Following the Science: The Bevelling Evidence / Proof of a Frontal Head Shot

[Gil Jesus]

by Gil Jesus ( 2023 )

Dr. Humes' final autopsy report stated that "in the underlying bone is a corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits bevelling of the margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull." ( 16 H 981 )

One autopsy photograph proves this was not so.

Unlike an exit wound in flesh, which leaves a ragged or jagged edge to the wound, an exit wound in the skull blasts out of the bone leaving a "bevel" at the point of exit.

A bevel on the inside table of the skull indicates a wound of entry while a bevel on the outside of the skull indicates a wound of exit.

 

Below is a typical gunshot wound to the skull showing the entrance wound ( A ) on the outside of the skull and the bevelling on the inside of the skull ( B ) as the bullet exited the bone.

 

Humes' statement that the bevelling was seen "when viewing from the inner aspect of the skull" indicates that the wound was a wound of entry. ( CE 387, pg. 4 )

But autopsy photo F8, shows a bevelling of the wound on the OUTSIDE of the skull on the perimeter edge of the large exit wound.

 

This bevelling indicates that a bullet EXITED at the large head wound. The result is that the autopsy photo does not support the autopsy report.

The autopsy report indicates that Humes knew how to interpret the bevelling information. Three fragments which were blown off the skull in Dealey Plaza found their way to Bethesda and were included in the autopsy report. The largest of these had a bevelling on the outside which Humes correctly identified as an exit wound. ( 16 H 981 )

 

 

If he knew the bevelling on the outside edge of the large fragment indicated a wound of exit, he knew the bevelling on the outside edge of the large wound in the back of the skull indicated an exit wound as well.
 

 

In other words, Dr. Humes changed the exit wound he saw to an entrance wound. He deliberately lied about the head wound he saw. With Oswald positioned behind the motorcade, they had to have the official record show all shots were fired from behind.
This is the reason why he and the Secret Service pressured the Dallas doctors, specifically Dr. Malcolm Perry, to back off his statement that the throat wound was an entry wound.

It's the reason why Humes lied to Rydberg about the autopsy photos and x-rays being unavailable and why he preferred dictating a description of the wounds. Rydberg could not be allowed to see the autopsy photos, evidence that proved Humes' autopsy report was a lie.

And it's also the real reason why Humes burned his original autopsy notes after Lee Harvey Oswald was dead. In addition, the medical people involved in the autopsy were sworn to secrecy under penalty of court-martial.

 

 

All of these actions when combined could only serve one sinister purpose: to hide the fact that the shot that hit the President in the throat and at least one that hit him in the head came from the front.

Edited August 17, 2023 by Gil Jesus

[Gerry Down]

12 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said:

But autopsy photo BE7 - HI, shows a bevelling of the wound on the OUTSIDE of the skull on the perimeter edge of the large exit wound.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/BE7_HI1_21-1-1024x432.jpg

This bevelling indicates that a bullet EXITED at the large head wound. The result is that the autopsy photo does not support the autopsy report.

Finck was shown this photo and asked if this was an exit wound. Finck said no and that the photo was too blurred to draw any conclusion. The likelihood therefore is that this blurred photo is showing an optical illusion of an exit wound, otherwise such an exit wound would have been a key aspect of the original autopsy report. And you would have LNers jumping up and down and using this as evidence of a shot from the rear. 

[Gil Jesus]

1 hour ago, Gerry Down said:

The likelihood therefore is that this blurred photo is showing an optical illusion of an exit wound, otherwise such an exit wound would have been a key aspect of the original autopsy report.

ROFLMAO. Thank You. I needed a good laugh today. Here's your "optical illusion", autopsy photo BE7-HI:

BTW, can we see that citation where Finck was shown this particular photo and claimed it was too blurred to make an identification of an exit wound ? I can't seem to find that in my files. Thanks.

Edited February 4, 2023 by Gil Jesus

[Gerry Down]

17 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said:

ROFLMAO. Thank You. I needed a good laugh today. Here's your "optical illusion", autopsy photo BE7-HI:

Finck was a trained forensic pathologist. He said he could determine no exit would in that photo.

You got better credentials than Finck?

[Gerry Down]

24 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said:

BTW, can we see that citation where Finck was shown this particular photo and claimed it was too blurred to make an identification of an exit wound ? I can't seem to find that in my files. Thanks.

