JFK Autopsy X-rays Proved Fraudulent

[Sandy Larsen]

Sandy,

But what about the Zapruder Film? It most certainly does NOT show a big hole in the BACK of President Kennedy's head. In the Z-Film, the exit wound in JFK's head is clearly located toward the FRONT and RIGHT SIDE of the head, above the President's right ear....

So that makes THREE separate areas of photographic evidence which all corroborate each other with respect to the location of the large wound in President Kennedy's head:

1. The autopsy photos.

2. The autopsy X-rays.

3. The Zapruder Film.

Do you, Sandy, really think that ALL THREE of the above pieces of photographic (visual) evidence are fake in this case?

If so, that's a heck of a lot of fakery you've got to prove. And so far, no one has come close to proving that ANY of those three photographic items has been faked or altered.

And there's also the fact that the closest witnesses to the head shot in Dealey Plaza, who had a good view of the RIGHT side of JFK's head as it was exploding in front of them, said things in their first interviews on WFAA-TV on 11/22/63 that support the idea that the President's large head (exit) wound was located just exactly where we find it in the autopsy photos and X-rays and in the Zapruder Film---i.e., above JFK's right ear. Those witnesses include Abraham Zapruder himself and Bill and Gayle Newman....

-----

I can't believe that forty eyewitnesses, the majority of whom were medical professionals, can be wrong about this.

Evidence can be altered, especially when it is hidden from everybody.

I once had a photo taken of me for a passport. When I grimaced at the acne I saw on the photo, the photographer said no problem. I watched as he did some shading on the negative with pencils, which took a few seconds. A few minutes later he came out of his lab with a new set of photos, this time sans the acne. It was rather amazing.

[Sandy Larsen]

DVP,

I asked you arguendo on another thread whether if there was a conspiracy, the conspirators would stop at anything to cover their tracks.

You agreed not that there was a conspiracy but that if there was one, the conspirators would have stopped at nothing.

I respect your view there was no conspiracy. Which you maintain consistently.

Here there is reason to believe in conspiracy, the reason being unbelievable x-rays.

The issue isn't what the HSCA did or didn't do. The year 1978 is 37 years ago, an eon in terms of technology. The issue is whether current expert opinion based on modern technology leads to a conclusion of conspiracy. It does clearly IMO.

So I believe your view is at odds with expert opinion based on modern technology.

Your view is inflexible and unchanging. Modern technology is evolutionary.

DVP is clearly a Warren Commission ideologue. He believes whatever they want him to believe and disregards the rest.

[Greg Burnham]

It seems clear to me that Pat merely misunderstood or misinterpreted what he heard at the presentation. An honest mistake, of course.

Of course, given that he is not a medical expert, such a mistake in this instance--and I'm sure many, many others--is to be expected from him.

[David Von Pein]

I can't believe that forty eyewitnesses, the majority of whom were medical professionals, can be wrong about this.

Well, let's face it, no matter which side of the "Head Wound" debate you decide to endorse, a whole bunch of people are going to turn out to be dead wrong. That's just a fact of life.

If you're an "LNer", like I am, you've got to try and reconcile how all of those witnesses at Parkland Hospital (and some Bethesda witnesses too) could possibly have seen something that did not exist---a big hole in the back (or "occipital") part of JFK's head.

And if you're a "CTer", then you've got to ask yourself how the autopsy doctors (Humes, Boswell, and Finck) could have ALL been dead wrong, because not a one of them ever said that Kennedy had a huge hole in the back of his head. (Conspiracy believers, I guess, must think that all three of those doctors decided to get together after the autopsy and tell a bunch of lies in the official autopsy report that each one of them attached his name to. Yeah, right.)

And the CTers also need to somehow reconcile those autopsy photos and X-rays, which do not come close to depicting a gaping back-of-the-head wound described by many of the Parkland witnesses, such as Dr. Robert McClelland.

And then there are the few witnesses on the north side of Elm Street who watched the assassination occurring as it actually happened. Those witnesses, of course, did not get an extended or detailed look at JFK's head injuries, but they were looking right at the President when his head exploded into a cloud of blood and brain tissue....and, as I mentioned earlier, the closest Elm Street eyewitnesses were interviewed almost immediately after the assassination and they said things on live television that support and corroborate (in general) the things we see in Abraham Zapruder's home movie and in the autopsy pictures and X-rays.

