Searching for the occipital-parietal head wound in the autopsy photographs

[Chris Bristow]

There is a well known GIF of multiple shots of the back of the head as they turn it. I think it might be Dr Mantik's but I can't access the site.
 I never knew if just the 1st and last images are real and the rest were morphed, or if they are all real. Anyone know about that GIF?

Edited June 22, 2022 by Chris Bristow

[Andrej Stancak]

10 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

This is the same reason Tom Wilson's claims of being able to detect widespread alteration in the assassination photo record never rang true to me -- he was studying multiple-generation copies, and not the original evidence.

Jonathan:

I am sure you are wrong here. I have a part of Tom Wilson's archive (sent to me by Don Philips) as I have been engaged in the reconstruction of his image analysis method. Tom Wilson had Mary Moorman's photograph made from the original negative of the polaroid picture. The copy of e.g., MM photograph I have is a high-resolution copy of Tom's photograph. The autopsy photographs Tom had analysed were high-quality pictures he received from Cyril Wecht. Some of the photgraphs (e.g., those showing Dealey Plaza) were given to Tom by Oliver Stone when Oliver briefly hired Tom's services in 1991 during shooting of his JFK film. 

Tom Wilson was very well aware of the importance of having the best quality original picture for any photographic analysis.

The autopsy photgraphs available at jfkassassination.org are certainly not copies made from a book. Copies made from book would either show a grid-like raster if scanned at high resolution, or would appear too smooth if a filter would be applied to get rid of the raster. The photograph with apparently intact hair in the back of the head (the first photograph shown in this thread) even shows thin line scratches around the surgeon's arm which proves that details were maintained; these autopsy pictures were made from a good quality copies of autopsy photographs. Robin Unger could advise as to the origin of the autopsy pictures displayed on jfkassassinationgallery.org.

Late edit: I should add that the brightness-coding analysis method used in this thread is the same which Tom Wilson had used. However, Tom was able to program it all by himself while I use a freely available program ImageJ that was developed for analysis of medical and biological images. I have invested a lot of time, funds and effort into the hardware part of Tom Wilson's method (shooting both in infra-red and visible spectrum of light using a sensitive industrial camera, illuminating the enlargements of images with strobe light at different frequencies, enlarging the brightess coding to 12 bits instead of 8 bits), and currently I cannot say what is the added value of each of these elements. This is a very time consuming project and I am afraid it will need to wait until my not-so-distant retirement to be able to get to the bottom of Tom's method.   

 

Edited June 22, 2022 by Andrej Stancak

[Eddy Bainbridge]

On 6/21/2022 at 8:01 AM, Andrej Stancak said:

Eddy:

there was no scalp in the open wound in the back of the head. There was no scalp to be stretched over that open wound through which the brain matter and fluids were discharded after the fatal head shot. 

 

 

 

 

Hi Andrej, above you are making a strong assertion that I haven't seen the evidence for. If you look at the Mclelland approved sketch it is possible to believe stitching would close the hole. As far as I'm aware none of the recovered skull fragments had hair on them. This suggests the outermost layer of scalp did not leave with the fragments.

I have seen no testimony from persons claiming the rear wound was visible after reconstruction. Your point about measurements being taken only during the autopsy is not supported.

[Andrej Stancak]

Eddy:

Doctor Humes in his ARRB testimony admitted that several centimeters of scalp were missing in such a way that the scalp could not be closed. As Parkland doctors did not see any head wound on the lateral convexity of the head, it could have been only the back of the head showing a deficit in scalp tissue. It is true that Dr Humes did not confer in his ARRB deposition which part of the head lacked the scalp, he simply dodged the question. 

Edited June 25, 2022 by Andrej Stancak

[Pat Speer]

On 6/21/2022 at 4:56 PM, Chris Bristow said:

There is a well known GIF of multiple shots of the back of the head as they turn it. I think it might be Dr Mantik's but I can't access the site.
 I never knew if just the 1st and last images are real and the rest were morphed, or if they are all real. Anyone know about that GIF?

The GIF morphing the black and white and color BOH photos was created by single-assassin theorist John Mytton and posted on the JFK Assassination Forum. He made a similar GIF for the black and white top of the head photos. I used and replicated his work on my website. I later added two additional GIFs to my website, The first one was a GIF morphing together the two color BOH photos. The second was a series of GIFs morphing together the two so-called mystery photos (the photos showing the cranium after the brain had been removed). 

