The EOP Entrance revealed

[Ray Mitcham]

This where Dr McClelland says the temple entry wound was.

[Glenn Nall]

And your "faulty memory" theory doesn't hold water, either.

If every witness saw something different on JFK (ie. large wound on the left front of the head, large wound on the right side of the head, large wound on the top of the head, no large wound at all, etc.) I could see your point. However, the vast majority of Parkland and Bethesda witnesses "mistakenly" saw a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head that involved occipital bone.

How do you explain all of these witnesses mistakenly seeing roughly the same thing? How do you explain the first day medical reports by Parkland surgeons all pointing toward a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head?

Something i'd love to know: I wonder what the ratio would be - of all legitimate observers - who describe, in general terms, a "large wound" to the in the rear to those who say say the basic opposite.

Wonder if there's an organized list of these two lists.

I imagine it would be a lot like holding 26 NYYankees World Series rings in one hand, and say 3 of those of say, The Cubs and then listening to the myriad YHers come up with hundreds of reasons why, well, some of them are really fake, and that others don't count, and how many Yankees were in fact way too unqualified to have played well enough... and these Yankees weren't actually Forensics Baseball players, so THEIR rings don't count - ...

And I'm like !!! , "But David, I'm holding 26 Rings! You're holding 3!!"

If you're asking if there's a comprehensive list available of everyone seeing Kennedy after the shooting, and what they recalled of his head wounds, the answer would be no. The closest thing to that is chapters 18c and 18d of my website. Those pushing that there was a wound on the back of Kennedy's head, and that the autopsy photos are fake, routinely ignore a number of the best witnesses, and prop up a number of witnesses who are totally unreliable. But there remain a number of credible witnesses for a wound on the back of the head. This creates a quandary. This is why it takes two chapters to explain my position on the matter.

Here's an example of something that is overlooked by most holding that the wound was really on the back of the head. While they love to flash those photos of witnesses taken 20-30 years after the fact, in which they point to the back of their head, they rarely acknowledge that the first witnesses unanimously pointed to a location on the front of the head.

from 18b

...As Dr. Burkley had seen Kennedy in the Dallas emergency room and was later to tell the HSCA that Kennedy’s wounds didn’t change between Dallas and Bethesda, the site of the autopsy, Kilduff’s statements are a clear indication that the large head wound depicted in the autopsy photos is in the same location as the large head wound seen at Parkland Hospital. That no one at the time of Kilduff's statement had noted a separate bullet entrance anywhere on Kennedy's head, moreover, suggests that Burkley had seen but one wound, a wound by the right temple, exactly where Newman and his wife had seen a wound.

And not only them, but Malcolm Kilduff himself. A 10-26-77 article found in the Michigan City News-Dispatch reveals that upon his arrival at Parkland Hospital, Kilduff observed Kennedy’s head wound, and that, according to Kilduff “His head was just a mass of blood...It looked like hamburger meat." While the location of the wound observed by Kilduff is far from clear, it seems likely that, if he felt it was somewhere other than the right temple, he would have questioned Burkley's claim it was by the temple. This is supported, moreover, by Kilduff's subsequent statements to Gary Mack, in which he confirmed that when he pointed to his temple during the 11-22-63 press conference he was pointing to, in Mack's words, "where the big hole was on Kennedy's head."

No offense, Pat, but -

that's some real serious irresponsible and illogical writing. I'm not quite sure how you get from one assumption to another.

but i still respect the energy you put in, just maybe not so much your conclusions...

What's irresponsible about it? A lot of CTs assume that when Kilduff pointed towards his temple he was pointing to the location of a small entrance wound that led to a large exit wound on the back of the head. That's hogwash. 1. No one at Parkland had noticed such a wound. 2. Kilduff specifically denied he was pointing out such a wound.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22096&page=6

[Sandy Larsen]

I made a misstatement in an earlier post, as bolded here:

The best, most comprehensive list I've seen of medical professionals who witnessed the gaping head wound is the one written by Dr. Aguliar in his 1994 article titled "John F. Kennedy's Fatal Wounds: The Witnesses and Interpretations from 1963 to the Present:

http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm

o
o

o

At first glance it appeared to me that all the witnesses to Kennedy's gaping wound, in Dr. Aguliar's list, are medical professionals. However, having now glanced through it more thoroughly, I see that it is a list of all witnesses. Two of the witnesses in Dallas are Secret Service agents. In Bethesda two are FBI, two are Secret Service, and a few are military men, all of whom witnessed the autopsy.

But still, the large majority of the 46 are medical professionals.

wow. great resource for some obscure stuff. thanks again.

