Scott Tame Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 What I am saying - outright without suggestion whatsoever... is that the 2-3 inch hole in the right rear of JFK's head as seen in Dallas was enlarged to cover the entire right side of the head from back to front... and in the process the original wound was obliterated, the brain showing the path of the bullet - obliterated, and that the skull/scalp/brain injuries described as obvious and evidence to those in the morgue after 8pm - and recorded in the autopsy - were ALL created by HUMES to make it impossible to determine what actually happened. The larger wound dimensions described at Bethedsa can be easily explained by the fact that the hole in the skull was much larger than the hole in the scalp. As for the original wound, the morticians described an area of missing scalp in the back of the head approximately 3 inches across. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 What I am saying - outright without suggestion whatsoever... is that the 2-3 inch hole in the right rear of JFK's head as seen in Dallas was enlarged to cover the entire right side of the head from back to front... and in the process the original wound was obliterated, the brain showing the path of the bullet - obliterated, and that the skull/scalp/brain injuries described as obvious and evidence to those in the morgue after 8pm - and recorded in the autopsy - were ALL created by HUMES to make it impossible to determine what actually happened. The larger wound dimensions described at Bethedsa can be easily explained by the fact that the hole in the skull was much larger than the hole in the scalp. As for the original wound, the morticians described an area of missing scalp in the back of the head approximately 3 inches across. Now it sounds like you're just guessing Scott.... if that was the fact, the autopsy evidence would show a LARGE HOLE in the right rear of the head... it does not... the LARGE OPENING is now extending from the occipial to and thru the FRONTAL BONE... (c'mon here Scott... LOOK at the graphic below, the drawings from Parkland and the xrays which followed... Bell, Crenshaw, McClellend, Sibert, Robinson, even Boswell's initial drawing does not show the entire right side of his skull gone...) Meanwhile the evidence Pat Speer uses does not show anything near a 3, 4 or even 6 inch hole across the back of his head... Pat Speer is telling us the shot came from behind and exited the top right taking with it the entire right portion of the FRONTAL BONE... if there was not bone there Scott... what was holding up his face in the anterior xray?? Why does not a single soul say a single word about the FRONT of his head other than "From the front, nothing".... Scott, if you want to coinvince anyone, how about bringing something to the evidentiary table and support it - kinda simple if you are in the right and have the backing, no? As I asked Pat... maybe you can point to anyone anywhere who drew us a pre 8pm picture of JFK's wounds that looks anything at all like the evidence below.... neither of you seem to be able to do so, nor can you address the 6:40 thru 8pm time period with any sense of reality. For us all, once and for all, explain how xrays of JFK are taken while the ambulance from Andrews is pulling up, while Jackie and Bobby are coming inside, BEFORE the SS/FBI teams bring in THAT casket at 7:17... Can you fashion a post that addresses these key issues or as we are seeing over and over, you and Pat simply avoid what you can't explain...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Tame Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 (edited) As I asked Pat... maybe you can point to anyone anywhere who drew us a pre 8pm picture of JFK's wounds that looks anything at all like the evidence below.... neither of you seem to be able to do so, nor can you address the 6:40 thru 8pm time period with any sense of reality. I don't understand your fixation with 8:00. Are you suggesting that the hole in the scalp was the same size as the hole in the skull? For us all, once and for all, explain how xrays of JFK are taken while the ambulance from Andrews is pulling up, while Jackie and Bobby are coming inside, BEFORE the SS/FBI teams bring in THAT casket at 7:17... Can you fashion a post that addresses these key issues or as we are seeing over and over, you and Pat simply avoid what you can't explain...? I'm still waiting for you to explain the shipping casket O'Connor said came in a 8:00. You seem to be avoiding it. Now it sounds like you're just guessing Scott.... if that was the fact, the autopsy evidence would show a LARGE HOLE in the right rear of the head... it does not... the LARGE OPENING is now extending from the occipial to and thru the FRONTAL BONE... (c'mon here Scott... LOOK at the graphic below, the drawings from Parkland and the xrays which followed... Bell, Crenshaw, McClellend, Sibert, Robinson, even Boswell's initial drawing does not