The significance of these GIFs can not be overstated. 

The GIF created by Mytton proves the opposite of what he thought it would. It proves that the so-called hole in the cowlick is not a hole. Upon close inspection, it also demonstrates a hole in the hair an inch or so to the right of the EOP--exactly where the autopsy doctors said it was. This GIF also proves that the top of JFK's skull was shattered and that the right top of his head in the photos was essentially a loose bone flap. IF the dolts in the mainstream media and medical establishment were to study this GIF it would lead to a re-opening of the case, IMO.

The GIF of the top of the head is also interesting. It demonstrates the massive damage to the top of Kennedy's skull.

The GIF morphing the two color BOH photos demonstrates furthermore that the Groden/Mantik claim the back of the head in these photos is a matte...is not a matte, as the back of the head changes slightly, and the instability at the top of the head apparent in the first morph is confirmed.

As far as the GIFs of the two mystery photos...these demonstrate three things which most are still not ready to deal with. The first is that these photos were taken at a specific angle to the table that precludes these photos from being photos of Kennedy's forehead--the interpretation pushed by the HSCA FPP. The second is that these photos reveal a bullet hole an inch or so to the right of the EOP-just where the autopsy doctors claimed it was. And the third is that these GIFs prove that what most assume is a crack on the skull, and what is officially a crack on the skull, is really the handle of a tool sticking out of the skull, presumably a scalpel. This is perhaps my most interesting discovery. One prominent LN cursed me out over this because gosh darn it he realized I was right. The Clark Panel and HSCA FPP grossly misinterpreted/misrepresented these photos, and this can be demonstrated through the GIFs on my website. If the dolts in the mainstream media and medical establishment were to study these GIFs, it would lead to a re-opening of the case, IMO.

 

[Pat Speer]

On 6/22/2022 at 12:50 AM, Andrej Stancak said:

Jonathan:

I am sure you are wrong here. I have a part of Tom Wilson's archive (sent to me by Don Philips) as I have been engaged in the reconstruction of his image analysis method. Tom Wilson had Mary Moorman's photograph made from the original negative of the polaroid picture. The copy of e.g., MM photograph I have is a high-resolution copy of Tom's photograph. The autopsy photographs Tom had analysed were high-quality pictures he received from Cyril Wecht. Some of the photgraphs (e.g., those showing Dealey Plaza) were given to Tom by Oliver Stone when Oliver briefly hired Tom's services in 1991 during shooting of his JFK film. 

Tom Wilson was very well aware of the importance of having the best quality original picture for any photographic analysis.

The autopsy photgraphs available at jfkassassination.org are certainly not copies made from a book. Copies made from book would either show a grid-like raster if scanned at high resolution, or would appear too smooth if a filter would be applied to get rid of the raster. The photograph with apparently intact hair in the back of the head (the first photograph shown in this thread) even shows thin line scratches around the surgeon's arm which proves that details were maintained; these autopsy pictures were made from a good quality copies of autopsy photographs. Robin Unger could advise as to the origin of the autopsy pictures displayed on jfkassassinationgallery.org.

Late edit: I should add that the brightness-coding analysis method used in this thread is the same which Tom Wilson had used. However, Tom was able to program it all by himself while I use a freely available program ImageJ that was developed for analysis of medical and biological images. I have invested a lot of time, funds and effort into the hardware part of Tom Wilson's method (shooting both in infra-red and visible spectrum of light using a sensitive industrial camera, illuminating the enlargements of images with strobe light at different frequencies, enlarging the brightess coding to 12 bits instead of 8 bits), and currently I cannot say what is the added value of each of these elements. This is a very time consuming project and I am afraid it will need to wait until my not-so-distant retirement to be able to get to the bottom of Tom's method.   

 

The provenance of the autopsy photos on the internet is well-known. They all come from the collections of Mark Crouch or Robert Groden.

Crouch received a black and white set from FBI agent Fox, which is presumed to have been made from the original negatives. Crouch then photographed these photos and used these negatives to make copies, some of which were published by Lifton, Groden and Livingstone in their books. I am fairly certain, moreover, that the copies provided Lifton, Groden and Livingstone were re-photographed, burned and dodged, and cropped before publishing. The vast majority of images online are scans or photos of the images in their books. So these are a long way from the original negatives. Crouch's original set, moreover, was sold to Walt Brown, who, to my knowledge, has never allowed them to be digitized. 

