Where is the exit?

[Micah Mileto]

56 minutes ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

Rick,

If what the professionals are saying is true, then the Autopsy photographs and the X-rays are fake and the people who took those photographs and X-rays are lying.  IMO - There is no way for those medical professionals to accurately claim that there was a hole in the back of JFK's head.  I believe what these medical professionals are incorrect in their assessment.  I have personally experienced seeing what I believe, to later review video and photographs and see in actuality what really occurred.  It does happen.

You have a similar problem with ten separate autopsy participants describing a small wound resembling entrance low in the back of the head - where a 6.5 entering there would have exited the face. Humes, Boswell, Finck, Stringer, Boyers, Burkley, Kellerman, O'Neill, Lipsey, and Robinson all made statements indicating that this small wound was LOW in the back of the head, next to the external occipital protuberance. Too low to be an entrance for a 6.5 Carcano round at frame z312.

Edited August 9, 2018 by Micah Mileto

[James DiEugenio]

Amazing how far afield this has gone.

I guess no one can supply a credible answer to the original question.

 

[Keyvan Shahrdar]

6 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Keyvan, do you really believe that photos and X-rays can't be altered or faked? Really?

Ray,

John Stringer was the medical photographer that took the autopsy photographs of JFK at Bethesda.  The publicly available autopsy photographs match up to what Mr. Stringer stated under oath.

Here is his AARB deposition in 1996: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/stringer.htm

Edward Reed was one of the X-ray technicians who took the X-rays of JFK's body, here is his ARRB Deposition in 1997 - https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Reed_10-21-97.pdf

Both Stringer and Reed explicitly state that there was no exit wound in the back of JFK's head.  Both stated that there was a large wound in the top right side of his head.

"

20] Q: Was there a wound in the occipital region 
[21] of the President - 
[22] A: Yes, the entry.

---

Page 82

[1] Q: By "the entry", you mean what? 
[2] A: Where the bullet went. 
[3] Q: And how big was the entry wound? 
[4] A: About the size of a bullet, from what you 
[5] could see. On the inside where the bone was, I 
[6] guess it was different. 
[7] Q: Could you describe what the skull looked 
[8] like as best you can now recall? 
[9] A: Well - 
[10] Q: I'm sorry. If I can just add one more - 
[11] Just the nature of the damage to the skull 
[12] of the President, without respect to entrance or 
[13] exit. Just what the wound looked like. 
[14] A: Well, the side of the head, the bone was 
[15] gone. But there was a flap, where you could lay it 
[16] back. But the back - I mean, if you held it in, 
[17] there was no vision. It was a complete head of 
[18] hair. 
[19] And on the front, there was nothing - the 
[20] scalp. There was nothing in the eyes. You could 
[21] have - Well, when they did the body, you wouldn't 
[22] have known there was anything wrong.

"

Edited August 9, 2018 by Keyvan Shahrdar

[Sandy Larsen]

6 hours ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

13 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

[The back-of-head blowout wound] was a large wound. Some said the size of a fist. Put your fist on the right side of the back of your head. The wound could be seen from the right side.

The doctor who steadied the head could see down into the wound. He saw both cerebral and cerebellar tissue (from the rear part of the brain) oozing out.

Besides, I think it is unreasonable to believe that the medical staff kept JFK's head facing perfectly straight up the whole time.

Sandy,

The X-rays and Autopsy photographs don't lie.  People do!

Keyvan,

20+ medical professionals don't lie in unison. Government officials and the CIA do.

 

[Micah Mileto]

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Amazing how far afield this has gone.

I guess no one can supply a credible answer to the original question.

 

The people originally tasked with answering your question had to stoop to petty lies about not knowing the tracheotomy was made over a bullet wound until the day after. Does there really have to be an extra bullet or an extra wound when things are looking that bad?

[Keyvan Shahrdar]

18 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Keyvan,

20+ medical professionals don't lie in unison. Government officials and the CIA do.

 

Sandy and et al who believe that there was a large wound in the back of JFK's head.

Is it possible that you guys are victims of misinformation?

1. The medical photographers and the X-ray technicians both state there was no hole in the back of the head. 

2. The autopsy photographs and the Xrays show that there is no exit wound in the back of the head.

3. The Mary Moorman photograph shows a shooter in the pergola.

4. The Mary Moorman photograph shows the back of JFK's head with no exit wound after he was shot in the head by a gunman from the pergola.

5. The Nix film show two rifle shots from the pergola with smoke trails.

6. The Zapruder film shows a bullet entering JFK's head from the right side and the bullet exiting the top of his head.

7. An autopsy photograph shows the top JFK's head with two bullet holes beveled on the outside of his skull denoting exit holes.

