Pat Speer Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 (edited) I have recently re-appraised my interpretation of the 1-26-67 report of the autopsy doctors. Here's the description of the bullet's exit contained within the report. Exit.The autopsy report further states that there was a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions, with an actual absence of scalp and bone measuring approximately 13 cm. (5.12 inches) at the greatest diameter. In non-technical language, this means that a large section of the skull on the right side of the head was torn away by the force of the missile. Photographs Nos. 5-10 inclusive, 17, 18, 26-28, 32-37 inclusive, 44 and 45 portray this massive head wound, and verify that the largest diameter was approximately 13 cm. The report further states that one of the fragments of the skull bone, received from Dallas, shows a portion of a roughly circular wound presumably of exit which exhibits beveling of the outer aspect of the bone, and the wound was estimated to be approximately 2.5 to 3.0 cm. (1 to 1.18 inches) in diameter. X-ray Nos. 4, 5 and 6 show this bone fragment and the embedded metal fragments. Photographs Nos. 17, 18, 44 and 45 show the other half of the margin of the exit wound; and also show the beveling of the bone characteristic of a wound of exit. Photographs Nos. 44 and 45 also show that the point of exit of the missile was much larger than the point of entrance, being 30 mm. (1.18 inches) at its greatest diameter. Photographs 5-10 inclusive, 32-37 inclusive, 44 and 45 show the location of the head wound, and verify the accuracy of the Warren Commission drawings (Exhibits 386 and 388, Vol. XVI, pp. 977 and 984) which depict the location of the head wound. My conclusion the doctors oriented the photo as above leads me to be even more suspicious of the Clark Panel. It was convened in secret, barely a year later. The Panel told the Justice Department not only that photos 44 and 45 didn't actually show an exit at the top of the back of the head, but that they were actually photos taken from the front, with forehead in the foreground. The photos are mentioned three times in the Clark Panel's report. First, in an inventory of the autopsy materials, and then two more times in the discussion of these materials. Cranial cavity with brain removed viewed from above and in front#1(18JB), 2(17JB), 44, 45 ... Photographs 1, 2, 44 and 45 show the frontal region of theskull and a portion of the internal aspect of the back of theskull. Due to lack of contrast of structures portrayed and lackof clarity of detail in these photographs, the only conclusionreached by The Panel from study of this series was that there wasno existing bullet defect in the supraorbital region of theskull. ... The photographs donot disclose where this bullet emerged from the head althoughthose showing the interior of the cranium with the brain removedindicate that it did not emerge from the supraorbital region. Edited February 12, 2014 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Tame Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Pat, If I remember right, the doctors originally listed this photo as the entrance in the back of the head. I thought the Clark Panel also changed the numbers on these photos in addition to changing it to the front of the head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted February 12, 2014 Author Share Posted February 12, 2014 (edited) Pat, If I remember right, the doctors originally listed this photo as the entrance in the back of the head. I thought the Clark Panel also changed the numbers on these photos in addition to changing it to the front of the head. Yes, that's what I was getting at. In the November 1, 1966 inventory, Humes and Boswell listed the photo as one of an entrance wound on the posterior skull. In January 1967 they turned around and said it showed the exit wound described at autopsy. Most everyone agreed they'd changed their interpretation from that of a photo of the back of the head to a photo of the front of the head. The McAdams crowd--and Bugliosi--have argued that this is a factoid, and that the doctors always believed the photo to be one of the front of the head. To do this, they offer that the doctors' original claim it showed an entrance wound on the posterior skull was correct--in that it showed the interior aspect of an entrance wound on the posterior skull. This, believe it or not, is also the conclusion of the HSCA FPP. They hold that it shows the exit wound in the foreground and entrance wound in the background. When asked about all this by the ARRB, the autopsy doctors said they were confused by the photo and left it at that. I think we now know why. When Humes peeled back the scalp during the autopsy he noted a big old hole. When examining the autopsy photos with Finck in 67 he further noted a small piece of beveled bone. So he claimed the photo showed a portion of the exit. He didn't say exactly where it was, however. Well, then the Clark Panel came along and said UH OH, we can't have that bone be on the back of the head...Garrison and the critics will have a field day with it... So, PRESTO...the bone becomes frontal bone. The same way the entrance wound moved up 4 inches. The same way the fragment behind the eye suddenly became a 6.5 mm fragment high on the back of the head... To their credit, the Clark Panel failed to say the photo showed an exit on the forehead and an entrance on the inside of the back of the head... Not so the HSCA Panel. Edited February 13, 2014 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Pat, How again are pictures taken after Humes destroys the evidence ROSE would have found in a Dallas autopsy, related to anything that happened in Dallas? The medical evidence offered is pretty straight forward Pat... what Boswell describes could NOT have happened in Dallas ... That you seriously continue to use WCR evidence to represent what actually occurred in Dallas is simply amazing to me... and then you go ahead and believe the word of the same people who pulled the wool over your eyes... Representing the autopsy materials as EVIDENCE OF WHAT OCCURRED in "DALLAS" as opposed to at Humes' hands is doing a terrible disservice to the understanding of the events... Is that the purpose Pat? Are you so caught up in your own research and conclusions that you no longer can tell the difference between Cover-up and Truth? I realize that if Humes' did what it appears he did, a lot of the work you've done needs to be rethought... which in itself is good reason not to believe it... You do realize it requires an entire army of qualified professional CIVILIANS to be wrong, while the body, stolen and placed in Military hands with Military doctors and threats of Court-martial, remains the "evidence" on which you base your conclusions as to what occurred... even though it also flies in the face of the DP witnesses as well... even the Military/Gov't ones... Mr. HILL. 