Groden himself made some color copies while working for the HSCA. But these were not prints made from the original negatives or slides. These were photos taken on the sly of the copies he was allowed to handle and analyze. The majority of color images online are scans from Groden's books or pamphlets. So these images are also pretty far down the line. 

I discovered this myself roughly 15 years ago, after realizing that there was a considerable difference between the images in Lifton's, Groden's, and Livingstone's books. Slowly, the answer became obvious. The copies provided by Crouch had been altered and cropped before publishing. 

Edited June 25, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Sean Coleman]

57 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

The GIF morphing the black and white and color BOH photos was created by single-assassin theorist John Mytton and posted on the JFK Assassination Forum. He made a similar GIF for the black and white top of the head photos. I used and replicated his work on my website. I later added two additional GIFs to my website, The first one was a GIF morphing together the two color BOH photos. The second was a series of GIFs morphing together the two so-called mystery photos (the photos showing the cranium after the brain had been removed). 

The significance of these GIFs can not be overstated. 

The GIF created by Mytton proves the opposite of what he thought it would. It proves that the so-called hole in the cowlick is not a hole. Upon close inspection, it also demonstrates a hole in the hair an inch or so to the right of the EOP--exactly where the autopsy doctors said it was. This GIF also proves that the top of JFK's skull was shattered and that the right top of his head in the photos was essentially a loose bone flap. IF the dolts in the mainstream media and medical establishment were to study this GIF it would lead to a re-opening of the case, IMO.

The GIF of the top of the head is also interesting. It demonstrates the massive damage to the top of Kennedy's skull.

The GIF morphing the two color BOH photos demonstrates furthermore that the Groden/Mantik claim the back of the head in these photos is a matte...is not a matte, as the back of the head changes slightly, and the instability at the top of the head apparent in the first morph is confirmed.

As far as the GIFs of the two mystery photos...these demonstrate three things which most are still not ready to deal with. The first is that these photos were taken at a specific angle to the table that precludes these photos from being photos of Kennedy's forehead--the interpretation pushed by the HSCA FPP. The second is that these photos reveal a bullet hole an inch or so to the right of the EOP-just where the autopsy doctors claimed it was. And the third is that these GIFs prove that what most assume is a crack on the skull, and what is officially a crack on the skull, is really the handle of a tool sticking out of the skull, presumably a scalpel. This is perhaps my most interesting discovery. One prominent LN cursed me out over this because gosh darn it he realized I was right. The Clark Panel and HSCA FPP grossly misinterpreted/misrepresented these photos, and this can be demonstrated through the GIFs on my website. If the dolts in the mainstream media and medical establishment were to study these GIFs, it would lead to a re-opening of the case, IMO.

 

 

One of John Mytton’s gifs, which the HSCA would have you believe this happened… 

note Harper fragment included in this imaginification of a diagram

[Andrej Stancak]

5 hours ago, Sean Coleman said:

note Harper fragment included in this imaginification of a diagram

Sean:

Harper fragment is a flat piece of bone with only its "beacon" being curved sligthly inward. This fragment could not originate from the parietal bone as shown in the sketch in your post where the convexity of the skull is too much pronounced. The only region of the skull where this fragment could come from was the occipital bone above the occipital protuberance which bone was remarkably flat on Kennedy's skull. The curved "beacon" is from the lateral portion of the upper part of squama of occipital bone as it curves anteriorly, basically it is a part of the wall of the transverse sulcus. The two lines on the interior surface of Harper fragment are sulci for, probably, the blood vessels. While Dr Mantik and the Dallas doctors who photographed Harper fragment were correct in placing the fragment into occipital bone, Dr Mantik's fit of Harper fragment was not correct, in my opinion.

I have started a 3D model of Harper fragment and downloaded a large number of CT head scans (512 heads) to find the head volume matching Kennedy's head the best, to test the goodness of fit of the realistic 3D model of Harper fragment in various hypothesised locations. However, the parietal bone location of Harper fragment would be an unlikely solution owing to the convexity of the parietal bone. From what I read about Harper fragment, no one really accomplished a proper analysis to fit this fragment into Kennedy's skull, possibly due to limited technology at that time.