show the entire right side of his skull gone...) Tell me David, do you believe that the x-rays are forgeries or do you believ, like Lifton, that the body was reconstructed for the photos and x-rays? Edited February 19, 2014 by Scott Tame Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Scott... you have way too many questions in your que before I start to address yours.... Deal with Besthesda between 6:40 and 8pm first.... Reconcile O'Connor's 8pm with HUMES' 6:45 first With regards to what I believe about the medical evidence - if you haven't been able to figure it out by now with everything I've posted, I can't help you. Stop avoiding the issue - for the Bethesda evidence to be accurate, nothing had to have happened to JFK's head from Dallas to xrays... Please, and once again, post an image or description of the man's head by ANYONE prior to 8pm - that supports or authenticates the medical evidence offered from the autopsy... Changing the subject with each and every post only undermines your credibility here Scott... Pat's in the same boat... Until you address ALL the ARRB evidence related to Bethesda - you'renot really doing anything but being argumentative.... I posted a very detailed image showing DALLAS versus BETHESDA... repeatedly ignoring the questions in favor of asking your own is a TACTIC Scott... a tactic for ongoing posting with nothing to add, nothing to offer and nothing to rebut. And it's gotten old. Between you and Pat, you'll post everything and anything but the evidence requested - since you don't have any to support the autopsy as an accurate description of JFK's Dallas wounds.. With that said... you and Pat can play these games all you want... you want to believe in Bethesda's honesty... believe. I've posted my say and it speaks for itself. It also fills in for the silence the both of you offer in defense of your "conclusions" Peace out buddy... I'm done with this conversation DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Tame Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Boyers ". . . right side and towards the rear. . ." Ebersole ". . . my recollection is more of a gaping occipital wound . . ." Jenkins ". . . middle temporal region back to the occipital." O'Niell drew a wound above and behind the ear for the HSCA. Reed told the HSCA the wound was very large and located in the right hemisphere in the occipital region. Riebe told the HSCA there was one very large wound located around the rear of the head near the top. Siebert ". . . upper back of the head." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Tame Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 (edited) I posted a very detailed image showing DALLAS versus BETHESDA... repeatedly ignoring the questions in favor of asking your own is a TACTIC Scott... a tactic for ongoing posting with nothing to add, nothing to offer and nothing to rebut. More like Dallas vs. the x-rays, which is quite a bit different than Dallas vs. the Bethesda eyewitnesses and what the autopsy report describes. There is a difference Dave and you need to be specific as to which you are referring to. Just saying Bethesda doesn't cut it. Edited February 20, 2014 by Scott Tame Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Tame Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 (edited) The autopsy photos and x-rays don't match the autopsy report or the descriptions of the wounds by the Bethesda witnesses. Some people believe the photos and x-rays are forgeries while some believe that they are authentic and the body is a "medical forgery." Let's think about that last one for a minute. The body is stolen and wounds are altered to remove evidence of a shot from the rear. Now, after they've gone through all that trouble, they alter the body a second time to produce photos and X-rays that don't even remotely resemble the alterations they just made. Now they have to undo the alterations from the reconstruction so the morticians can reassemble the head with an area of missing scalp in the back. So to recap... we start with a small scalp wound in the back; then scalp is removed from the whole right side from front to back; then scalp is added to hide this wound for photos; and finally a small area of scalp is removed from the back of the head. Makes perfect sense. Edited February 20, 2014 by Scott Tame Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Crane Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 (edited) Joe, Looking real close by the top of the ruler (going from left to right) something could be happening there also. *Referring to the picture on page one. Possible laceration or a split in the image? Edited February 20, 2014 by Michael Crane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted February 20, 2014 Author Share Posted February 20, 2014 (edited) Boyers ". . . right side and towards the rear. . ." Ebersole ". . . my recollection is more of a gaping occipital wound . . ." Jenkins ". . . middle