Jump to content
The Education Forum

Asking for some info on the JFK autopsy photographs.


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Vince Palamara said:

Fair enough. Pat, do you believe the back of the head was gone and do you believe the medical evidence points to a conspiracy?

it depends on what you mean by "back of the head' and depends on what you mean by "gone". 

I'm with those who said the far back of the head was shattered beneath the scalp, and fell to pieces as Humes peeled back the scalp. 

As far as a conspiracy, of course I believe the medical evidence points to a conspiracy. I spent years of my life researching it, and writing about it. It's a fact, sure as your name is Vince Palamara. 

It's just not as simple as most want it to be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

14 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

it depends on what you mean by "back of the head' and depends on what you mean by "gone". 

I'm with those who said the far back of the head was shattered beneath the scalp, and fell to pieces as Humes peeled back the scalp. 

As far as a conspiracy, of course I believe the medical evidence points to a conspiracy. I spent years of my life researching it, and writing about it. It's a fact, sure as your name is Vince Palamara. 

It's just not as simple as most want it to be. 

Very cool! Thanks, Pat!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I don't ever recall reading or seeing Clint Hill give a description of where or the size of the back of the head wound.I just figured that he was going off of the x-rays or possibly the Zapruder film.It certainly appears (to me at least) that he has changed the location according to what Vince has provided (absolutely nothing showing the side) I read Crenshaw's book Conspiracy of Silence and he is very very adamant about what he observed.

Also like to thank all the others for contributing to this thread.

Thanks guys.

Edited by Michael Crane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Michael Crane said:

I don't ever recall reading or seeing Clint Hill give a description of where or the size of the back of the head wound.I just figured that he was going off of the x-rays or possibly the Zapruder film.It certainly appears (to me at least) that he has changed the location according to what Vince has provided (absolutely nothing showing the side) I read Crenshaw's book Conspiracy of Silence and he is very very adamant about what he observed.

Also like to thank all the others for contributing to this thread.

Thanks guys.

I have noticed that Hill has been trying to move the wound more to the side since 1963-2013. He must now be aware of the controversy (here is the new location he points out in 2021):

May be an image of 1 person and outdoors

 

Again- here he is from 2013 (video several comments above):

No photo description available.

Edited by Vince Palamara
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Vince Palamara said:

I have noticed that Hill has been trying to move the wound more to the side since 1963-2013. He must now be aware of the controversy:

May be an image of 1 person and outdoors

From what I could track down, Hill first specified that the wound was above the right ear in 2004. He has been consistent ever since. There is no reason to believe he studied the x-rays or the Z-film before saying as much. While he may have been aware that some were citing him as a "back of the head" witness, I think it's just as likely he could give a rat's ass what conspiracy theorists say or believe (outside of that the SS was in on it, of course). 

As he continues to denounce the single-bullet theory and continues to describe the head wound in a manner inconsistent with the story pushed by Baden etc, I suspect he is telling the truth as he sees it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

From what I could track down, Hill first specified that the wound was above the right ear in 2004. He has been consistent ever since. There is no reason to believe he studied the x-rays or the Z-film before saying as much. While he may have been aware that some were citing him as a "back of the head" witness, I think it's just as likely he could give a rat's ass what conspiracy theorists say or believe (outside of that the SS was in on it, of course). 

As he continues to denounce the single-bullet theory and continues to describe the head wound in a manner inconsistent with the story pushed by Baden etc, I suspect he is telling the truth as he sees it. 

The only thing is: in Blaine's (1 [Hill contributed and wrote the Foreword]) and Hill's books (3 with one pending), he states that the right rear or back of JFK's head was gone many times. The above video/still is from 2013. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

From what I could track down, Hill first specified that the wound was above the right ear in 2004. He has been consistent ever since. There is no reason to believe he studied the x-rays or the Z-film before saying as much. While he may have been aware that some were citing him as a "back of the head" witness, I think it's just as likely he could give a rat's ass what conspiracy theorists say or believe (outside of that the SS was in on it, of course). 