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. Please take a minute and reconcile this image for us... if the damage at BETHESDA was identical to what was seen in Dallas... the entire right front of his skull is GONE... Please list the people in DALLAS who said anything about the entire skull being gone from the Coronal Suture forward... let alone saying ANYTHING other than about the small wounds to the temples. I've down this with you before Pat... I've posted detailed images of what is represented by their presentation of the autopsy "Facts"... and nothing in Dallas resembles it at all... I am terribly sorry if I appear a thorn in your work Pat... yet I simply can't stand by while you try to convince people that the WCR/HSCA Medical evidence is anything but a complete sham and cover-up, NOT of a 2nd bullet hitting JFK and blowing off the front of his skull, but of the horrible reality of what was done to JFK to obscure the evidence of a frontal shot. DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted February 13, 2014 Author Share Posted February 13, 2014 Your post is irrelevant, David. You can believe whatever you want. But this thread is not on who did what on 11-22-63. It's on what was said afterwards. And it seems clear to me that at least at one point the doctors believed the bullet entered low on the back of the head and exited high on the back of the head. One might think those wanting to convince others there was an exit on the back of the head would welcome this with open arms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) Your post is irrelevant, David. You can believe whatever you want. But this thread is not on who did what on 11-22-63. It's on what was said afterwards. And it seems clear to me that at least at one point the doctors believed the bullet entered low on the back of the head and exited high on the back of the head. One might think those wanting to convince others there was an exit on the back of the head would welcome this with open arms. and one - you - would be wrong... since your entire premise relies on a shot from behind and fraudulent evidence... The jist of the matter is you believe the Military testimony in favor of observations from people not threatened with court-martial.... How you so easily dismiss the lying and conflicts is what remains the greatest mystery... Are you so tied to your conclusions about the wounds being the same and unaltered between Dallas and Bethesda that you cannot even DISCUSS other evidence? If what you are saying is truly a "revelation" why then does the BETHESDA EVIDENCE not support that conclusion... THAT evidence shows the entire right FRONT - beyond the coronal suture - GONE While the Anterior shows no bone in the right rear where there is plenty in the lateral... the xrays conflict with each other and the xrays in total conflict with the photos The rest of the evidence offered from Bethesda describes a craniotomy already performed by 8pm.... I posted those procedures - which you also ignored - and asked how a shot or shots that did not disrupt the left side of the interior of the skull accomplished all the necessary incisions to allow the brain to just FALL OUT.... Liars on the 22nd of Nov, 1963 remained liars for the rest of thier lives.... a good portion of the Senior staff at Bethesda was either involved or aware of what happened between 6:40pm and 8pm.... People like Ebersole and Humes where told what was needed and they did it... going so far as to place foreign objects on the xrays or removing identifcation markers on JFK's organs, or even removing pages from log books... The cover-up was solidified in the Bethesda Morgue - its too bad that you remain tied to "the world is flat" and "the earth is the center of the universe" type thinking in this case... I will post yet again the RESULTS of the damage as described in the autopsy and by Humes... when (and if) you's take the time to see how this description and it's representation on the body cannot have possible been the condition of the skull at PARKLAND, maybe you will have learned something about anatomy and conspiracy... until then you continue to blow "shot from behind" menthol smoke up our a$$es and then ask if we all feel "minty fresh". When you can convince ANYONE that these injuries were evident in Parkland... when he was lifted and moved and jostled and dealt with... and his skull apparently did not come apart in anyone's hands... pieces of scalp did not fall off.. and the only hole anyone recalls is a 2-3 inch one in the right rear of his head.... Commander HUMES - Exhibit 391 is listed as a supplementary report on the autopsy of the late President Kennedy, and was prepared some days after the examination. This delay necessitated by, primarily, our desire to have the brain better fixed with formaldehyde before we proceeded further with the examination of the brain which is a standard means of approach to study of the brain. The brain in its fresh state does not lend itself well to examination. From my notes of the examination, at the time of the post-mortem examination, we noted that clearly visible in the large skull defect and exuding from it was lacerated brain tissue which, on close inspection proved to represent the major portion of the right cerebral hemisphere. We also noted at this point that the flocculus cerebri was extensively lacerated and that the superior sagittal sinus which is a venous blood containing channel in the top of the meninges was also lacerated. To continue to answer your question with regard to the damage of the brain, following the formal infixation, Dr. Boswell, Dr. Finck and I convened to examine the brain in this state. We also prepared photographs of the brain from several aspects to depict the extent of these injuries. We found that the right cerebral hemisphere was markedly disrupted. 