temporal region back to the occipital." O'Niell drew a wound above and behind the ear for the HSCA. Reed told the HSCA the wound was very large and located in the right hemisphere in the occipital region. Riebe told the HSCA there was one very large wound located around the rear of the head near the top. Siebert ". . . upper back of the head." Humes peeled back the scalp and the skull at the back of the head fell to the table. The x-rays shows that the top and back of the head were fractured and likely to fall to the table once the scalp was peeled back. There is no real contradiction between the report and what the witnesses remembered. The pictures didn't always reflect what the witnesses remembered, as is expected in all cases where witnesses are grilled on something that happened years and sometimes decades before. But the majority of the witnesses signed off on the authenticity of the photos and x-rays once shown the originals. Boyers--Not a CT Ebersole--Not a CT--he even signed documents saying that the evidence was legit Jenkins--probably a CT, but not an alterationist. I spoke with him this past November in Dallas, and his words suggested that he believed that the autopsy photos and x-rays are legit. He was adamant, in fact, that there was NO blow-out wound low on the back of the head. O'Neill--Not a CT. Saw no evidence for a shot from the front. Reed--Possibly a CT. Along with Custer and Riebe, Reed signed off on the authenticity of the medical evidence when interviewed by the ARRB, and shown the originals. Sibert--Not a CT. Saw no evidence for a shot from the front. Recalling something in a manner inconsistent with hard evidence--photos, sound recordings--is not the same as saying you believe the hard evidence is fake, or even have doubts about its authenticity... Edited February 20, 2014 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Boyers ". . . right side and towards the rear. . ." Ebersole ". . . my recollection is more of a gaping occipital wound . . ." (Please see what FINCK says about Ebersole*... HE was the one who interpreted the autopsy xrays... and yet HE is an occipital wound witness?) Jenkins ". . . middle temporal region back to the occipital." O'Niell drew a wound above and behind the ear for the HSCA. Reed told the HSCA the wound was very large and located in the right hemisphere in the occipital region. Riebe told the HSCA there was one very large wound located around the rear of the head near the top. Siebert ". . . upper back of the head." Each one of these people sees JFK prior to 8pm... And no Scott.. we are talking about the Bethesda Autopsy Medical evidence which Mr Speer believes is the condition of the head in Dallas... The xrays, photos, autopsy report and its supplemental IS the evidence whic contradicts everyone who sees JFK prior to 8pm... EVERYONE. We see once again you simply cannot address the 6:40-8pm timeframe and how the drawings/witnesses of a 2-3 inch hole in the back of his head becomes the ENTIRE SKULL MISSING from the occipital to the Frontal bone fron the Midline down to the ear... Please point out any AUTOPSY EVIDENCE that describes a 2-3 inch hole in the right area of the occipital... what they SAID and what the Autopsy Evidence became - are, as I've been stating all along, NOT the same. and THAT is the point seemingly lost on you and Pat... THE AUTOPSY DOCTORS DID NOT THINK ANYTHING EXITED THE BACK OF THE HEAD, THE AUTOPSY DOCTORS ENLARGED A 2-3 INCH OCCIPITAL WOUND INTO WHAT WE SEE YET CONFLICTS ON THE XRAYS... For those of use who appreciate evidence presented in its original form with illustration to help explain them... I offer the following AUTOPSY EVIDENCE from the MOUTHS OF THE AUTOPSY DOCTORS THEMSELVES... covering the period from WCR thru ARRB - Look again at the title of this thread... Has the argument been made that they DID think the bullet exited the BACK of the head or not? - Commander HUMES - No, sir; I am speaking here of the wound in the occiput. The wound on the inner table, - This wound was situated approximately 2.5 centimeters to the right, and slightly above the external occiptal protuberance - These had disclosed to us multiple minute fragments of radio opaque material traversing a line from the wound in the occiput to just above the right eye (These are those fragments that extend to the TOP of the occipital, where these is no entry wound, to just above the right eye... what a surprise.) - Commander HUMES - Our interpretation is, sir, that the missile struck the right occipital region, penetrated through the two tables of the skull, making the characteristic coning on the inner table which I have previously referred to. That one portion of the missile and judging by the size of the defect thus produced, the major portion of the missile, made its exit through this large defect. - You will note that the wound in the posterior portion of the occiput on Exhibit 388 is somewhat longer than the other missile wound which we have not yet discussed in the low neck Colonel FINCK - Letter B.