8. JFK's head x-ray shows massive damage to the top right side of his head. 

With all respect to everyone, there is photographic and film evidence that shows that JFK does not have an exit wound to the back of the head. 

We all have to come to the realization that JFK was 1) Shot in the lower back side of his head, and 2) shot on the right side of his head above his ear.

I know that some of you will never accept the facts as presented here, but I am sorry, the facts are the facts and there are 20+ medical professionals that are wrong for one reason or the other.

 

[Micah Mileto]

19 minutes ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

7. An autopsy photograph shows the top JFK's head with two bullet holes beveled on the outside of his skull denoting exit holes. 

The HSCA's interpretation of the skull photos is physically impossible, by the way. Neuropathologist Joe Riley pointed this out years ago. A skull cavity with only 5 inches between the proposed beveled entry and beveled exit point is way too little space for a whole brain to get through, unless bone from the upper back of the skull was somehow 'placed back in' before photography.

Edited August 9, 2018 by Micah Mileto

[Sandy Larsen]

10 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Some thoughts on some of the recent comments.

 

1. The vast majority of Parkland witnesses did not place the large head wound at the base of the back of the head. I went to great lengths to disprove this myth in chapters 18c and 18d of my website. I was then attacked by one well-known researcher who claimed I was knocking down a strawman. Sadly, this strawman still lives.

All but one or two of the medical professionals at Parkland -- approximately 20 of them -- placed the wound at the back of the head, to the right of center. If Pat is saying that they didn't place it at the very bottom (the "base"), that is correct. But they didn't place it at the top of the head either.

 

10 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

2. The list of back of the head witnesses cited by Sandy deliberately excluded a number of witnesses to the shooting itself--who uniformly placed the wound at the right top of the head by the temple, where it is depicted in the autopsy photos and x-rays. Aguilar's argument was that he wanted to focus on what medical professionals said, and to exclude laymen. This reflects his confirmation bias.

 

Besides what Dr. Aguilar said, there's another argument to be made for excluding the spectator witnesses to the shooting. They were not anticipating the shot and watching intently so that they could see exactly what happens. They were taken by surprise by the shot. It happened so fast that their recollections cannot be trusted.

In contrast, the medical professionals spent several minutes focusing on the damage done to the president. They are much better witnesses.

 

10 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

There is no reason whatsoever to believe the 15 to 50 year old memories of witnesses who saw Kennedy for a second in the hospital, who have been repeatedly told the wound was on the back of the head, would be anywhere near as accurate as the post-shooting comments of the Newmans and Zapruder.

 

Look who's showing their bias now. 15 to 50 year old memories? Ha! Saw Kennedy for a second? Ha!

Here are just a few examples of statements made by Parkland Hospital doctors:

• In a hand written note dated 11-22-63, Dr. Clark wrote, "a large 3 x 3 cm remnant of cerebral tissue present....there was a smaller amount of cerebellar tissue present also....There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region....Much of the skull appeared gone at the brief examination...." (Exhibit #392: WC V17:9-10)
• In testimony at Parkland taken before Arlen Specter on 3-21-64, [Dr.] McClelland described the head wound as, "...I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered...so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out...." (WC--V6:33)
• In a contemporaneous note dated 11-22-63, [Dr.] Jenkins described "a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital) (sic), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound." (WC--Exhibit #392)
• On the day of the assassination [Dr. Carrico] hand wrote, " (the skull) wound had avulsed the calvarium and shredded brain tissue present with profuse oozing... attempts to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue via packs instituted..." (CE 392--WC V17:4-5)
• In a note written at Parkland Hospital and dated, 11-22-63 Dr. Perry described the head wound as, "A large wound of the right posterior cranium..." (WC--V17:6--CE#392)

And the list goes on.

See Dr. Aguilar's list here :  http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm

 

10 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

3. Scientific studies have shown that emergency room doctors routinely make mistakes while recollecting fatal cases.  That's why autopsies are performed. Studies also show that the memories of experts are no more reliable than those of laymen, and that, in fact, experts are more prone to certain kinds of memory error (in which they latch onto an incorrect memory due to its feeling familiar) than laymen (who lack the experience to know what feels familiar).

 

Yes, people do make mistakes. But twenty different people don't all make the very same mistake. Rather, their statements corroborate one another.

 

10 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

4. A fist sized hole low on the back of the head would by necessity have scrambled the cerebellum and brain stem...the parts of the brain that tell your heart to pump and lungs to breath. This is a scientific fact.  Either Kennedy was DOA or there was no huge hole at the base of his skull. One or the other. You can't have both.

 

(I question the phrase I underlined.)

Apparently there was not enough damage to the cerebellum for the heart and lungs to discontinue to functioning.