I'm glad to have helped in some way.

The list/article is really quite comprehensive, not only in the number of witnesses, but also in how the various testimonies played out over the years. I find it so valuable that I've copied it to my hard drive, just in case it ever disappears.

[Chris Newton]

Thanks Ray,

This where Dr McClelland says the temple entry wound was.

This is approximately where the "V" shaped wound is seen in some autopsy photos. That strange wound might be indicative of pre-autopsy surgery designed to remove evidence of a wound that could only be created from the front.

[Pat Speer]

And your "faulty memory" theory doesn't hold water, either.

If every witness saw something different on JFK (ie. large wound on the left front of the head, large wound on the right side of the head, large wound on the top of the head, no large wound at all, etc.) I could see your point. However, the vast majority of Parkland and Bethesda witnesses "mistakenly" saw a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head that involved occipital bone.

How do you explain all of these witnesses mistakenly seeing roughly the same thing? How do you explain the first day medical reports by Parkland surgeons all pointing toward a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head?

Something i'd love to know: I wonder what the ratio would be - of all legitimate observers - who describe, in general terms, a "large wound" to the in the rear to those who say say the basic opposite.

Wonder if there's an organized list of these two lists.

o

o

o

If you're asking if there's a comprehensive list available of everyone seeing Kennedy after the shooting, and what they recalled of his head wounds, the answer would be no. The closest thing to that is chapters 18c and 18d of my website.

o

o

o

The best, most comprehensive list I've seen of medical professionals who witnessed the gaping head wound is the one written by Dr. Aguliar in his 1994 article titled "John F. Kennedy's Fatal Wounds: The Witnesses and Interpretations from 1963 to the Present:

http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm

(Maybe it covers other wounds as well... I don't recall.)

Nearly all 46 of these Parkland and Bethesda witnesses initially described the gaping hole as being located at the right rear of the head. Though a number of them changed their minds later on, for example after viewing the autopsy photos. (Who wouldn't, after seeing the back-of-head autopsy photo? Oh yeah... the ones with true conviction, those who place more value in integrity than in "going along." IMO) Aguliar's list documents when and how these witnesses changed their testimony over time.

It's obvious to me that initial testimony is more likely to describe the truth than is later testimony, given that it can be colored by external influence over time.

It's also obvious to me that medical professionals would be highly reliable witnesses when it comes to the wounds they see.

Because of these factors I determined some time ago that the gaping hole indeed must have been where most the medical professionals placed it. And that anything or anybody suggesting otherwise is suspect. Therefore, the autopsy doctors must be wrong, and the back of head photo must be wrong. For me that's a hell of a lot easier to believe than 40 medical professionals being wrong, especially given the extremely suspicious nature of the assassination.

The autopsy doctors are wrong because they followed the orders of corrupt superior officers. The back-of-head photo is wrong because it has been altered or fabricated. Neither of these statements is hard for me to believe.

I'm friends with Gary, but we have a different perspective on this. He was not trying to make a comprehensive list of ALL the witnesses to the head wound. He was trying to make a list to demonstrate two specific points.

Primarily, he was trying to show that many if not most of the Bethesda witnesses made statements suggesting there was a wound on the back of the head. This served two purposes. 1. It proved that the HSCA Report included a bald-faced lie about these witnesses rejecting the Parkland doctors' description of the wound. 2. It supported Gary's contention there was no alteration of the body between Parkland and Bethesda.

As described on my website, I was initially swayed by the arguments of Gary, and Robert Groden. It was only when I expanded their lists to include the earliest witnesses to the shooting--the Newmans, Zapruder, etc, that I came to realize there really was a divide, in that the statements of the Parkland witnesses, on average, were at odds with not only the Zapruder film, autopsy photos, and x-rays, but with the Dealey Plaza witnesses, including Mrs. Kennedy. I then began to study cognitive psychology, to see if there was any precedent for a group of people mis-remembering the exact location of a wound. I even reached out to some experts on the subject. This experience made it clear that, in the eyes of the experts, it is not at all surprising that a group of co-workers would share an incorrect impression, particularly when most of them were in a heightened emotional state, and where one of them, Dr. Clark, the accepted expert among them, made his impressions clear before anything was written down.

As I continued to read about this subject, other aspects became clear as well. Emergency room doctors are not experts on the cause of death of their patients. Their views are tentative, and frequently incorrect. They know this, moreover. That is why autopsies are performed. And that is why most of the doctors involved in Kennedy's care deferred to the accuracy of the autopsy photos and x-rays. Because they know their impressions and memories just aren't reliable.