So, whether you're an LNer or a conspiracy believer, quite a few people are going to have to be placed into the "THEY WERE WRONG" category when it comes to the question of: Where was President Kennedy's large head wound located?

Evidence can be altered, especially when it is hidden from everybody.

But the photographic evidence I talked about earlier isn't being "hidden" from anybody now. That is, the Zapruder Film and the autopsy photographs and X-rays. We have ALL of that stuff to examine now at our leisure. And the HSCA and Rockefeller panels did too. And they determined, independent from one another, that JFK was struck by only TWO bullets, with both of those bullets coming FROM BEHIND the President's car, including the one and only missile that struck JFK in the head.

As I asked before, do you REALLY think that the Z-Film plus the autopsy photos plus the autopsy X-rays were altered in order to "move" the large wound in JFK's head from the back to the right-front?

(Of course, there was no opportunity whatsoever for any plotters to have altered the Zapruder Film prior to that film being developed and copied for the Secret Service and FBI on November 22, 1963. Abe Zapruder himself stayed with his film every step of the way through the processing and copying stages at Kodak and the Jamieson film lab. Do CTers think Abraham Zapruder was part of a plot or a "cover-up" too?)

In short --- the THREE layers of photographic evidence---one of which (the Zapruder Film) was a privately-owned non-Government home movie---prove for all time, IMO, that President John F. Kennedy did NOT have a large wound in the back portion of his cranium after he was shot in Dallas on 11/22/63.

Edited December 12, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

This thread is more than a bit ironic. I was in Dallas and saw Dr. Mantik's and Dr. Chesser's presentations.

1. Several years ago, on this very forum, I pointed out to Dr. Fetzer that the "white patch" noted by Dr. Mantik on the x-rays did not cover the very back part of the skull, where most CT's presume the fatal wound was located. He double-checked this with Dr. Mantik and Dr. Mantik told him I was correct. Since that time, Dr. Mantik has repeated this conclusion a number of times, at the 2013 Wecht Conference, on the CTKA website, and then again in Dallas. So David Von Pein is incorrect. Mantik's conclusion the x-rays were altered is not directly related to his belief the back of the head was blown out.

2. In fact... In recent years, Mantik has taken to claiming the x-rays, which most CTs automatically dismiss due to their mistaken belief Mantik has claimed they were faked to hide a blow-out wound on the back of the head...DOES show a blow-out wound on the back of the head, and are PROOF this wound existed, and therefore a conspiracy. Now, I've been following this with great interest, because it's bizarre beyond belief. Mantik now claims the x-rays prove conspiracy...in two ways. One is that they show a large blow-out wound in the middle of the back of the head. Two is that they show things--such as the white patch and the 6.5 mm fragment, that could only have been added through alteration.

3. It was some unease then that I went to Dallas to watch Mantik's latest presentation...in which he claimed the Harper fragment was blown-out the middle of the back of Kennedy's head. I had already committed to talking about the x-rays, and was unsure if I could keep my mouth shut should Mantik receive an overwhelming response while pushing some stuff I feel certain is inaccurate. He spoke on Saturday, and received a decent response. He was followed by Dr. Chesser, who said he'd recently visited the archives and had confirmed much of Mantik's OD measurements, and that he agreed with the bulk of Mantik's conclusions. (I don't recall if he said he agreed with the bit about the x-rays showing a large hole on the back of the head, but seem to think he did not.) He did, however, offer up one bit of detail that led me to believe he was sincere in his embrace of Mantik's findings. He claimed he confronted the archives over one of Mantik's findings--that there appeared to be emulsion over the writing on the x-rays they brought him, which proved they weren't the originals. He said that after he pointed this out, the archives staff grumpily brought out some x-rays in which the writing was on top of the emulsion...the originals. In other words, Chesser claimed he saw the originals, and suggested that Mantik had not. I don't think he would have made this claim if he was just there to prop up Mantik.