 

10 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

5. A number of the most prominent Parkland witnesses--e.g. Carrico, Perry, Baxter, Jenkins--spent the last 20 years of their lives claiming they were mistaken in their suggestions the back of the head was missing. So, no, people who insist we trust the Parkland witnesses really don't want us to trust them at all, but to assume instead that the most prominent among them were cowards.

 

Sure... after they discovered that their belief was contradicted by the Warren Commission or HSCA, or they discovered that the autopsy photo showed no rear blowout. All of which were designed to cover up up a shot from the front.

 

10 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

6. Carrico and Perry made but cursory examinations of the head wound. Kennedy was barely breathing. Per standard emergency room procedure, they were focused on establishing an airway and keeping the heart beating. It was only after 15 minutes or so that Clark came in and took a look at the head wound. He said it was hopeless and that was the end of it. The idea that doctor after doctor or nurse after nurse came over and held the head up and took a look inside the skull to see how much brain was missing etc. is ludicrous.

 

In testimony at Parkland Hospital taken before Arlen Specter on 3-21-64, McClelland said the following:

"...I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered...so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out...." (WC--V6:33)

Ludicrous, eh?

 

[Cliff Varnell]

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Amazing how far afield this has gone.

I guess no one can supply a credible answer to the original question.

 

The question was answered -- there was no exit.

DiEugenio refuses to accept the obvious.

Gotta keep that VichyCT Parlor Game going at all costs, right Jim?

Edited August 9, 2018 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Amazing how far afield this has gone.

I guess no one can supply a credible answer to the original question.

 

Tink Thompson started this meme in 1967 in Six Seconds in Dallas when he threw pixie dust over the throat entrance and T3 back wounds.

Looks like DiEugenio is stuck in 1967 touting new evidence without grasping the old evidence...

[Cliff Varnell]

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Amazing how far afield this has gone.

I guess no one can supply a credible answer to the original question.

 

Nice to see James DiEugenio and David Von Pein on the same page.

The night of the autopsy FBI SA James Sibert called the FBI Lab to find out if there were such a thing as high tech rounds which wouldn't show up in the body or on x-ray.

Although the doctors and the FBI men regarded this as a credible explanation, DiEugenio/Von Pein pretend otherwise.

US Army Special Operations Division -- who developed the technology -- briefed the FBI that such technology would come from outside the US.

Blaming Kostikov was set up on a T.

Edited August 9, 2018 by Cliff Varnell

[David Von Pein]

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I guess no one can supply a credible answer to the original question.

I supplied a perfectly credible (and evidence-based) answer to your question some fourteen days ago, on July 26th....

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25088-where-is-the-exit/?page=5&tab=comments#comment-383269

 

Edited August 9, 2018 by David Von Pein

[Cliff Varnell]

On 8/6/2018 at 3:29 PM, Steve Jaffe said:

This is an endless and interesting argument but of the doctors at Parkland who I talked to who saw President Kennedy when he was first brought in, they all referred to the throat wound as an "entrance wound." If one of those Parkland attending physicians changed that view, who was it and where is it written that they said it could have been an exit wound?

Maybe DiEugenio/Von Pein missed this.

[Sandy Larsen]

[deleted]

Edited August 9, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[David Von Pein]

On 8/6/2018 at 6:29 PM, Steve Jaffe said:

...of the doctors at Parkland who I talked to who saw President Kennedy when he was first brought in, they all referred to the throat wound as an "entrance wound." If one of those Parkland attending physicians changed that view, who was it and where is it written that they said it could have been an exit wound?

ARLEN SPECTER -- "Based on the appearance of the neck wound alone, could it have been either an entrance or an exit wound?"
DR. MALCOLM PERRY -- "It could have been either."

[At 3 H 373.]

-------------------------------

ARLEN SPECTER -- "Was the wound in the neck consistent with being either an entry or exit wound, in your opinion?"
DR. CHARLES CARRICO -- "Yes."
MR. SPECTER -- "Or, did it look to be more one than the other?"
DR. CARRICO -- "No; it could have been either, depending on the size of the missile, the velocity of the missile, the tissues that it struck."

[At 6 H 5.]

-------------------------------

ARLEN SPECTER -- "What did you mean when you just made your reference to the academic aspect with the wound, Dr. Akin?"

DR. GENE AKIN -- "Well, naturally, the thought flashed through my mind that this might have been an entrance wound. I immediately thought it could also have been an exit wound, depending upon the nature of the missile that made the wound."

[At 6 H 65.]

-------------------------------

Related Links:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/06/jfk-wounds-and-more-sbt-talk.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2018/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1273.html

Edited August 9, 2018 by David Von Pein