Edited June 25, 2022 by Andrej Stancak

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Sean:

Harper fragment is a flat piece of bone with only its "beacon" being curved sligthly inward. This fragment could not originate from the parietal bone as shown in the sketch in your post where the convexity of the skull is too much pronounced. The only region of the skull where this fragment could come from was the occipital bone above the occipital protuberance which bone was remarkably flat on Kennedy's skull. The curved "beacon" is from the lateral portion of the upper part of squama of occipital bone as it curves anteriorly, basically it is a part of the wall of the transverse sulcus. The two lines on the interior surface of Harper fragment are sulci for, probably, the blood vessels giving to the sagittal sinus. While Dr Mantik and the Dallas doctors who photographed Harper fragment were correct in placing the fragment into occipital bone, Dr Mantik's fit of Harper fragment was not correct, in my opinion.

I have started a 3D model of Harper fragment and downloaded a large number of CT head scans (512 heads) to find the head volume matching Kennedy's head the best, to test the goodness of fit of the realistic 3D model of Harper fragment in various hypothesised locations. However, the parietal bone location of Harper fragment would be an unlikely solution owning to the convexity of the parietal bone. From what I read about Harper fragment, no one really accomplished a proper analysis to fit this fragment into Kennedy's skull, possibly due to limited technology at that time.

Oh my. That's just not true. Dr. Joseph Riley, a professional neuroanatomist (i.e. an expert on the skull) ruled out the occipital as a location for the Harper fragment. He confirmed, moreover, what Forensic Anthropologist (i.e. an expert on skull reconstruction) Dr. Lawrence Angel had presented in his report to the HSCA--that it would have to be high parietal (above the ear at the top of the head and not on the far back of the head, as suggested by Baden's awful drawing for the HSCA.) (Baden would in fact come to disavow that drawing himself, and would tell the HSCA the Harper fragment derived from the side of the head in front of the ear--an obvious lie designed to conceal that the two largest fragments--the triangular fragment and Harper fragment--each exhibited exit beveling and each showed small metal fragments--an impossibility if there was only one small exit hole for the bullet as Baden had told the committee.)  

In any event I tackled this myself and Riley was obviously correct--there's no way the Harper fragment is occipital bone. 

P.S. Mantik still insists it was occipital bone but acknowledges that Riley is correct in that it does not appear to be occipital bone...he offers instead that Kennedy's Addison's disease had altered the appearance of his skull. That's incredibly weak sauce, IMO. And desperate...

Edited June 25, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

8 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Eddy:

Doctor Humes in his ARRB testimony admitted that several centimeters of scalp were missing in such a way that the scalp could not be closed. As Parkland doctors did not see any head wound on the lateral convexity of the head, it could have been only the back of the head showing a deficit in scalp tissue. It is true that Dr Humes did not confer in his ARRB deposition which part of the head lacked the scalp, he simply dodged the question. 

The Parkland witnesses and Bethesda witnesses agreed on one important point. There was a large open wound in the skull AND scalp. Forensic journals--most tellingly those written by members of the Clark Panel, Rockefeller Commission panel and HSCA pathology panel--insist that you can tell entrance and exit by the lack scalp...i.e. there is missing scalp at entrance but not at exit. So the large wound represented an entrance--almost certainly a tangential entrance. 

So how did the HSCA panel get around this??? In one of the overlooked (at least till I came around) footnotes in their report they offered that Humes was probably mistaken when he said the large wound was missing scalp. They ignored of course that Clark had written the same thing in his report before Humes had sat down to write his report.

The missing scalp is the smoking gun that will lead to a re-appraisal of the medical evidence...

[Andrej Stancak]

5 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

In any event I tackled this myself and Riley was obviously correct--there's no way the Harper fragment is occipital bone. 

There are obviously conflicting views between the professional pathologists who were able to inspect the bone fragment itself rather than to work out the locations from the photographs, Jack C. Harper, Gerard Noteboom, and A.B Cairns (chief of pathology department at Methodist Hospital, Dallas), and the experts called by the HSCA. Dr Mantik did a good job to dispute the views of J.J Riley and J. Angel who likewise were experts. My point is that none of the reports by the HSCA experts or Dr Mantik are based on a realistic reconstruction of the fragment and its fitting into a model of JFK's head, and none of their work is convincing enough. It is not possible just to claim something, it is necessary to prove it. The HSCA did all to obfuscate and not really investigate the medical evidence (e.g., forcing Dr Humes to shift the entry wound from the level of external occipital protuberance about 10 cm superior to the parietal bone), so Riley's and Angel's views are irrelevant today unless they presented convincing proofs of the parietal location which they did not.