(by the arrow leaving the top of the head) We will see portions of bone in this general area, the large wound in the bone on the right side of the skull of President Kennedy. I had enough curvature to identify outside of the skull, and inside of the skull, as the first step to orient the specimen, and then I could determine the location of the beveling, and I could therefore say that B, Commission Exhibit 388, is a wound of exit. (btw - Finck does not use the word OCCIPTIAL in his WCR testimony at all) HSCA Dr. FINCK. Well, I would say that this was the wound of entry to the right of the external occipital protuberance Dr. PETTY. No, that is not quite what I asked. Can you tell where the penetrating gunshot wound went? I am not asking for entrance or exit but the course. Dr. FINCK. The track. I cannot identify a track. (The Forensic Autopsist cannot tell us the track of the missle which supposedly entered the right rear and exited the top of the head... but he/they can tell us that's what it did... right!) *Dr. FINCK. To a much lesser extent. When it comes to interpretation of radiographs I always consult the radiologists. Dr. BADEN. Was there a radiologist present? Dr. FINCK. Dr. Ebersole. Dr. BADEN. Did you consult with Dr. Ebersole about that Dr. FINCK. Dr. Ebersole interpreted the radiographs as far as I remember. He came to the autopsy room (So this witness - Ebersole - is able to look at the lateral xray and claim he sees a massive occipital wound ??? Right!) Dr. FINCK. Again I think that there were only two wound tracks, one in the back and one exit, and the front of the throat that is wound track number one and the second wound track was an entry in the back of the head with a large exit on the top and right side of the head. (Hey wait - didn't FINCK say there was no identifiable track?... yup, right here) Dr. FINCK. The track. I cannot identify a track. CLAY SHAW TRIAL: Q: Doctor, as a result of your examination of the head, the head of the late President, what, if you have one, is your opinion as to the direction from which the bullet which inflicted the head wound came? A: The bullet definitely struck in the back of the head, disintegrated, which is often the case when such a bullet at high velocity goes through bone, producing numerous fragments, many of them seen on X-ray of the head, and of the bony portion of the exit, and also recovered by us, we found fragments in the brain of the President, and that projectile produced that wound of exit on the right side and top of the head. If you take the middle of this wound of exit, the general direction of this missile path, p-a-t-h, is from the rear to the front going downward (CE388 (AUTOPSY "evidence" and reality) Mr. SPECTER - And specifically, as to the points of entry and points of exit which have been testified to by Doctor Humes, do his views express yours as well? Commander BOSWELL - They do, yes. Boswell ARRB: Q. When you refer to the teardrop, you're referring to the fifth view described as the "wound of entrance in right posterior occipital region." A. Right, yes. HSCA: where it was, above the external occipital protuberance; therefore, I believe that is the wound of entry Let me ask you first, your autopsy report reflected that there was one and only one bullet wound to the back of the President s head, that it did enter in the rear, exited the front. Is that report accurate on those three points, to the best of your knowledge? Dr. HUMES. Absolutely. HUMES - ARRB: Q. Okay. Just for any scalp lacerations, were there any tears over the occipital bone? A. No. No. Q. None whatsoever? A. No. Q. There were tears, however, over the temporal-- A. Temporal and parietal. Q. And the parietal. A. Yes. "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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted February 20, 2014 Author Share Posted February 20, 2014 You still refuse to appreciate one of the most basic aspects of the medical evidence, David. The "official" story is that Humes reflected the scalp early in the autopsy, before Finck's arrival, and that when he did so the shattered right side of the skull, including the back of the head, fell to pieces. Humes then removed Kennedy's brain, which came out rather easily due to the dura's being torn at the top, and (possibly) some damage being done to the brain stem. It follows from this that for the vast majority of the autopsy, there was a gaping hole on Kennedy's head. So, OF COURSE, that is how most of those present at the autopsy remember his head... As far as Ebersole...he was not a witness to the wound being on the back of the head. He DID say the wound was on the back of the head at one point, 15 years or so after the shooting, but then corrected himself after being shown the x-rays and photographs he believed authentic. So...feel free to call him a coward and a xxxx. But I suspect it's not that simple... From chapter 