4. In any event, Bethesda witness James Jenkins was up next. Mantik interviewed Jenkins and William Law about a series of interviews they'd conducted some time back... The night before they discussed and played some of a new blu-ray of Jenkins discussing Kennedy's wounds with Paul O'Connor, Jim Sibert, Jerrol Custer, and Dennis David. On Saturday, if I recall, they played some of an interview in which several of Kennedy's honor guard were reunited with Jenkins and some of the Bethesda staff, to talk about the events of 11-22-63. In any event, I spoke to Jenkins afterward, and he confirmed, yet again, that the back of Kennedy's head between his ears was intact, but with shattered skull beneath the scalp. I then explained to him that ever since he spoke on the 50th, some have tried to use his words to suggest the back of the head was blown out, and that Horne and Mantik have tried to put this all together and have come up with Humes' performing some sort of pre-autopsy alteration of the head wounds. At this, Jenkins shook his head in disgust, and said something along the lines of "What are you gonna do? People are gonna think whatever they want to think." He then told me and several witnesses that he was with the body from its arrival until the beginning of the autopsy, and that the events described by Horne didn't happen at any morgue he'd been to. I then sought clarification by asking him if he meant that there was another morgue room down the hall that could have been used to do such a thing, and he looked at me like I was flat-out stupid and said there was but the one room where they could have done anything, and that it didn't happen there.

5. Next up was the producer of a new documentary on the Parkland Doctors. "Oh boy", I thought, "here we go. Some guy no one's ever heard of is gonna say he saw a blow-out wound on the back of the head, and everyone is going to ooh and ahh." But that's not what happened at all. Three doctors came onstage and told their stories: Salyer, Loeb, and Goldstrich, if I recall. Salyer was quite adamant that the head wound was on the temporal region in front of the ear, Loeb said it was on the top of the head, and Goldstrich never commented on the head wound. It was around this time, moreover, that I looked up and saw William Newman standing on the side of the room. I'd spoken to Newman before and he had confirmed his earliest statements and said that he saw a wound by the ear, and had failed to see one on the back of the head.

The thought then occurred that I'd slipped into an alternate universe. I mean, here I was at a convention dominated by conspiracy theorists, the majority of whom fervently believe the medical evidence was faked and that we should believe the eyewitnesses, and here were four witnesses in the room claiming to have seen Kennedy's head wound, all of whom were claiming to have seen it in a location that runs counter to where most CTs think the wound was located. And here was Dr. Mantik saying we should believe there was a wound in the location proposed by most CTs...because the x-rays prove it!!!!

In the minds of many of those in attendance at the conference, everything had been reversed... The authenticity of the x-rays now trumped the accuracy of the witnesses!!!

Welcome to Bizarro-World!!!

I received this email from Dr. Michael Chesser in response to Pat Speer's comments [above]. The relevant portion is posted here with his permission:

Hi Greg,

I've attached my presentation with notes. I'm very disappointed to read Pat's

comments. I didn't say that David had not seen the original x-rays - I have no

idea where he [speer] got that. My slide covering the left lateral skull x-ray

describes what happened at NARA when I viewed that film. The NARA personnel

overheard me dictating, and when I dictated my thoughts that the T shape was

covered by emulsion, they immediately left the room and came back with Martha

Murphy, who told me that a mistake had been made, and that I had been looking at

the HSCA copies. She appeared upset - I thought at the time that she was upset

with the personnel in the room, but I of course can't know what she was

thinking. The T shape appeared odd, and it lit up and stood out from the

background when I would shine my flashlight from one angle, but I couldn't

actually see a wax mark on the surface of the emulsion. I still don't know how

to interpret this. I can see how David concluded there is emulsion over the T

shape, because the surface is smooth.

I agree with David that there is an occipital skull defect, separate from the

white patch, and I think it is probably where the Harper fragment was

located. What convinced me more than anything else is the appearance of the

scalp retraction photograph.

[end quote]

LOL. (Actually more like a GOL--Grimace Out Loud). It looks like Chesser is unwilling to deal with the implications of his words.

1. One of Mantik's 20 conclusions was that the x-rays shown him in the archives were not the originals. He drew this from the fact there was emulsion over the marks made by Ebersole.

2. Chesser confirmed this conclusion. He went one further than Mantik, and brought this to the attention of the archives, whereby they brought out some other x-rays. Chesser told the Lancer audience there was no emulsion problem with these x-rays and that they were apparently the originals.

