Jump to content
The Education Forum

Temple Logic?


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

There are even more witnesses to this right forehead or right temple wound.

If you collect them its about five I think.

 

PS I made a mistake, its Tom Robinson not Charles Robinson.

 

I guess he wasn't a witness but,

1. Asst./acting press secretary Malcom Kilduff on 1/22/63.  Say's President's Physician, Admiral Burkley said right through his head, then point's to his right temple.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=malcolm+kilduff+announcement+of+jfk+death&&view=detail&mid=45CD23340249C2039DE645CD23340249C2039DE6&rvsmid=BD58295FCA3C912555A1BD58295FCA3C912555A1&FORM=VDQVAP

(last 30 seconds but watch the whole thing, another longer version shows Kilduff visibly shaken before it starts)

2.  The KLIF reporter Tony Krome linked says Burkley says right temple.

3.  James Jenkins, there assisting Humes on 11/22/63,  At The Cold Shoulder Of History.

4.  Dennis David, at Bethesda on 11/22/63, picture in William Pitzer's office 3-4 day's after the assassination, to the ARRB.

5.  Mortician Tom Robinson, putting wax in the wound.

Not sure if these are the five you are talking about, seems maybe I've read of another or two.

In addition to Chambers, doesn't Mantic and Chesser conclude such regarding Scientists as well a Horne of the ARRB?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Two neurologists - Dr. Michael Chesser and Dr. Joseph N. Riley - said that the lateral skull x-rays show a small hole in the forehead with the edges of the bone pushed in. Chesser examined the full-quality originals, while Riley only had copies online. 

http://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html

 

http://assassinationofjfk.net/a-review-of-the-jfk-cranial-x-rays-and-photographs/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

I guess he wasn't a witness but,

1. Asst./acting press secretary Malcom Kilduff on 1/22/63.  Say's President's Physician, Admiral Burkley said right through his head, then point's to his right temple.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=malcolm+kilduff+announcement+of+jfk+death&&view=detail&mid=45CD23340249C2039DE645CD23340249C2039DE6&rvsmid=BD58295FCA3C912555A1BD58295FCA3C912555A1&FORM=VDQVAP

(last 30 seconds but watch the whole thing, another longer version shows Kilduff visibly shaken before it starts)

2.  The KLIF reporter Tony Krome linked says Burkley says right temple.

3.  James Jenkins, there assisting Humes on 11/22/63,  At The Cold Shoulder Of History.

4.  Dennis David, at Bethesda on 11/22/63, picture in William Pitzer's office 3-4 day's after the assassination, to the ARRB.

5.  Mortician Tom Robinson, putting wax in the wound.

Not sure if these are the five you are talking about, seems maybe I've read of another or two.

In addition to Chambers, doesn't Mantic and Chesser conclude such regarding Scientists as well a Horne of the ARRB?

 

 

Joe O'Donnel claimed to see a photograph of a small wound in the right forehead, but he may not a very credible witness.

Another witness - Quentin Schwinn - told Doug Horne in 2010 that, like Dennis David, he was shown a photograph by William Bruce Pitzer which depicted JFK, lying dead with a small wound in his right forehead. A sketch reproduction of what he claimed to see is on page 43 here: https://midnightwriternews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Washington-Conference-Sep-26-2014.pdf

 

Doug's discussion of Quentin Schwinn: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svDEw3Jgkw8&t=106m22s

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Now, Skinny that's five and no more"  (Misquoting Gene Hackman in the movie Unforgiven)

If one summarizes one has this list:

1.  A rifle shot to the left temple

2.  A rifle shot to the right temple

3.  A rifle shot to the upper right forehead (frontal bone rather than temporal bone)

4.  A rifle shot from the front which makes a massive occipital wound as seen by Parkland doctors

5.  A rifle shot from the Sniper's Nest blowing out the top and right side of the skull

If we say these all happened in one event then that presents a problem.  If we are talking about high powered rifles such as a 1903 Springfield, a British Enfield, a German Mauser, a M-1 or M-14 or even the lowly Carcano then 5 wounds would not leave much of the skull from their force.  So, something different must have happened.

Maybe a combination of some of these produced the effect that is noted.  I really don't know.  But, I favor No.3 and No. 4 for head wounds.  Possibly, in this manner.  A gunshot wound from a small caliber pistol such as a .22 or .32 silenced (probably not larger than a .38) and shot from the crowd.  This round penetrates through the skull form left to right or from right to left and produces a right forehead and left temple wound.  Then there is a rifle shot that produces the massive head wound from the front to the rear as seen by Parkland doctors.  This could include the right temple wound.  The top and side wound plus maybe the right temp are produced later either before the autopsy or during.  At the time there is more shooting than this producing other wounds or missing.  There is enough shooting to produce confusion along Houston Street and Elm Street to confuse witnesses with hearing more than 3 shots.

As I said I don't know I'm just guessing based on my reading of events.

