection so he can show his mug on corporate media, suck up $$ for a book deal, and cover the FBI's ass. But the Parkland Medical Professionals, dedicated people with no affiliation with the government, are a myth? You got that backasswards. Clint Hill NEVER demonstrated where he recalled the wound until a decade or so ago, and when he did he placed his hand above his ear. While it's mighty convenient for some to assume he lied about it, this makes little sense in that in these same interviews--in which he pointed above his ear--he was often quite vocal in rejecting the single-bullet theory. One should also take into account that Hill spent some time with Mrs. Kennedy after the shooting, and that she discussed the wounds in private--but within his earshot--on numerous occasions. Well, she claimed the wound was on the top of the head... His testimony as to the back wound rejected the single bullet theory , his testimony to the rear head wound disproves the lone gunman theory. His statements now are not what he testified under oath to. Period. What he says now or 10 years ago contrary to that - well I already wrote what he's up to. Harold Weisberg said to the effect: "First, you cover the Bureau's ass, then you cover your own ass". Hill's WC testimony: The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head... I remained with Mrs. Kennedy except for one time when I was requested to come to the morgue [at Bethesda] to view the President's body...I saw an opening in the back, about 6 inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column. I sometimes wonder if people understand the nature of testimony. When someone testifies under oath, it does not indicate they are telling the truth, it only suggests they are telling the truth to the best of their abilities AT THAT POINT IN TIME, within the limits of their language skills. In other words, what one testifies to under oath 3 months after an incident is in most instances less likely to be accurate than what they put down in a statement the day or week of the incident, whether that statement was a sworn statement or not. There's also the problem of interpretation. Words like "back" can be confusing. If you heard a shot from behind, and saw it impact at the top of someone's head above his ear while you were looking at the back of his head, odds are that your immediate response would be that someone had shot the man in the "back" of the head, even though this area is toward the middle of the head. I've been in fights where I was hit behind the ear from the front. My interpretation was that I'd been hit on the side of the head. If I'd been hit in this same location from behind, however, my interpretation would have been that I'd been hit on the back of the head. Hill's early statements suggested the wound was on the back portion of Kennedy's head. The back portion of the head starts about the ear. When finally asked to point out this location, he pointed above his ear. There's no indication whatsoever that he'd changed his mind, or had been coerced into changing his mind. There's no indication whatsoever he was a "back of the head" witness, as interpreted by most CTs, with the "back of the head" meaning the far back of the head, the part that touches the wall when you lean back on the couch. He has always said he thought Oswald, acting alone, fired all the shots. It is an unfair assumption to assume his recollections of the exact wound location, etc. trumps his belief the shots came from behind. The odds are extremely high that if you sat him down and explained that the photos show a wound slightly in front of the ear, a few inches forward of his recollection, he'd defer to the accuracy of the autopsy photos. Virtually everyone else has. Which brings me to my other point. When people testify that they saw a black car race down the street, and there is film that shows the car to be green, it is grossly unfair to claim they testified the film was fake. They did no such thing. They offered testimony that was in opposition to other evidence. This happens all the time. Should this be pointed out to them, and they say the photos are fake, well, then, that's their opinion. But most realize their own limits, and accept that the film is more likely to be accurate. In the Kennedy case, we have virtually no Dealey Plaza witness saying the film is fake, and only a small minority of the witnesses to the body saying the autopsy photos and x-rays are fake. And yet a significant percentage of CTs say the film is fake, and an even larger percentage say the photos are fake. And do so supposedly in the name of the "witnesses" who they in fact think are cowards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now