As I continued to read about this subject, moreover, another fact jumped out at me. I was unable to find one instance--EVER--in which emergency room doctors were brought in to testify against the findings of a series of pathologists, and had overturned the conclusions of the pathologists. It just doesn't happen.

I concluded that there were two reasons for this. 1. Doctors are trained to accept their roles, and not second-guess other doctors. 2. Lawyers know that if the evidence doesn't show what you want it to show, you simply find an "expert" who'll say it doesn't show it, and that arguing that medical evidence has been faked is a sure loser in the eyes of a judge or jury.

In any event, this realization that the Parkland witnesses COULD be wrong led me to actually look at the medical evidence to see what it showed besides stuff at odds with what the Parkland witnesses had said or supposedly had said. And this led me to conclude that the medical evidence from day one suggested there was more than one shooter, and that the single-assassin scenario was originally propped up through a series of lies by men like Dr. Humes and Arlen Specter, but that it had continued to survive due to the short-sightedness of "back-of-the-head" groupies and disciples, who tried to turn most every discussion of the medical evidence into a discussion of how a number of men who'd long ago said they could have been wrong, could not have been wrong.

Edited October 16, 2015 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

I made a misstatement in an earlier post, as bolded here:

The best, most comprehensive list I've seen of medical professionals who witnessed the gaping head wound is the one written by Dr. Aguliar in his 1994 article titled "John F. Kennedy's Fatal Wounds: The Witnesses and Interpretations from 1963 to the Present:

http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm

o

o

o

At first glance it appeared to me that all the witnesses to Kennedy's gaping wound, in Dr. Aguliar's list, are medical professionals. However, having now glanced through it more thoroughly, I see that it is a list of all witnesses. Two of the witnesses in Dallas are Secret Service agents. In Bethesda two are FBI, two are Secret Service, and a few are military men, all of whom witnessed the autopsy.

But still, the large majority of the 46 are medical professionals.

wow. great resource for some obscure stuff. thanks again.

I'm glad to have helped in some way.

The list/article is really quite comprehensive, not only in the number of witnesses, but also in how the various testimonies played out over the years. I find it so valuable that I've copied it to my hard drive, just in case it ever disappears.

It's not comprehensive. He deliberately excluded those viewing Kennedy in the plaza, or in the limo outside Parkland. They described a wound, or pointed to a wound, on the top or side of their heads.

Edited October 16, 2015 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

This where Dr McClelland says the temple entry wound was.

Ahh, let's not confuse the issues, Ray. Dr. McClelland most certainly did not see a wound in this location. He later guessed that there was a wound in this location, based upon what he heard from conspiracy theorists, and based upon the back and to the left movement of Kennedy in the Zapruder film.

[Glenn Nall]

PS *** Lawyers know that if the evidence doesn't show what you want to show, you simply find an "expert" who'll say it doesn't show it, and that arguing that medical evidence has been faked is a sure loser in the eyes of a judge or jury.

not a very fair, or true, accusation, Pat. Not that it matters to anyone in here, but i take a little offense to this.

darn, dude... that's pretty bold.

[Glenn Nall]

I made a misstatement in an earlier post, as bolded here:

The best, most comprehensive list I've seen of medical professionals who witnessed the gaping head wound is the one written by Dr. Aguliar in his 1994 article titled "John F. Kennedy's Fatal Wounds: The Witnesses and Interpretations from 1963 to the Present:

http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm

o

o

o

At first glance it appeared to me that all the witnesses to Kennedy's gaping wound, in Dr. Aguliar's list, are medical professionals. However, having now glanced through it more thoroughly, I see that it is a list of all witnesses. Two of the witnesses in Dallas are Secret Service agents. In Bethesda two are FBI, two are Secret Service, and a few are military men, all of whom witnessed the autopsy.

But still, the large majority of the 46 are medical professionals.

wow. great resource for some obscure stuff. thanks again.

I'm glad to have helped in some way.

The list/article is really quite comprehensive, not only in the number of witnesses, but also in how the various testimonies played out over the years. I find it so valuable that I've copied it to my hard drive, just in case it ever disappears.

It's not comprehensive. He deliberately excluded those viewing Kennedy in the plaza, or in the limo outside Parkland. They described a wound, or pointed to a wound, on the top or side of their heads.

perhaps you could provide a list of who's missing from these witnesses? I'm attempting a bona fide comparison of visual ID's between Elm and Bethesda, short and sweet, with no riff raff. who's missing from these lists...? little help?