Fincks HSCA Testimony:

Mr. PURDY. When you examined the skull itself that was still intact?
Dr. FINCK. The skull was not intact.
Mr. PURDY. The part of the skull that was still attached. did you see any evidence in that of an exit wound at the margin of the large defect?
Dr. FINCK. I don't recall.
Dr. BADEN. I give you No. 44 and ask if this in any way refreshes your memory?
Dr. FINCK. No.
Mr. PURDY. Do you see anything on that photograph which would represent the exit hole of a bullet?
Dr. FINCK. I don't know what this is.
Mr. PURDY. His answer is no. I will point out at this time at the margin of the skull there is not a straight edge, there is a variation there. Could that audible semi-circle be an exit wound?
Dr. FINCK. No. Hazy, blurred.
Mr. PURDY. One question I wanted to ask about color photograph No. 43 which was the subject of our discussion earlier about the entrance wounds in the head. You said that your work with the AFIP gives you the opportunity to review photographs from many autopsies.
Dr. FINCK. Yes.
Mr. PURDY. So I assume that means that you have examined photographs of wounds from many autopsies.
Dr. FINCK. Yes.

SOURCE: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/finckhsca.htm 

[David Josephs]

39 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said:

BTW, can we see that citation where Finck was shown this particular photo and claimed it was too blurred to make an identification of an exit wound ? I can't seem to find that in my files. Thanks.

[Tom Gram]

Pat Speer’s chapter on the mystery photo is probably the most detailed study on the internet, if anyone’s interested and hasn’t read it already:

https://www.patspeer.com/chapter14demystifyingthemysteryphoto

He makes a compelling case that the photo was taken from behind and that the blatantly obvious “hole” in the bottom right is the EOP entrance wound, amongst other things. 

[David Josephs]

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

Pat Speer’s chapter on the mystery photo is probably the most detailed study on the internet, if anyone’s interested and hasn’t read it already:

https://www.patspeer.com/chapter14demystifyingthemysteryphoto

He makes a compelling case that the photo was taken from behind and that the blatantly obvious “hole” in the bottom right is the EOP entrance wound, amongst other things. 

Sadly he's wrong... there was no EOP entrance of a shot, the front of his skull was not blown out as MANTIK proved over and over with the faked xrays...

I am a big, longtime fan of Pat's work... and he gets alot of things right that others have missed...  but there was no headshot from the rear...

Humes obliterated the path of the bullet from front right temple out the back of his head in the hour and change prior to the official autopsy starting...

Other autopsy specialist - when reading the description of the skull and brain - state that it appears as if he was hit in the head with an axe...

If you take Humes' descriptions and plot them on a real head you have three distinct lines and a cleanly severed spinal chord...
Brains NEVER just fall out of the skull, the brain is held in with connection to the inside of the skull that need cutting before it can be removed - see the images of how to do a craniotomy below... no matter how "cracked" his head was from the frontal bullet, the brain requires significant surgery to remove...

If he was shot from behind in the head there would have been massive damage to the front of the skull.. which was why the xrays were faked to make it appear the entire front right of his face was gone.

Again, all due respect to Pat.. he has been an inspiration of mine for many years... there are a few things I disagree with and I present my reasons...  and I understand the reasons for thinking there was a rear shot to the head...  I simply disagree for the reasons stated.

 

[Tom Gram]

58 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Sadly he's wrong... there was no EOP entrance of a shot, the front of his skull was not blown out as MANTIK proved over and over with the faked xrays...

I am a big, longtime fan of Pat's work... and he gets alot of things right that others have missed...  but there was no headshot from the rear...

Humes obliterated the path of the bullet from front right temple out the back of his head in the hour and change prior to the official autopsy starting...

Other autopsy specialist - when reading the description of the skull and brain - state that it appears as if he was hit in the head with an axe...

If you take Humes' descriptions and plot them on a real head you have three distinct lines and a cleanly severed spinal chord...
Brains NEVER just fall out of the skull, the brain is held in with connection to the inside of the skull that need cutting before it can be removed - see the images of how to do a craniotomy below... no matter how "cracked" his head was from the frontal bullet, the brain requires significant surgery to remove...

If he was shot from behind in the head there would have been massive damage to the front of the skull.. which was why the xrays were faked to make it appear the entire front right of his face was gone.

Again, all due respect to Pat.. he has been an inspiration of mine for many years... there are a few things I disagree with and I present my reasons...  and I understand the reasons for thinking there was a rear shot to the head...  I simply disagree for the reasons stated.

 

I’m agnostic on the medical evidence so I’ll let Pat defend his own work, but I will say that if the mystery photo was taken from behind, there is a obvious hole-shaped spot on the skull matching the description in the autopsy report in the exact spot the doctors placed the rear entrance wound, which I think is pretty interesting. 