As he continues to denounce the single-bullet theory and continues to describe the head wound in a manner inconsistent with the story pushed by Baden etc, I suspect he is telling the truth as he sees it. 

Pat- How about this from Hill:

“It strikes me that perhaps we should keep an agent with President Kennedy’s body – out of respect for both President and Mrs. Kennedy, and in light of the questions that were raised at Parkland Hospital about taking the body back to Washington for the autopsy. This way, if there is ever any doubt about whether Dr. Burkley stayed with the body until the autopsy, or suspicions about tampering, there will be a Secret Service agent who also remained with the casket and can vouch for the integrity of the body. Agent Dick Johnsen is selected for the post because he is an agent who was with President Kennedy from the beginning and is familiar to Mrs. Kennedy, O’Donnell, and Powers.”–Secret Service agent Clint Hill, Five Days in November, page 124

Also in the same book (I can't find the reference now but Horne made a big issue of it), Hill states that the autopsy doctors knew the throat wound was a thru and thru exit wound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/10/2022 at 4:44 PM, Vince Palamara said:

The only thing is: in Blaine's (1 [Hill contributed and wrote the Foreword]) and Hill's books (3 with one pending), he states that the right rear or back of JFK's head was gone many times. The above video/still is from 2013. 

Yes, he has continued to say the rear back of the head was missing. But he has then pointed out where he means and he points to an area above and slightly behind the right ear. 

People use words in weird ways. To Hill, one can only presume, any area in back of the forehead is the back of the head. It is grossly unfair to claim he is lying about this. Where he places the wound is within a few inches of where Bill Newman placed the wound, and Gayle Newman placed the wound, and Abraham Zapruder placed the wound, and Malcolm Kilduff placed the wound, on television within a few hours of the assassination. To say they were all mistaken or lying or that they failed to see a giant gaping hole on the far back of the head is lunacy, IMO. 

As far as the semantics, I was mugged once by a guy who kept hitting me on the back of the head with his left hand. I told everyone he hit me on the back of the head, because his behavior seemed so cowardly and reprehensible. But when my brain buzz calmed down and I could see the gouge on my head left by his rings, it was on the side of my head above, and slightly behind my right ear. 

Here's another reason I believe Hill is credible--he never said he heard three shots. He could have changed from two to three--Bonnie Ray Williams and Bill Newman did. But instead he told the WC the second shot had a weird echo or something--a clear suggestion there were two shots fired quite close together. In fact, when one takes into account the speed of sound, Hill's recollection suggests a second shot (or sound) from close by, e.g. the grassy knoll area.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Yes, he has continued to say the rear back of the head was missing. But he has then pointed out where he means and he points to an area above and slightly behind the right ear. 

People use words in weird ways. To Hill, one can only presume, any area in back of the forehead is the back of the head. It is grossly unfair to claim he is lying about this. Where he places the wound is within a few inches of where Bill Newman placed the wound, and Gayle Newman placed the wound, and Abraham Zapruder placed the wound, and Malcolm Kilduff placed the wound, on television within a few hours of the assassination. To say they were all mistaken or lying or that they failed to see a giant gaping hole on the far back of the head is lunacy, IMO. 

As far as the semantics, I was mugged once by a guy who kept hitting me on the back of the head with his left hand. I told everyone he hit me on the back of the head, because his behavior seemed so cowardly and reprehensible. But when my brain buzz calmed down and I could see the gouge on my head left by his rings, it was on the side of my head above, and slightly behind my right ear. 

Here's another reason I believe Hill is credible--he never said he heard three shots. He could have changed from two to three--Bonnie Ray Williams and Bill Newman did. Bit instead he told the WC the second shot had a weird echo or something--a clear suggestion there were two shots fired quite close together. In fact, when one takes into account the speed of sound, Hill's recollection suggests a second shot (or sound) from close by, e.g. the grassy knoll area.