18c at patspeer.com: On March 8, 1978, radiologist John Ebersole was interviewed by Gil Dulaney of the Intelligencer Journal of Lancaster (Pa.). He was quoted as saying "It was the back of the head that was blown off." And this wasn't a one-time slip-up. According to writer David Lifton, who was shown a transcript to this conversation by Dulaney, Ebersole further described the wound as "a very obvious horrible gaping wound at the back of the head." Well, that's all it took for some to claim Ebersole as a back of the head witness. Never mind that he, as Boswell, had signed off on the authenticity of the autopsy photos and x-rays in 1966. Never mind that the full context of Ebersole's statements to Dulaney ran counter to the narrative pushed by those claiming a bullet entered from the front and blew out the back of Kennedy's head. According to the March 9, 1978 AP article (found in the Gadsden Times) on Dulaney's interview of Ebersole, Ebersole claimed "I would say unequivocally the bullet came from the side or back. The front of the body, except for a very slight bruise above the right eye on the forehead, was absolutely intact. It was the back of the head that was blown off. There is no way that I can see on the basis of the x-rays that the bullet came from anywhere in the 180-degree angle to the front, assuming Kennedy was facing forward. It looked to me like an almost right to left shot from the rear." And never mind that Ebersole repeated these claims in his 3-11-78 testimony before the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel. When discussing Kennedy's wounds on 11-22-63, he offered that "The back of the head was missing..." After being shown Kennedy's x-rays and asked if he could identify an entrance location for a bullet, however, he asserted: "In my opinion it would have come from the side on the basis of the films. I guess that is all that can be said about the films at this time... I would say on the basis of those x rays and x rays only one might say one would have to estimate there that the wound of entrance was somewhere to the side or to the posterior quadrant." When then shown an autopsy photo and asked if the head wound depicted correlated with his recollections, he answered "You know, my recollection is more of a gaping occipital wound than this but I can certainly not state that this is (not) the way it looked. Again we are relying on a 15 year old recollection. But had you asked me without seeing these or seeing the pictures, you know, I would have put the gaping wound here rather than more forward." When then shown another photo and asked to compare the location of the wound in the photo to his recollections, he replied that the wound in the photo was "More lateral. Much more lateral and superior than I remembered." Note that he was consistent in claiming there was no entrance wound on the front of the head. Note as well that he had said nothing about an entrance wound by the EOP. Ebersole had recalled one wound, and he had recalled it as residing further back on the head than it was shown to be on the x-rays and autopsy photos, to which he deferred. An article in the 7-22-78 issue of The Continuing Inquiry provides further illumination. Built around an interview with Art Smith on 3-28-78, 3 weeks after Ebersole had spoken to Dulaney, the article relates that Ebersole was by then claiming that when he told Dulaney "It was the back of the head that was blown off," he "really meant the side of the head." According to Smith, Dr. Ebersole stated further "that the wound was located on the side of the head above the ear, approximately 2 x 3 inches in diameter" and that "no bone in the back of the skull was missing." Of course, that wasn't good enough for all too many, including Smith. In his article, Smith sought to undermine Ebersole's credibility by writing that when he confronted Ebersole with his statements to Dulaney about the back of the head, that Ebersole claimed "It was a misquote. I really meant side of the head." Smith then claimed he'd called "Delaney" to see if he had misquoted Ebersole, and was assured by "Delaney" that the conversation had been taped, and that Ebersole had not been misquoted. Smith then argued that Ebersole, if he really thought he'd been misquoted, had had plentiful opportunity to complain to "Delaney" about the misquote prior to Smith's call, but had failed to do so. This, however, was grossly unfair. Smith made a tape of his phone call to Ebersole, which he shared with writer David Lifton. This tape, as quoted in Lifton's book Best Evidence, shows that after Ebersole said he'd been misquoted about the back of the head, Smith asked "That was a misquote?" It shows further that Ebersole then replied "Yes. Misquoted" but then corrected himself and said "I really, ah, I may have said that--what I meant was, the side." Ebersole had not denied that he'd told Dulaney the wound was on the back of the head. And Smith knew it before writing his