Edited February 4, 2023 by Tom Gram

[David Josephs]

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

I’m agnostic on the medical evidence so I’ll let Pat defend his own work, but I will say that if the mystery photo was taken from behind, there is a obvious hole-shaped spot on the skull matching the description in the autopsy report in the exact spot the doctors placed the rear entrance wound, which I think is pretty interesting. 

Fair enough Tom...

Entrance wounds are small, exit wounds are large... there is a trail of lead particles running from the right temple to the top center rear of the skull.. most people understand the Harper fragment to be occipital...  

I think the image on the right is self explanatory...

. 

 

JFK - entrance would obliterated by Humes and this strange round black whatever-it-is...  this is one of the FOX images

Edited February 4, 2023 by David Josephs

[Gil Jesus]

6 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

Fincks HSCA Testimony:

Mr. PURDY. When you examined the skull itself that was still intact?
Dr. FINCK. The skull was not intact.
Mr. PURDY. The part of the skull that was still attached. did you see any evidence in that of an exit wound at the margin of the large defect?
Dr. FINCK. I don't recall.
Dr. BADEN. I give you No. 44 and ask if this in any way refreshes your memory?
Dr. FINCK. No.
Mr. PURDY. Do you see anything on that photograph which would represent the exit hole of a bullet?
Dr. FINCK. I don't know what this is.
Mr. PURDY. His answer is no. I will point out at this time at the margin of the skull there is not a straight edge, there is a variation there. Could that audible semi-circle be an exit wound?
Dr. FINCK. No. Hazy, blurred.
Mr. PURDY. One question I wanted to ask about color photograph No. 43 which was the subject of our discussion earlier about the entrance wounds in the head. You said that your work with the AFIP gives you the opportunity to review photographs from many autopsies.
Dr. FINCK. Yes.
Mr. PURDY. So I assume that means that you have examined photographs of wounds from many autopsies.
Dr. FINCK. Yes.

SOURCE: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/finckhsca.htm 

If you think that picture of the gaping hole at the back of the head is so blurry you can't tell if it's an exit wound or not, then all I can tell you is you need glasses.

And while you're at it, could you tell us who the photographic expert was who identified the semi-circle hole on the edge of the large "defect" ( the one I've identified as a wound of exit ) as an "optical Illusion" ?  Thanks.

[Pat Speer]

A couple of points. 

1. While I'm a bit shaky on his ever-changing claims, I'm 90% certain Mantik agrees there was an entrance by the EOP. If so, citing Mantik to shoot down that there was an EOP entrance makes no sense. 

2. Only a few zealots continue to claim the Harper fragment was occipital. I demonstrate why on my website. It turned out that pretty much everything I said had been said years earlier by Dr. Joseph Riley, a neuroanatomist and thus one far more qualified to discuss this matter than Mantik. On top of the scientific problems with its being occipital, there is also a matter of the witnesses. The witnesses cited by Mantik et al routinely claim the large hole was on the right side of the head, above the ear. Mantik's placement of the Harper fragment puts it in the middle of the back of the head, including a large section of the left side of the head, and at the level of the ear. 

2. Not one witness--Parkland or Bethesda--noted a small round entrance wound above the right eye. 

[Pat Speer]

7 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

Fincks HSCA Testimony:

Mr. PURDY. When you examined the skull itself that was still intact?
Dr. FINCK. The skull was not intact.
Mr. PURDY. The part of the skull that was still attached. did you see any evidence in that of an exit wound at the margin of the large defect?
Dr. FINCK. I don't recall.
Dr. BADEN. I give you No. 44 and ask if this in any way refreshes your memory?
Dr. FINCK. No.
Mr. PURDY. Do you see anything on that photograph which would represent the exit hole of a bullet?
Dr. FINCK. I don't know what this is.
Mr. PURDY. His answer is no. I will point out at this time at the margin of the skull there is not a straight edge, there is a variation there. Could that audible semi-circle be an exit wound?
Dr. FINCK. No. Hazy, blurred.
Mr. PURDY. One question I wanted to ask about color photograph No. 43 which was the subject of our discussion earlier about the entrance wounds in the head. You said that your work with the AFIP gives you the opportunity to review photographs from many autopsies.
Dr. FINCK. Yes.
Mr. PURDY. So I assume that means that you have examined photographs of wounds from many autopsies.
Dr. FINCK. Yes.