3. It follows then that Mantik was, much as Chesser, shown the HSCA copies. It remains possible, of course, that Mantik was shown the originals on one or more of his 9 visits, and that he only noticed the emulsion problem on a visit where they gave him the copies. But it stands to reason that the archives was in the habit of showing people the copies unless this person, as Chesser, raised a stink about it, or was overheard complaining about it. (Chesser intimated that he applied for a return visit but was refused--perhaps this is not a coincidence.)

In any event, I see little difference between my account of Chesser's statements and his response. I did not say that Chesser flat out said Mantik had not been shown the originals--but it is implicit in his account of what happened at the archives.

P.S. While Chesser clears up a point on which I was uncertain--and says he concurs with Mantik's conclusion regarding the Harper fragment--he says that the "appearance of the scalp retraction photograph" convinced him of this "more than anything else." Well, this can be read as a rejection of Mantik's findings, as well as support for his ultimate conclusion. You see, Mantik has taken to claiming his OD measurements prove there was a large hole on the back of the head (where basically none of the Parkland witnesses recalled a wound). Chesser's claim the autopsy photo convinces him of this wound, then, suggests he isn't entirely convinced by Mantik's findings re the x-rays.

In any event, this all leads back to my basic point---that the claims for a back of the head wound normally rest on the statements of eyewitnesses, and those making those claims normally express distrust for "experts"--and that this was turned upside down in Dallas. Mantik and Chesser largely kept to themselves while the still-curious got up and talked to the likes of Jenkins, Salyer and Newman. This was not a coincidence.

Edited December 12, 2015 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

lS

Jenkins and O'Connor worked together and were together when the body arrived.

Yet Jenkins said the body arrived wrapped in sheets, and O'Connor said it arrived in a body bag. You know what? I don't think they were together when each saw the body arrive.

Y'know, it's funny. They were brothers-in-law and they discussed this off and on for years. And yet apparently they never thought of the possibility the body came in twice, and that they each missed an entrance. And there's a reason for that... They worked together, side by side.

I mean, really. It's as if no one has ever had a job where they knew what was going on around them. My brother has worked in hospitals for over 30 years, running the plant and keeping the equipment up to code, etc, and I guarantee you even HE would know if the President of the United States was brought into the hospital two different times in two different wrappings.

Then in all their years of discussing the sheets and the body bag and such, did Jenkins and O'Connor ever decide which one of them was crazy?

I think they joked about it. Jenkins was involved in two presentations in Dallas. The first was promoting a new blu-ray comprising the interviews conducted by William Law for In the Eye of History. Well, I have the book, and saw several of these interviews at the 2005 Lancer conference, so I flinched at the prospect of paying 35 bucks for a blu-ray, when I don't even own a blu-ray player. But the blu-ray has an extra which aroused my curiosity, so I gave in. The extra? A three-hour interview where O'Connor, Jenkins, Jerrol Custer and Jim Sibert pass around the autopsy photos, and compare what is shown to what they remembered. The snippet shown was fascinating. They were all obviously doing their best--but their memories were obviously at odds on a number of points. I hope to watch it within a few days. I'll let you know if there's anything ground-breaking.

[Sandy Larsen]

Evidence can be altered, especially when it is hidden from everybody.

But the photographic evidence I talked about earlier isn't being "hidden" from anybody now.

It was altered long ago, David. Some of it has even disappeared... even though it was supposedly safely stored in the Archive.

As I asked before, do you REALLY think that the Z-Film plus the autopsy photos plus the autopsy X-rays were altered in order to "move" the large wound in JFK's head from the back to the right-front?

Yes I do think that. It's not the big deal you make it out to be. Bright college students could do it.

(Of course, there was no opportunity whatsoever for any plotters to have altered the Zapruder Film prior to that film being developed and copied for the Secret Service and FBI on November 22, 1963. Abe Zapruder himself stayed with his film every step of the way through the processing and copying stages at Kodak and the Jamieson film lab. Do CTers think Abraham Zapruder was part of a plot or a "cover-up" too?)