What is your take on this (he seems to predict Lifton's book years before it was even a thought):" if there is ever any doubt about whether Dr. Burkley stayed with the body until the autopsy, or suspicions about tampering"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Vince Palamara said:

Pat- How about this from Hill:

“It strikes me that perhaps we should keep an agent with President Kennedy’s body – out of respect for both President and Mrs. Kennedy, and in light of the questions that were raised at Parkland Hospital about taking the body back to Washington for the autopsy. This way, if there is ever any doubt about whether Dr. Burkley stayed with the body until the autopsy, or suspicions about tampering, there will be a Secret Service agent who also remained with the casket and can vouch for the integrity of the body. Agent Dick Johnsen is selected for the post because he is an agent who was with President Kennedy from the beginning and is familiar to Mrs. Kennedy, O’Donnell, and Powers.”–Secret Service agent Clint Hill, Five Days in November, page 124

Also in the same book (I can't find the reference now but Horne made a big issue of it), Hill states that the autopsy doctors knew the throat wound was a thru and thru exit wound.

At what point is Hill claiming Johnsen was told to stay with the body? I don't recall if Johnsen was even on the plane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

 

The Case for an Altered Throat Wound is taking so long because it's going to include a multi-page wall of text on the chain of custody for the autopsy photos, in the context of Saundra Spencer's statements. Still won't be an exhaustive list of problems with the chain of custody. That exhaustive list will have to come later.

Edited by Micah Mileto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Vince Palamara said:

What is your take on this (he seems to predict Lifton's book years before it was even a thought):" if there is ever any doubt about whether Dr. Burkley stayed with the body until the autopsy, or suspicions about tampering"

Is Hill accurate? Was Johnsen asked to stay with the body? 

As far as his comments about tampering, I seriously doubt that was on anyone's mind at the time. Presumably that part was added by his wife to help shut down Lifton. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Is Hill accurate? Was Johnsen asked to stay with the body? 

As far as his comments about tampering, I seriously doubt that was on anyone's mind at the time. Presumably that part was added by his wife to help shut down Lifton. 

Johnsen was on board:

I think Hill invented that bit about Johnsen- that is news to me...and who made HILL the boss (hello? Kellerman?) Also- you wrote  "Presumably that part was added by his wife to help shut down Lifton. " THAT is what I think Hill has been doing recently by moving the head wound more to the side...to shut down all these conspiracy folks.

 

No photo description available.

Edited by Vince Palamara
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

According to him and his family, Robert Knudsen was there that night. In fact, he was gone for three days.

And the evidence indicates that he took pictures and was a witness to what happened in the morgue. In fact, he described the probes inserted in JFK's body.

He was not called to testify before the Warren Commission.

As we show in JFK Revisited, he did testify before the HSCA.  They did not like what he said.

Therefore, as Doug Horne says, they classified his testimony for about 50 years.  But the ARRB declassified it.

To say the least, his story is one of the most fascinating of just about anyone before the HSCA. 

We talk about  it rather briefly in the film.  But clearly he and Sandy Spencer indicate there was a different set of pictures taken that night. Jeremy Gunn said that Spencer was their best witness.

George Burkley took a lot of secrets to his grave. Which is why the Secret Service visited him every year before he died.  And his daughter reneged on a deal for the ARRB to look through his attorney's files.

Absolutely James,I agree 100%.Burkley was probably the only one that was in both Trauma Room 1 & the Bethesda morgue.He would have known if the wounds were enlarged.Especially the throat wound (if you believe Lifton's theory)

 

Edited by Michael Crane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/10/2022 at 5:29 PM, Vince Palamara said:

May be an image of 1 person and outdoors

On 4/10/2022 at 5:29 PM, Vince Palamara said:

I have noticed that Hill has been trying to move the wound more to the side since 1963-2013. He must now be aware of the controversy (here is the new location he points out in 2021):

 

Many elderly people have a hard time reaching far back like that.

 

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
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...