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/20/2019 at 9:42 AM, John Butler said:

"Now, Skinny that's five and no more"  (Misquoting Gene Hackman in the movie Unforgiven)

If one summarizes one has this list:

1.  A rifle shot to the left temple

2.  A rifle shot to the right temple

3.  A rifle shot to the upper right forehead (frontal bone rather than temporal bone)

4.  A rifle shot from the front which makes a massive occipital wound as seen by Parkland doctors

5.  A rifle shot from the Sniper's Nest blowing out the top and right side of the skull

If we say these all happened in one event then that presents a problem.  If we are talking about high powered rifles such as a 1903 Springfield, a British Enfield, a German Mauser, a M-1 or M-14 or even the lowly Carcano then 5 wounds would not leave much of the skull from their force.  So, something different must have happened.

Maybe a combination of some of these produced the effect that is noted.  I really don't know.  But, I favor No.3 and No. 4 for head wounds.  Possibly, in this manner.  A gunshot wound from a small caliber pistol such as a .22 or .32 silenced (probably not larger than a .38) and shot from the crowd.  This round penetrates through the skull form left to right or from right to left and produces a right forehead and left temple wound.  Then there is a rifle shot that produces the massive head wound from the front to the rear as seen by Parkland doctors.  This could include the right temple wound.  The top and side wound plus maybe the right temp are produced later either before the autopsy or during.  At the time there is more shooting than this producing other wounds or missing.  There is enough shooting to produce confusion along Houston Street and Elm Street to confuse witnesses with hearing more than 3 shots.

As I said I don't know I'm just guessing based on my reading of events.

The skull photographs show two small holes in the right temporal scalp. In my view, that indicates an exit for one or more bullet or bone fragments, which is what Robinson said - not an entry in the right temple, but an exit for a fragment.  

Edited by Micah Mileto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/19/2019 at 10:02 PM, Micah Mileto said:

Joe O'Donnel claimed to see a photograph of a small wound in the right forehead, but he may not a very credible witness.

Another witness - Quentin Schwinn - told Doug Horne in 2010 that, like Dennis David, he was shown a photograph by William Bruce Pitzer which depicted JFK, lying dead with a small wound in his right forehead. A sketch reproduction of what he claimed to see is on page 43 here: https://midnightwriternews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Washington-Conference-Sep-26-2014.pdf

 

Doug's discussion of Quentin Schwinn: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svDEw3Jgkw8&t=106m22s

 

Thanks in particular for the MWN Washington Conference link.  I've seen Horne quoted and discussed many times but only read one article by him.  So he believes, after his experiences with the ARRB, both a right temple and forehead shot?  Further, that the violence in back and to the left seen in the Zapruder film is increased by removal of frames at this point which speeds up the perception of the head going back?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Thanks in particular for the MWN Washington Conference link.  I've seen Horne quoted and discussed many times but only read one article by him.  So he believes, after his experiences with the ARRB, both a right temple and forehead shot?  Further, that the violence in back and to the left seen in the Zapruder film is increased by removal of frames at this point which speeds up the perception of the head going back?

Yes, that is his current model. Although his 2009 book series Inside the Assassination Records Review Board does discuss the left temple evidence as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who is Quentin Schwinn?  Never heard of him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Who is Quentin Schwinn?  Never heard of him.

Quentin Schwinn is a photographer who came out in 2010 and told Doug Horne that he once met Bruce Pitzer, who interviewed him for a job. He said that Pitzer very casually showed him a picture of Kennedy laying dead with a small circular wound in the right forehead. Around 2009-2015, Schwinn was leaving book reviews on Amazon.com for JFK Conspiracy books, and left a comment on a post about the RFK Assassination on Lisa Pease's blog.

 

https://www.amazon.com/gp/profile/amzn1.account.AFV2LOUJ4R6FBIH3L6YAZZJDHYWA/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_gw_btm?ie=UTF8

 

http://realhistoryarchives.blogspot.com/2011/10/british-hypnotist-shows-how-ordinary.html

 

Not a holy grail if you ask me. For all we know, he could just be copying Dennis David's story, which is already questionable because I don't think he mentioned Pitzer showing him such a photograph when interviewed earlier by David Lifton and others.

Edited by Micah Mileto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chesser's presentation seems impressive to me.  Sorry I did not that is person.

He does a comparative analysis of the images and then does a qualitative based on the sum total. 

Very interesting about his conclusion of the frontal shot.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron,

The other guy I was thinking of for the front temple shot was Custer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember reading in either Harrison Livingstone's "High Treason" or in his "High Treason 2" that there was a Parkland nurse who washed the body and who stopped working for the hospital shortly after the assassination. Years later he tracked her down in England. He presents a transcript of his interview with her in the book. Although most of it is devoted to a description of how large the wound was in the back of the head, I believe Livingstone asked her if there was an entry wound in the front of the head under the hairline. But I can't swear to this as it's been 25 years since I read the book. Does anyone have a copy of the books handy? (I'm pretty sure it was featured in "High Treason 2.") 