In short --- the THREE layers of photographic evidence---one of which (the Zapruder Film) was a privately-owned non-Government home movie---prove for all time, IMO, that President John F. Kennedy did NOT have a large wound in the back portion of his cranium after he was shot in Dallas on 11/22/63.

The Zapruder film was not privately owned. Life Magazine bought the rights for $1,000,000 in today's dollars. Very few people saw the Z film till Geraldo Rivera televised it in 1975 . And the ones who did see it lied about it. One has to be a real chump to believe all the lies the public has been fed re. the JFK assassination. Just like the public was lied to about Viet Nam, 9/11 and Iraq, Iran-Contra, U.S meddling in other countries, assassinations, and coups.

[Pat Speer]

[Jenkins] is quite specific and quite clear when you talk to him, however, on several points, which all too many people seem unwilling to grasp. 1. The back of the head between the ears was not a gaping hole upon the body's arrival at Bethesda. It was shattered like an eggshell beneath the scalp. (Note: radiology tech Jerrol Custer, who helped position the skull for the x-rays, said much the same thing.)

Pat,

Jenkins told David Lifton that there were skull fragments in the casket. He describes their putting them back together, and his description included the following:

"I would say the parietal and occipital section on the right side of the head -- it was a large gaping area .... I'm laying my hand on the back area of my skull .... if I spread my fingers and put my hand back there, that probably would be the area that was missing .... When they put it back together, it would probably have been about the size of your fist -- which was an actual hole missing."

If there was no hole in the back of the scalp, how did the fragments of bone escape?

Furthermore, later in the interview Jenkins commented on the back-of-head autopsy photographs:

"When I told Jenkins that autopsy photographs showed that the back of the head was essentially intact, except for a small bullet entry wound at the top, he was incredulous. 'That's not possible, That is totally--you know, there's no possible way. Okay? It's not possible.' "

(Best Evidence, 1980, page 616, 617)

Apparently either Jenkins' story has changed, or you have misremembered what he told you.

[Jenkins] is quite specific and quite clear when you talk to him, however, on several points, which all too many people seem unwilling to grasp. 1. The back of the head between the ears was not a gaping hole upon the body's arrival at Bethesda. It was shattered like an eggshell beneath the scalp. (Note: radiology tech Jerrol Custer, who helped position the skull for the x-rays, said much the same thing.)

Jerrol Custer told David Lifton that the wound in the skull was posterior in the skull and said that

".... he exposed, and returned to the morgue, X- rays showing that the rear of the President's head was blown off."

(Best Evidence , p. 620)

FWIW, in May 29, 1992 and November 18, 1993 press conferences Custer repeated his consistent claim that the current X-rays are forgeries.

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

Yikes. Let's be clear. Jenkins' recollections do not support the legitimacy of the autopsy photos. He doesn't flat out say they are fakes but he readily acknowledges they don't reflect what he remembers. His recollection is of a head wound further back on the head. But he is also adamant that the back of the head between the ears was intact, and that the cerebellum was basically intact and not exposed by a hole on the back of the head. Now, he was the guy who handled the brain. If there was a gaping hole through the cerebellum one would think he would have noticed.

As far as Custer, jeez, how many times do I have to repeat this? Custer denounced the x-rays multiple times...after being shown the computer-enhanced x-rays published by the HSCA, which were not only computer-enhanced to increase the contrast, but cropped to remove the jaw. When interviewed by the ARRB, however, and shown the original un-enhanced, un-cropped x-rays, he recognized his mark on the x-rays, and acknowledged them as Kennedy's x-rays, and x-rays he'd taken. Same with Edward Reed, the other radiology tech at work on 11-22-63.

So now, ask yourself, is it a coincidence that Custer and Reed both denounced the x-rays when shown the computer-enhanced and cropped x-rays published by the HSCA, and then signed off on their authenticity once shown the originals? I suspect not. Rather than recognize the obvious--that they had failed to recognize the enhanced x-rays because they had a different appearance than the x-rays they normally saw at Bethesda, and then recognized the originals shown them by the ARRB, because they looked just like the x-rays they had seen at Bethesda--Horne (and I presume Mantik) assume Custer and Reed got all scared once shown the originals, and lied. That's pretty pathetic, IMO. It's amazing how so many of the medical witnesses (e.g. Carrico, Jenkins, Perry, Ebersole, Custer, Reed, Stringer, Riebe) are heroes when they tell people like Lifton, Mantik and Horne what they to hear, but are written off as liars and cowards when they tell them what they don't want to hear.