SOURCE: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/finckhsca.htm 

I trust you are aware, Gerry, of the history of this photo. It is what sucked me down the rabbit hole. 

The autopsy doctors upon first review said it showed the entrance wound on the back of the head. A few months later, in a review controlled by the Justice Dept., they said it showed the beveled exit on the top of the head depicted in the Rydberg drawings. Yes, it's true. Finck claimed at that time that the blurry beveling represented an exit at the top of the head.

In 1968, however, the Clark Panel was formed. They were supposed to end all the questions. The photo previously determined to show the back and top of the head, was now claimed to show the front of the head, with a beveled exit high on the forehead. 

The HSCA then rubber-stamped these findings. Their trajectory analysis etc. were all built upon the presumption there was a beveled exit high on the forehead that went unnoticed at autopsy. Humes, Boswell, and Finck refused to play along, however. Not only did Finck refuse to accept there was an entrance high on the back of the head, he refused to acknowledge that the supposed exit on the forehead showed just that. The HSCA twisted Humes' arms into pretending he'd had a change of heart. But the fact is these guys knew the Clark Panel and HSCA's conclusions regarding the entrance wound and exit wound were doo-doo.

So...let's be clear. If you accept Finck's latter-day claim that the beveling on this photo is unclear and proof of nothing, then you must also accept that the Clark Panel and HSCA pathology panel's findings are doo-doo. Do you accept that? I do. But I've encountered a lot of people who think they can agree with Finck on this and other issues without simultaneously admitting that the most recent panels to claim the medical evidence supports a single-assassin...were doo-doo. 

Edited February 4, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Gerry Down]

19 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

I trust you are aware, Gerry, of the history of this photo. It is what sucked me down the rabbit hole. 

The autopsy doctors upon first review said it showed the entrance wound on the back of the head. A few months later, in a review controlled by the Justice Dept., they said it showed the beveled exit on the top of the head depicted in the Rydberg drawings. Yes, it's true. Finck claimed at that time that the blurry beveling represented an exit at the top of the head.

In 1968, however, the Clark Panel was formed. They were supposed to end all the questions. The photo previously determined to show the back and top of the head, was now claimed to show the front of the head, with a beveled exit high on the forehead. 

The HSCA then rubber-stamped these findings. Their trajectory analysis etc. were all built upon the presumption there was a beveled exit high on the forehead that went unnoticed at autopsy. Humes, Boswell, and Finck refused to play along, however. Not only did Finck refuse to accept there was an entrance high on the back of the head, he refused to acknowledge that the supposed exit on the forehead showed just that. The HSCA twisted Humes' arms into pretending he'd had a change of heart. But the fact is these guys knew the Clark Panel and HSCA's conclusions regarding the entrance wound and exit wound were doo-doo.

So...let's be clear. If you accept Finck's latter-day claim that the beveling on this photo is unclear and proof of nothing, then you must also accept that the Clark Panel and HSCA pathology panel's findings are doo-doo. Do you accept that? I do. But I've encountered a lot of people who think they can agree with Finck on this and other issues without simultaneously admitting that the most recent panels to claim the medical evidence supports a single-assassin...were doo-doo. 

The issue I have with the so called bevelled exit wound is that it is about 2 to 3cm in diameter. If it was indeed such an exit wound then it would have formed a key aspect of the autopsy report. The autopsy report makes a big deal about the EOP entrance wound and it's bevelling, but then are we supposed to believe it didn't bother mentioning the so called large exit wound in the mystery photo? I highly doubt it.

That so called exit wound is a bit too high to match the EOP entrance wound trajectory from the snipers nest. So I'm inclined to believe there is no obvious exit wound in the mystery photo - which by the way is showing the front of the head, not rear like Gil Jesus suggests.

[Pat Speer]

1 minute ago, Gerry Down said:

The issue I have with the so called bevelled exit wound is that it is about 2 to 3cm in diameter. If it was indeed such an exit wound then it would have formed a key aspect of the autopsy report. The autopsy report makes a big deal about the EOP entrance wound and it's bevelling, but then are we supposed to believe it didn't bother mentioning the so called large exit wound in the mystery photo? I highly doubt it.

That so called exit wound is a bit too high to match the EOP entrance wound trajectory from the snipers nest. So I'm inclined to believe there is no obvious exit wound in the mystery photo - which by the way is showing the front of the head, not rear like Gil Jesus suggests.

I created a whole video series demonstrating that it actually shows the back and top of the head, as initially described by Humes and Boswell. It is available on my website and on YouTube.