    

[Pat Speer]

1 minute ago, Andrej Stancak said:

There are obviously conflicting views between the professional pathologists who were able to inspect the bone fragment itself rather than to work out the locations from the photographs, Jack C. Harper, Gerard Noteboom, and A.B Cairns (chief of pathology department at Methodist Hospital, Dallas), and the experts called by the HSCA. Dr Mantik did a good job to dispute the views of J.J Riley and J. Angel who likewise were experts. My point is that none of the reports by the HSCA experts or Dr Mantik are based on a realistic reconstruction of the fragment and its fitting into a model of JFK's head, and none of their work is convincing enough. It is not possible just to claim something, it is necessary to prove it. The HSCA did all to obfuscate and not really investigate the medical evidence (e.g., forcing Dr Humes to shift the entry wound from the level of external occipital protuberance about 10 cm superior to the parietal bone), so Riley's and Angel's views are irrelevant today unless they presented convincing proofs of the parietal location which they did not.

    

Riley made a number of presentations on this issue at conventions. He used anatomy diagrams to demonstrate that the ridges on the interior of the Harper fragment are incompatible with those on the interior of the occipital bone. I demonstrate this quite clearly on my slide. While a 3-d reconstruction might be helpful, we should know by now that most 3-d re-constructions performed for this case have been GIGO. Just look at all the 3-d reconstructions of the single-bullet theory...

As far as Cairns' opinion the bone was occipital, it was really a quick glance at the bone at a time when the papers were indicating shots came from the front, and William Harper thought he'd found the skull behind the location of the limo at the time of the head shot. (When he later showed researchers where he found the bone, it was, of course, well in front of Kennedy's location at the time of the head shot.)

[Andrej Stancak]

Pat:

I read Riley's report. His report is not really a proof of anything. His claim that occipital bone is devoid of vascular grooves is false (Dr Mantik has discussed it in detail in his book) and I myself have checked quite many plates in current anatomy books, and of course, vascular grooves can be found on the interior of the squama of occipital bone.

It is quite a bit of serious work to model and fit Harper fragment into a head model, and while I started some preparatory work, this project is far from completion, and I therefore cannot show the location I currently think is the correct one  because  this location may change in the later stages of the project, and I do not wish to spread information about my unfinished project. However, even my preparatory reading was sufficient to be able to see obvious mistakes in the assumed parietal location of Harper fragment. The most obvious mistake is that the parietal bone is convex, angulated, while Harper fragment is a flat piece of bone. Therefore, it would not fit the parietal bone.

It is encouraging that we both can agree on the fact that Harper fragment was a piece of JFK's skull and that it was blasted out from his head in such a way that a hole would have been seen on JFK's head. If it would have been on the parietal bone, all Parkland staff would see it at once and would locate it by pointing to the side of their head between vertex and the ear. But they did not do that. The hole was elsewhere - in the back of the head, this is where they pointed to. 

Here is a posterior view of human skull giving a good indication of how convex the parietal bone is, unlike the squama of the occipital bone above the superior nucha which region of the skull is flat.  Harper fragment would only fit a flat bone.

 

 

This photograph (Kennedy meeting miners in West Virginia, 1960) nicely shows the (flat) back of Kennedy's head.

Edited June 25, 2022 by Andrej Stancak

[Andrej Stancak]

As to what head wound the Parkland doctors and nurses could see on Kennedy's head, Dr Aguilar's narrative explains the situation in Trauma Room One. The head wound could not be seen from a side view and therefore, it could not be located on the convexity of the parietal bone, and it took some effort to observe the head wound in the back of the head:

"Author David Lifton reported that Parkland emergency nurse Audrey Bell claimed that JFK's skull wound "was so localised at the rear of JFK's skull that, from her position on the right side on the right hand side, with Kenned's lying face up, she couldn't see any damage". It is certainly likely that a blown-out skull wound on the right side would have been visible to witnesses standing on that side. But had the skull defect been more on the back of JFK's head, rather than on the side - which, as we'll see is what virtually all the witnesses first reported - then some sense can be made of Jenkins' and Bell's comments that the wound was not visible to side witnesses. It would also help explain the similar, previously suppressed, report from a witness who was present at JFK's autopsy - General Phillip C. Wehle, Commanding Officer of the military District of Washington, D.C. After interviewing Wehle in 1978, House Select Committee on Assassination (HSCA), councel D. Andy Purdy  J.D., reported that, (Wehle) noted the wound was in the back of the head so he would not see it because the President was lying face up..." (page 179)

"The Boston Globe reported that "some (Parkland) doctors doubted the extent to which a wound to the rear of the head would have been visible  since the President was lying supine with the back of his head on a hospital cart." 

The Globe immediately refuted that speculation, reporting. "But others, like (Dr. Richard Dulaney) and (neurosergeon Dr. Robert) Grossman, said the head at some point was lifted up, therefore exposing the head wound". Similarly, author David Lifton reported that Parkland emergency nurse Audrey Bell, who couldn't see JFK's head wound though she was standing on the right side, asked Dr. Perry. "Where was the wound?", Perry pointed to the back of the President's head and moved the head slightly in order to show her the wound". During sworn interviews with the ARRB in 1998, Dr. Paul Peters reported , "(anesthesiologist Dr. Marion T.) Jenkins said, "Boys, before you think about opening the chest, you'd better step up here and look at his brain." And so at that point  I did step around Dr. Baxter and looked into the President's head...". The ARRB's Gunn inteviewed neurosurgeon Robert Grossman, M.D. on March 21, 1997. reporting, "He (Grossman) and Kemp Clark (Chairman of Neurosurgery at Parkland) (sic) together lifted President Kennedy's head so as to be able to observe the damage to the President's head." (page 193).

Quoted from Aguilar, G, The converging medical case for conspiracy, In: Murder in Dealey Plaza, J. Fetzer (ed.), Chicago Press, 2000.

Edited June 25, 2022 by Andrej Stancak

[Chris Bristow]

10 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

The GIF morphing the black and white and color BOH photos was created by single-assassin theorist John Mytton and posted on the JFK Assassination Forum. He made a similar GIF for the black and white top of the head photos. I used and replicated his work on my website. I later added two additional GIFs to my website, The first one was a GIF morphing together the two color BOH photos. The second was a series of GIFs morphing together the two so-called mystery photos (the photos showing the cranium after the brain had been removed). 

The significance of these GIFs can not be overstated. 

The GIF created by Mytton proves the opposite of what he thought it would. It proves that the so-called hole in the cowlick is not a hole. Upon close inspection, it also demonstrates a hole in the hair an inch or so to the right of the EOP--exactly where the autopsy doctors said it was. This GIF also proves that the top of JFK's skull was shattered and that the right top of his head in the photos was essentially a loose bone flap. IF the dolts in the mainstream media and medical establishment were to study this GIF it would lead to a re-opening of the case, IMO.

The GIF of the top of the head is also interesting. It demonstrates the massive damage to the top of Kennedy's skull.

The GIF morphing the two color BOH photos demonstrates furthermore that the Groden/Mantik claim the back of the head in these photos is a matte...is not a matte, as the back of the head changes slightly, and the instability at the top of the head apparent in the first morph is confirmed.

As far as the GIFs of the two mystery photos...these demonstrate three things which most are still not ready to deal with. The first is that these photos were taken at a specific angle to the table that precludes these photos from being photos of Kennedy's forehead--the interpretation pushed by the HSCA FPP. The second is that these photos reveal a bullet hole an inch or so to the right of the EOP-just where the autopsy doctors claimed it was. And the third is that these GIFs prove that what most assume is a crack on the skull, and what is officially a crack on the skull, is really the handle of a tool sticking out of the skull, presumably a scalpel. This is perhaps my most interesting discovery. One prominent LN cursed me out over this because gosh darn it he realized I was right. The Clark Panel and HSCA FPP grossly misinterpreted/misrepresented these photos, and this can be demonstrated through the GIFs on my website. If the dolts in the mainstream media and medical establishment were to study these GIFs, it would lead to a re-opening of the case, IMO.

 

Thanks for the info about the GIF. It does seem important. I will check out your GIF's.