[David Von Pein]

SANDY LARSEN SAID:

The Zapruder film was not privately owned. Life Magazine bought the rights for $1,000,000 in today's dollars. Very few people saw the Z film till Geraldo Rivera televised it in 1975. And the ones who did see it lied about it.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Zapruder's film was privately owned (by Abraham Zapruder) at the time it was developed, processed, and copied for the Secret Service on 11/22/63. And that's the most important timeframe that I was referring to when I said the film was a "privately-owned non-Government home movie".

Because in order for the silly Z-Film Alterationists to have a prayer of being right about the film being altered, that film certainly MUST have been altered BEFORE any of the three copies were made at the Jamieson film lab on November 22nd. And there's no way in hell anyone "altered" the film that quickly. Not even George Reeves as Superman could have accomplished that ultra-fast film-altering feat. Therefore, based on that timing factor alone, we can have all the confidence in the world that the film was most certainly NOT altered.


REPLAY....
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Do you REALLY think that the Z-Film plus the autopsy photos plus the autopsy X-rays were altered in order to "move" the large wound in JFK's head from the back to the right-front?


SANDY LARSEN SAID:

Yes I do think that. It's not the big deal you make it out to be. Bright college students could do it.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, brother.




SANDY LARSEN SAID:

One has to be a real chump to believe all the lies the public has been fed regarding the JFK assassination. Just like the public was lied to about Viet Nam, 9/11 and Iraq, Iran-Contra, U.S meddling in other countries, assassinations, and coups.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But you've got to be an even bigger chump to believe that the Zapruder Film was altered (with lightning-like speed AND with Mr. Zapruder practically hovering over the film-fakers every step of the way), as well as believing all (or certainly most) of the autopsy photos AND X-rays were faked and altered by conspirators too (despite the fact the HSCA determined just exactly the opposite).

Edited December 12, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Robert Prudhomme]

Think about this. The LN's have continually denounced the validity of the observations made by Parkland doctors of JFK's large gaping head wound being in the right rear of JFK's head, for the simple reason that JFK was lying on his back in Trauma Room One, and this wound would have been hidden from them.

Using this logic, doesn't it seem odd that these same doctors did NOT report a large gaping wound on any other part of JFK's head, considering the fact that every other part of JFK's head was completely visible to them?

[David Von Pein]

Bob Prudhomme said:

Doesn't it seem odd that these same doctors did NOT report a large gaping wound on any other part of JFK's head, considering the fact that every other part of JFK's head was completely visible to them?

I've often wondered why more of the Parkland witnesses didn't see at least *some* of the large wound in the right-front of JFK's head.

From a 2009 Internet discussion:

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I have also wondered why very, very few of the Parkland Hospital witnesses said they saw the large exit wound on the right side of JFK's head (which is an exit wound that we positively KNOW was there when JFK was in the emergency room at Parkland)?

Even if Jackie Kennedy closed up the flap of scalp on the right side of the President's head (which I think is quite possible), I would still think that a lot more people at Parkland would have been able to see the outline or at least SOME portion of the gaping RIGHT-FRONT exit wound, which is the wound that was causing (IMO) the large amount of "pooling" of blood toward the right-rear of JFK's head (which is what I believe to be the best explanation [to date] for how those Parkland witnesses could have all been mistaken about the location of the wound).

But I've never been totally pleased with that "pooling" explanation, mainly because I'm wondering why nobody at Parkland claimed to see TWO wounds on the right side of the President's head:

1.) The place where the blood and brain tissue was "pooling" (the right-rear; which was mistaken for an actual HOLE in the President's head).

and:

2.) The actual exit wound itself, located in the Right/Front/Top area of JFK's head, which is an exit-wound location that is confirmed in several different ways -- e.g., the Zapruder Film, the autopsy photos, the autopsy report, and the autopsy doctors' remarks about the exit wound location in post-1963 interviews, including these firm and unambiguous comments made by Dr. James Humes on CBS-TV in 1967:

"The exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the front and right side of the President's head."