article suggesting as much. Ebersole had said the word "back" instead of "side" before being shown the x-rays and autopsy photos he had long claimed to be authentic (and continued claiming were authentic up through his final interview on 11-2-92), and that was all it took for some to paint him as a "back of the head" witness, who'd tried to lie his way out of it. P.S. I hope you realize that I am not some outlier and that David Mantik and Doug Horne concluded, long before I, that the x-rays are authentic, and show there was missing brain at the front of the skull, and not missing skull as you seem to believe. (To be clear, Mantik believes the x-rays are Kennedy's but that a white patch was added on the side of the lateral, and a 6.5 mm fragment added to the A-P.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Tame Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Boyers ". . . right side and towards the rear. . ." Ebersole ". . . my recollection is more of a gaping occipital wound . . ." (Please see what FINCK says about Ebersole*... HE was the one who interpreted the autopsy xrays... and yet HE is an occipital wound witness?) Jenkins ". . . middle temporal region back to the occipital." O'Niell drew a wound above and behind the ear for the HSCA. Reed told the HSCA the wound was very large and located in the right hemisphere in the occipital region. Riebe told the HSCA there was one very large wound located around the rear of the head near the top. Siebert ". . . upper back of the head." And no Scott.. we are talking about the Bethesda Autopsy Medical evidence which Mr Speer believes is the condition of the head in Dallas... The xrays, photos, autopsy report and its supplemental IS the evidence whic contradicts everyone who sees JFK prior to 8pm... EVERYONET The photos and x-rays also contradict the autopsy report. So you need to specify what you are refering to when you say "Bethesda Autopsy Evidence." You can't address this because it shoots your body alteration theory all to hell. I mean who alters wounds, then reconstructs the head so the photos and x-rays they take contradict the wound alterations they just made! You mean to tell me the conspirators didn't have enough sense to make them match. I feel like I'm debating Cinque on the Lancer Forum all over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Tame Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 (edited) Boyers ". . . right side and towards the rear. . ." Ebersole ". . . my recollection is more of a gaping occipital wound . . ." (Please see what FINCK says about Ebersole*... HE was the one who interpreted the autopsy xrays... and yet HE is an occipital wound witness?) Jenkins ". . . middle temporal region back to the occipital." O'Niell drew a wound above and behind the ear for the HSCA. Reed told the HSCA the wound was very large and located in the right hemisphere in the occipital region. Riebe told the HSCA there was one very large wound located around the rear of the head near the top. Siebert ". . . upper back of the head." Each one of these people sees JFK prior to 8pm... We see once again you simply cannot address the 6:40-8pm timeframe and how the drawings/witnesses of a 2-3 inch hole in the back of his head becomes the ENTIRE SKULL MISSING from the occipital to the Frontal bone fron the Midline down to the ear... I'm not avoiding your qestion Dave. I'm just trying to figure out why you attach special relevence to 8:00. Because if you endorse Liftons theory, then the body entered the morgue with the wounds alredy altered, What someone saw before or after that time would be irrelevent because it would be the same. Edited February 20, 2014 by Scott Tame Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted February 20, 2014 Author Share Posted February 20, 2014 Boyers ". . . right side and towards the rear. . ." Ebersole ". . . my recollection is more of a gaping occipital wound . . ." (Please see what FINCK says about Ebersole*... HE was the one who interpreted the autopsy xrays... and yet HE is an occipital wound witness?) Jenkins ". . . middle temporal region back to the occipital." O'Niell drew a wound above and behind the ear for the HSCA. Reed told the HSCA the wound was very large and located in the right hemisphere in the occipital region. Riebe told the HSCA there was one very large wound located around the rear of the head near the top. Siebert ". . . upper back of the head." Each one of these people sees JFK prior to 8pm... We see once again you simply cannot address the 6:40-8pm timeframe and how the drawings/witnesses of a 2-3 inch hole in the back of his head becomes the ENTIRE SKULL MISSING from the occipital to the Frontal bone fron the Midline down to the ear... I'm not avoiding your qestion Dave. I'm just trying to figure out why you attach special relevence to 8:00. Because if you endorse Liftons theory, then the body entered the morgue with the wounds alredy altered, What someone saw before or after