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. The area in which the 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 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 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 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. This has been described as contre-coup injury in that location. This, then, I believe, Mr. Specter, are the major points with regard to the President's head wound. Edited February 13, 2014 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted February 13, 2014 Author Share Posted February 13, 2014 You may not realize it, David, but you are trolling. I started a thread about what is being said in a document, and your posts are little more than diatribes about how you don't care what the document says because etc etc etc. If you want to start a thread on the evidence supporting YOUR theory, please start that thread. But in the meantime, please allow those wanting to read about and discuss the January 67 report the chance to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 You may not realize it, David, but you are trolling. I started a thread about what is being said in a document, and your posts are little more than diatribes about how you don't care what the document says because etc etc etc. If you want to start a thread on the evidence supporting YOUR theory, please start that thread. But in the meantime, please allow those wanting to read about and discuss the January 67 report the chance to do so. Asking you to explain yourself is not trolling Pat... The January 1967 report you say is the point of this thread... "what was said afterward" Your post is irrelevant, David. You can believe whatever you want. But this thread is not on who did what on 11-22-63. It's on what was said afterwards. And it seems clear to me that at least at one point the doctors believed the bullet entered low on the back of the head and exited high on the back of the head. One might think those wanting to convince others there was an exit on the back of the head would welcome this with open arms. How does "what was said afterward" not have to do specifically and exactly with what transpired prior to the creation of the evidence being reviewed? http://www.patspeer.com/chapter13%3Asolvingthegreatheadwoundmyster In May 1975, former Warren Commission counsel W. David Slawson and Richard M. Mosk wrote an article for the L.A. Times.... <snip> ... in this article the dynamic duo made the amazing claim that "The evidence concerning the wounds conclusively dispels the idea of shots from the front...The wounds both slanted downward from Kennedy's back. This is clear beyond doubt from the autopsy and from the photographs and X rays of the body...to doubt the evidence of the wounds is to label as liars the doctors who examined the body, the pictures and the X rays for the commission." Well, this was more disgusting nonsense. Pure horsesh!t..... This is from your conclusion page: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter20%3Aconclusionsandconfusions%3A - So it's pure BS to say that shots did not hit from the front... yet you conclude that any shot from the front MISSED... As I read thru this vital section I look for waht the people in DALLAS said about the headwound... Clint Hill, Jackie, Nurses and Drs at Parkland, Father Huber, AMAZINGLY you fail to mention a single impression of the HEAD WOUND (while you pound the SBT/Back/Throat wound to death over a number of chapters...)... Your avoidance of the DALLAS head wound evidence is very telling Pat... More to come... Sound or Shot #4.Approximate firing time: Zapruder frame 320-327. Missed or possibly not even a shot. Quite possibly a loud firecracker used as a diversionary device. From: somewhere west of the Texas School Book Depository, possibly the railroad yards, but more probably the back of the arcade north of the grassy knoll, or the parking lot across the street. <snip> A diversionary device set off in this location would, of course, draw attention from the buildings behind the President when he was shot. If this was the plan, of course...it worked. In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, the bulk of the Police and eyewitnesses looking for the shooter ran towards the grassy knoll and railroad yards, and ignored the buildings behind the motorcade. What complete morons, right? Thinking that a shot came from the front.. not one or two or even 10 people, but scores of witnesses... So, now back to MD14 - the topic of the thread...: Everything that comes afterward STARTS MD14: The autopsy began at approximately 8:OO P. M, on Friday, November 22, 1963, and was concluded approximately at 11: 00 PM. The autopsy report, written by Dr. Humes with the assistance of Dr. Boswell and Dr. Finck, was written on November 23 and the morning of November 24, and delivered by Dr. Humes to Admiral Burkley, the President’s physician, on November 24 at about 6:30 P. M. Q. During the autopsy, was the room quiet and hushed or noisy and bustling? How would you describe the scene? A. It varied. We were there for a long time. We were there from about 6:00 or 6:30 in the evening until 5 o'clock the next morning. Q. Dr. Humes, when did you first see the body of President Kennedy? A. I didn't look at my watch, if I even had a watch on, but I would guess it was 6:45 or 7 o'clock, something like that, approximately Q. Who else was in the room when the casket was opened? A. Oh, I can't tell you that. Dr. Boswell and I removed the body from the caske .