-- Dr. Humes; June 1967

BTW, I was a believer in the "Blood Pooling" theory before I ever read Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book. So it wasn't Mr. Bugliosi or Dr. Baden who convinced me that this is probably the best explanation for the Parkland witnesses' BOH observations. In fact, before reading Vince's book, I was truly hoping that VB would drop a bombshell on me and come up with something different and, frankly, BETTER, to explain away those BOH witnesses. But, alas, Vince doesn't have any better explanation than the "pooling" theory described by Dr. Baden in the book excerpt shown below:

"Dr. Michael Baden has what I believe to be the answer, one whose logic is solid. [Quoting Baden] "The head exit wound was not in the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said. They were wrong," [baden] told me. "Since the thick growth of hair on Kennedy's head hadn't been shaved at Parkland, there's no way for the doctors to have seen the margins of the wound in the skin of the scalp. All they saw was blood and brain tissue adhering to the hair. And that may have been mostly in the occipital area because he was lying on his back and gravity would push his hair, blood, and brain tissue backward, so many of them probably assumed the exit wound was in the back of the head"." -- Pages 407-408 of "Reclaiming History" by Vincent Bugliosi

In 2006, I was theorizing the exact same thing:

"If I were to hazard a guess as to why (and how) so many different observers could all see the same (wrong) thing regarding JFK's head wound, I'd say it's possibly due to the fact that the massive amount of blood coming from the President's large wound on the right side of his head was pooling toward the BACK of his head while he was resting flat on his back on the hospital stretcher, creating the incorrect impression to the observers that the wound was located where the greatest amount of blood was seen." -- DVP; December 10, 2006

 

Edited February 23, 2019 by David Von Pein

[Jon G. Tidd]

I don't understand why, today, there is any debate about the legitimacy of the so-called autopsy x-rays and photos.

The x-rays and photos are inconsistent. The x-rays are clearly fraudulent.

As DVP admits, either there was no cover-up or there was whole hog cover-up. There is no in-between. The x-rays provide, through the lens of today's technology, ample reason to believe they're fraudulent. That ample reason, all by itself, is reason to believe there was wide-ranging conspiracy to conceal the nature of JFK's wounds, how the wounds were caused, and who caused them.

The x-rays are the holy grail of JFK research. They are the smoking gun.

[David Von Pein]

I guess Jon G. Tidd has overlooked (or just decided to totally ignore) Pat Speer's informative post regarding the "computer-enhanced X-rays". Here's a replay....

"Custer denounced the x-rays multiple times...after being shown the computer-enhanced x-rays published by the HSCA, which were not only computer-enhanced to increase the contrast, but cropped to remove the jaw. When interviewed by the ARRB, however, and shown the original un-enhanced, un-cropped x-rays, he recognized his mark on the x-rays, and acknowledged them as Kennedy's x-rays, and x-rays he'd taken. Same with Edward Reed, the other radiology tech at work on 11-22-63.

So now, ask yourself, is it a coincidence that Custer and Reed both denounced the x-rays when shown the computer-enhanced and cropped x-rays published by the HSCA, and then signed off on their authenticity once shown the originals? I suspect not. Rather than recognize the obvious--that they had failed to recognize the enhanced x-rays because they had a different appearance than the x-rays they normally saw at Bethesda, and then recognized the originals shown them by the ARRB, because they looked just like the x-rays they had seen at Bethesda--Horne (and I presume Mantik) assume Custer and Reed got all scared once shown the originals, and lied. That's pretty pathetic, IMO.

It's amazing how so many of the medical witnesses (e.g. Carrico, Jenkins, Perry, Ebersole, Custer, Reed, Stringer, Riebe) are heroes when they tell people like Lifton, Mantik and Horne what they [want] to hear, but are written off as liars and cowards when they tell them what they don't want to hear." -- Patrick J. Speer; Dec. 12, 2015 (12:07 AM EST)

Edited December 13, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Jon G. Tidd]

DVP,

Thanks. I accept facts. Opinions I vet.

[Greg Burnham]

I will be publishing Dr. Chesser's entire Lancer Presentation titled: A Review of the Cranial Autopsy x-Rays and Photographs on my website shortly. Stay tuned.