that time would be irrelevent because it would be the same. I think I can answer that one, Scott. David isn't pushing that the body was changed en route to Bethesda. He is pushing that it was changed at Bethesda, in front of numerous witnesses. He misses, IMO, that this was/is the official story. Humes peeled back the scalp and skull fell to the table, ergo, the wound at Bethesda seen by most of the witnesses was much larger than the wound observed at Parkland. I mean, this isn't brain surgery... or is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 (edited) P.S. I hope you realize that I am not some outlier and that David Mantik and Doug Horne concluded, long before I, that the x-rays are authentic, and show there was missing brain at the front of the skull, and not missing skull as you seem to believe. (To be clear, Mantik believes the x-rays are Kennedy's but that a white patch was added on the side of the lateral, and a 6.5 mm fragment added to the A-P.) Yes Pat... authentic images of an altered subject...exactly as Horne describes it. A subject altered in such a way as to make it impossible to conclude a shot was fired from the front and exited the back... and you are somewhat off base with regards to what the xrays and those who have interpreted them, say. There is BONE PRESENT posterior to the Frontal suture line on the right side of the skull in the lateral xray - yes or no? There is NO BONE PRESENT anterior of this Frontal Suture line on the right side of the skull - yes or no? There is NO BRAIN PRESENT on either the front right or left sides of the lateral xray - yes or no? The Autopsy Evidence states that the left side of the skull and brain were completely intact - yes or no? YOU believe that when he unwrapped the head at 8pm, the processes which separate the dura from the skull and the skull from the brain had been so thoroughly damaged ON BOTH SIDES that this 1500cc brain just "fell out" - yes or no? YOU believe that this was the condition of JFK as seen, reported, and testified to in Dallas With regards to Ebersole... maybe read what his peers and subordinates said about him at the ARRB? or what he tells us HE DID in his testimony? Ebersole: "Upon removing the body from the coffin, the anterior aspect, the only things noticeable were a small irregular ecumonic area above the super ecolobular ridge and a neatly sutured transverse surgical wound across the low neck" Pat, NONE of these words make any sense, "ecumonic" is not a real word and neither is "ecolobular" - meanwhile JFK's LIPS ARE SUTURED SHUT !! ?? Dr. BADEN. These three films in particular, were they all taken before the autopsy was begun? Dr. EBERSOLE. Yes. The skull films were definitely taken before the autopsy. Dr. BADEN. Did you repeat the skull films? Dr. EBERSOLE. To my knowledge. So PAT... where be the 2nd set of head xrays? Ebersole was a tool. Pat... what was the title of this thread? "Did the autopsy doctors think the fatal bullet exited the back of the head?" and then you go on to claim that since F8 is incorrectly positioned, they really claimed it came out the back of the head... or the Clark Panel does, NOT the autopsy Doctors... What again are you REALLY trying to prove here Pat? It appears to be that you want to conclude that the Autopsy Evidence accurately reflects the damage done in Dallas... Although you simply cannot deal with what happens between 6:40 and 8pm... your avoidance of that time period is, well, overly obvious. How can xrays be taken of JFK in the morgue prior to 8pm, or how can HUMES see the body at 6:45... if he was in the ambulance out front? Grow a pair and answer the question... ============ Scott... instead of assuming what I think... ANSWER THE QUESTION that I pose above to Pat... 8pm is the official start of the autopsy, the time the MDW carries the casket into the morgue... Do I really need to post that document too? Humes, along with a number of other witnesses encounter JFK in the morgue prior to 7pm, PRIOR to the time the ambulance arrives from Andrews... Whether SOME ALTERATION occurred on AF-1... IDK. the throat wound appears to have been enlarged on route... but the critical question remains If JFK was NOT in the ambulance in the casket that arrives out front at 6:55... and HUMES basically confirms it.... How did he get from the Parkland Casket to the shipping casket and then to Bethesda ahead of the ambulance? 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: And who helped lift the casket out of the ambulance? (Sibert)A: Of course, I’ve read something about casket teams but I don’t have any recollection of any casket teams on the scene at that time. I recall there was Kellerman and Greer - who was the driver - O’Neill and myself…. (7:17 entry) What are the two of you trying to hide about that time period? Or do you simply have no way to save yourselves from the obvious ? Edited February 20, 2014 by David Josephs 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