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 (edited) The mere fact it is stated the wound is chiefly parietal but extending into the temporal and occipital regions is enough to raise red flags. While there have been attempts to elasticize the term "occipital region" on this forum, medical dictionaries are pretty much unanimous in defining the occipital region as that area of the head overlying the occipital bone; said bone being located entirely in the back of the head. As 100% of the right occipital region, plus a goodly part of the right parietal region, of JFK's head is visible in the back-of-head autopsy photo, why is no large wound visible in those regions? Edited February 14, 2014 by Robert Prudhomme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 I think Pat may be on the right track. I'm not convinced that "all" of the evidence is faked; rather, I'm fairly well convinced that the conclusions don't reflect what IS in the evidence. So why CAN'T we let Pat explore this area? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Pat can explore anything he wants. I'm just saying, the autopsy report contradicts the photographic evidence so badly, I find it hard to take any of it seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Tame Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 On Feb. 1, 1965, apparently in response to Gen. Blumbergs request for a copy of his notes, Finck states that only the entrance wound showed "a portion of a crater" and "No exit wound is identifiable at this time in the skull, . . ." The only evidence of the exit wound is on the late arriving bone fragments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Discussion is fine... as long it is really a discussion and not soapbox theater.... Mark, Scott, Robert, et al... the work we are discussing stems directly from the evidence created at Bethesda.... Could you please tell me what you think occurred at Bethesda between 6:35 and 8pm - especially when the ambulance pulls up outside with an empty casket.. Thanks DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Tame Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 If you're going to create evidence at Bethesda, you don't need a casket shell game to accomplish it. But you should probably create a head wound that supports a shot from above and behind. And if you're going create evidence at Bethesda, why throw a bullet on some random stretcher in Parkland when you can magically pull one out of the shallow back wound instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 If you're going to create evidence at Bethesda, you don't need a casket shell game to accomplish it. But you should probably create a head wound that supports a shot from above and behind. And if you're going create evidence at Bethesda, why throw a bullet on some random stretcher in Parkland when you can magically pull one out of the shallow back wound instead. Well Scott... what was needed or not is - imo - not something those outside the plan would easily or readily understand..... there is quite a bit of direct testimony that conflcits with the official 8pm arrival time... Dr. Humes himself tells us he sees the body, in the morgue, AFTER he and Boswell take him out of the casket, between 6:45 and 7pm - that conflicts with ALL the official accounts. The ambulance from Andrews with the casket only just arrives at 7pm... so when did they take the body out of the PARKLAND casket so that he is not in it when the ambulance arrives? (btw - ever read O'Connor's recollections? or LIPSEY who claims to have been at a meeting at Andrews where DECOYS were discussed - yet he never explains how or when JFK got from the PARKLAND CASKET to the decoy...) --- Am I reading you correctly? ...you believe the evidence offered from the autopsy supports a single shot from above and behind? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21028#entry284612 - my post #6 above... I'm not a doctor, yet I can read and connect the dots.... please post what you believe the evidence for a single shot from the rear is - within the evidence NOT Humes' conclusion or narrative, but the actual description of the wounds and the processes HUMES went thru to remove the brain... As I see it, Humes' job was to remove evidence of the frontal kill shot... in the process, the skull was so damaged that ANY resemblence to the wound as it appeared in Dallas was obliterated. READ their description and plot it yourself on a skull... if you think what I offered was biased or wrong... other PROS who have read the description stated it appeared as if JFK was hit with an axe that extended from the occipitol to the forehead... 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 What this says is that there was a TROUGH, a mini canyon an inch to the right of midline almost 2 inches deep into the TOP his head... while somehow there is damage to the third ventricle and the base of the brain... all from a bullet identical - supposedly and according to the WCR - that destroys ribs and wrist bones and comes out unscathed, while this bullet virtually disappears... Simply amazing that at this point in our understanding we need to explain the differences between Bethesda's resulting wounds which were horrifyingly massive runing the entire lenght of the skul, and the wound in Dallas Within 15 seconds of the injury this SS agent was less than 2 feet from the man... and he corroborates the testimony of EVERYONE in Dallas who sees the wounds... Mr. HILL. 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. Here is what we are given as "evidence" - makes me nauseous that we as a community have to still disagree over the validity of the BETHESDA evidence.... as how it reates in no way to the events in Dallas... And finally Scott... that you bring up CE399 as if it was EVER in Dallas is again... surprising. In 1963 there was NEVER going to be a challenge of the evidence... so CE399 did its intended job... Until finally it was shown to be the forgery it was... according to the evidence CE399 - THAT BULLET - only comes into being when SS CHEIF ROWLEY hands it to Todd to bring to FBI Frazier... 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