[Sandy Larsen]

I made a misstatement in an earlier post, as bolded here:

The best, most comprehensive list I've seen of medical professionals who witnessed the gaping head wound is the one written by Dr. Aguliar in his 1994 article titled "John F. Kennedy's Fatal Wounds: The Witnesses and Interpretations from 1963 to the Present:

http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm

o

o

o

At first glance it appeared to me that all the witnesses to Kennedy's gaping wound, in Dr. Aguliar's list, are medical professionals. However, having now glanced through it more thoroughly, I see that it is a list of all witnesses. Two of the witnesses in Dallas are Secret Service agents. In Bethesda two are FBI, two are Secret Service, and a few are military men, all of whom witnessed the autopsy.

But still, the large majority of the 46 are medical professionals.

wow. great resource for some obscure stuff. thanks again.

I'm glad to have helped in some way.

The list/article is really quite comprehensive, not only in the number of witnesses, but also in how the various testimonies played out over the years. I find it so valuable that I've copied it to my hard drive, just in case it ever disappears.

It's not comprehensive. He deliberately excluded those viewing Kennedy in the plaza, or in the limo outside Parkland. They described a wound, or pointed to a wound, on the top or side of their heads.

Are you saying that Dr. Aguliar deliberately included only those who said the wound was in the right-rear area? This is how Dr. Aguliar describes his list:

It was not the author's intent to list every comment ever made by every witnesses, but rather to gather the earliest, and presumably most reliable, accounts for inspection.

FWIW, when I said "comprehensive" I didn't literally mean every single person who got a glance. I meant the professionals whose job it was to take care of the President, whether pre- or post-assassination.

BTW thanks for describing your thought process and history regarding this subject, group-think, etc. I skimmed through your work on this some time ago and thought it was pretty far out there. (Maybe because I am SO not into group think myself! Quite the opposite really, not unlike most WC critics I'm sure.) Not to say I don't see any validity in it. I'm sure, for example, that doctors are inclined not to contradict each others if at all possible. But I think you can tell which of them are just going along with each other and which know what they saw and will stick to their guns. Even so, I value even more the (early) testimony of technicians and nurses because they don't have a code not to contradict others.

I've studied David Lifton's research carefully and, with all that in mind, I see very little contradictory testimony between the witnesses at Parkland and those at Bethesda. The reason being that -- I believe -- different individuals did indeed see different head wounds, depending upon when they were admitted to the autopsy room, and depending upon what assumptions they made when they first saw the body. For example, some may have thought the autopsy was just beginning, while others may have thought it was already in progress. More specifically, those who thought the autopsy was just beginning when in reality Humes had already cut open the cranium saw what they thought to be an enormous wound, like the top half of an egg lopped off.

[Micah Mileto]

Pat, I was inspired by your book to buy a human skull replica. I tried replicating the photos. While the placement of the shot glass and dime aren't right, I used the tool image overlay utility to compare it to the F8 photo, and the elliptical shape of the dime is a perfect match for the drainage hole. The shot glass also fits very well. The virtual "EOP wound" is a 15x6mm piece of blue tape.

Imgur album links:

https://imgur.com/a/WvCtp

https://imgur.com/a/qeGPd

If I can find a way to connect the live feed from my digital camera's display to my computer monitor, I can use the image overlay utility to perhaps create a 100% perfect match for the open-cranium photographs.

[Michael Walton]

Putting this here - animated GIF of "mystery" photo and other one combined:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-Cxdm9ZalJTSWU3cms

[Micah Mileto]

Putting this here - animated GIF of "mystery" photo and other one combined:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-Cxdm9ZalJTSWU3cms

That would put the EOP wound down to the neck.

[Micah Mileto]

Pat, if you're watching, I have one main complaint about the dark spot on the open-cranium photographs being the EOP hole.

If that dark spot is the EOP hole, which was situated to the right of the midline, 2.5 centimeters according to the autopsy and later statements by the autopsy pathologists, then how is the large skull cavity large enough for the doctors to have already physically removed the entire brain? The open-cranium photographs were taken after the brain had already been removed, right?

Another question. In some versions of the back wound photograph floating around, you can see what appears to be a clean-cut large skull cavity that extends down to the occiput somewhat above the level of the ears and somewhat to the left of the midline. How does this skull cavity seen here relate to the skull cavity seen in the open-cranium photographs?

 

Edited April 16, 2017 by Micah Mileto

[Sandy Larsen]

On 4/16/2017 at 2:15 AM, Micah Mileto said:

In some versions of the back wound photograph floating around, you can see what appears to be a clean-cut large skull cavity that extends down to the occiput somewhat above the level of the ears and somewhat to the left of the midline.

Micah,

Can you post such a photo or a link to one. I have no recollection of ever seeing what you are describing here.