Edited by Rob Couteau
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Custer was not a back-of-the head witness. He was actually quite the opposite.

 

From patspeer.com, chapter 18c:

While radiology tech Jerrol Custer made many statements in the 80's and 90's indicating that he thought the autopsy photos and X-rays were faked, he actually told the ARRB, after having finally been shown the original X-rays, that they were indeed the ones he took on 11-22-63, and that he had been in error. He even specified that the x-rays showed an absence of bone in the parietal region and the temporal region behind the right eye, but a presence of bone in the occipital region. Now, some will say "But of course he caved, he was scared to death" but they really haven't done their homework. Custer told the ARRB a number of things which defied the official story of the assassination. He just didn't tell them what so many conspiracy theorists wanted him to say. 

And it's not as if he changed his statements for the ARRB. Custer was interviewed by Tom Wilson in 1995. As quoted in Donald Phillips' book on Wilson's research, A Deeper, Darker Truth (2009), Custer told Wilson there was a "King-sized hole" in the top right region of Kennedy's head, and that Kennedy's skull was like "somebody took a hardboiled egg and just rolled it around until it was thoroughly cracked...Part of the head would bulge out, another part would sink in. The only thing that held it together was the skin. And even that was loose."

It should come as no surprise, then, that Custer pretty much repeated this in his 1997 testimony before the ARRB. He recalled: "The head was so unstable, due to the fractures. The fractures were extremely numerous. It was like somebody took a hardboiled egg, and just rolled it in their hand. And that's exactly what the head was like...This part of the head would come out. This part of the head would be in...The only thing that held it together was the skin. And even that was loose." He then described "a gaping hole in the right parietal region" and specified that "none" of the "missing" bone was occipital bone. 

Don't believe me? When testifying before the ARRB, Custer added lines to an anatomy drawing of the rear view of the skull. The slanted lines represented the area of the skull that was unstable but extant beneath the scalp when he first viewed the body. Here it is:

 

CusterBOHmd207_0001a.gif


The occipital bone was intact beneath the skin. 

To wit, when asked by Jeremy Gunn if the wound on the back of the head stretched into the occipital bone (where Gunn's assistant Doug Horne and Horne's close associate David Mantik, among others, place the wound), Custer replied "The hole doesn't" and then clarified that the occipital region from the lambdoid suture to the occipital protuberance (basically the upper half of the occipital bone which Horne and Dr. Mantik claim was missing) "was all unstable material. I mean, completely." "Unstable" isn't "missing." 

And this wasn't just a short-lived thing--a quick retreat before, and during questioning, by the government. In 1998, Custer was interviewed by William Law for his book In The Eye of History. When asked about the supposed wound on the back of the head, Custer corrected: "Here's where a lot of researchers screw up. Not the back of the head. Here's the back of the head (Custer then pointed to the area of the head in contact with the head holder in the left lateral autopsy photo). The occipital region. The defect was in the frontal-temporal region. Now, when you have the body lying like that, everybody points to it and says, 'That’s the back of the head.' No! That’s not the back of the head." He then pointed to the top of the head on the left lateral autopsy photo: "That’s the top of the head!" Law then asked Custer how, if the wound was where researchers claim it was, the head could have rested on the head holder used in the autopsy. Custer then specified: "Because the back of the head wasn’t blown out. This was still intact." (As he said this, he pointed to the lower portion of the back of the head in the left lateral autopsy photo). He continued: "It may not have been perfectly intact, there were fractures in there of course with all the destruction. If the back of the head was gone, there would be nothing there to hold the head up...The (head holder) would have been all inside."

Now this, of course, was years after the publication of Groden's book. Even so, when one watches Groden's video, JFK: The Case For Conspiracy, one can see that Custer was never really a "back of the head" witness, as he does not point out a wound on the back of Kennedy's head, as suggested by the frame used in Groden's book, but drags his hand across the entire top of his head while claiming the wound he saw stretched "From the top of the head almost to the base of the skull..." He was thereby describing the wound's appearance after the scalp was reflected, and the brain was removed. (In support of this proposition, it should be noted that he'd also claimed there was no brain in the skull that he could remember.) 

Now I know this comes as a shock to many readers. Custer is a hero to those claiming the back of Kennedy's head was missing--even though he is actually one of the strongest witnesses supporting that it was not missing. Just think of it. When preparing to take the A-P x-ray, Custer lifted Kennedy's head up to place it on the cassette holding the x-ray film. IF the back of Kennedy's head was missing, Kennedy's brain would have rested directly on this cassette. Custer would undoubtedly have noticed such a thing, and almost certainly have remembered such a thing. And yet Custer not only never mentioned such a thing, he actively disputed that such a thing occurred.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...