Pat Speer Posted February 4, 2023 Share Posted February 4, 2023 (edited) 14 hours ago, Gil Jesus said: 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.https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/skin_bone-1024x494.jpgA 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.https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/bevelling.jpgBelow 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.https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/gunshot-entrance-wound.pngHumes' 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 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.jpgThis 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 )https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/WH_Vol16_981-autopsy-report-4-647x1024.jpgIf 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.https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/fig_h3_sml.jpg 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.https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/MD195-letter-of-silence-Custer.pngAll 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. I was confused at one point, then read back and realized what it was. The autopsy report says there was an entrance wound near the EOP, with beveling on the inside of the skull. This wound is apparent in the mystery photo. The large head wound, and whether or not there was a beveled exit there, is a separate matter. In 1966 Humes and Boswell saw a small entrance wound on the mystery photo. In 1967, Humes Boswell and Finck made no mention of this entrance, but noted the beveling by the large defect in the mystery photo, and placed it at the top of the head. In 1968, the Clark Panel moved the entrance wound up to the top of the head, and declared that the beveling by the large defect in the mystery photo was high on the forehead, meaning that this photo, previously believed to have been taken from behind, was actually taken from the front. The HSCA pathology panel, in 1978, confirmed the findings of their buddies on the Clark Panel. When shown the autopsy photos by the ARRB, the autopsy doctors sought to avoid further controversy, and said they just couldn't tell what was shown in the mystery photo. To me, it's obvious that they'd learned their lesson. They tried to tell the HSCA that the entrance was by the EOP and not the cowlick, and were threatened and badgered as a result. Better to just play stupid. Edited February 5, 2023 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 4, 2023 Share Posted February 4, 2023 (edited) On 2/4/2023 at 3:48 PM, Pat Speer said: 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. Then what is that a photograph of? None of then noted a V shaped cut out in that area either.... and HUBER was inches from the man... you gonna say he didn't know a "terrible wound" from there not being one? I'm in contact with MANTIK as he sends a group of us articles and critiques to review... I'll email him and ask ... just for that 10%... Zealots? C'mon Pat, the huge hole was in the back right of his head... as all but 2 medical personnel point out... it was not the "side" of his head... and I'm terribly sorry but after Parkland all bets are off, given what we know happened between 6:30pm and 8pm at Bethesda there is no way to know what the wounds actually looked like beyond the word of those at Parkland... and Clint Hill if it was as you say, why does the SS punch out the FBI and refuse to let ROSE do the autopsy... 1+1=2 Pat... if you think what was seen and done at Bethesda was an honest autopsy with honest results we truly have nothing further to discuss. Despite singing a different tune for the money... we have his 1964 statement to Specter... kinda hard to get away from this one. Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe as to President Kennedy's condition on arrival at the hospital?Mr. HILL. The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head. Mr. KELLERMAN. OK. This all transpired in the morgue of the Naval Hospital in Bethesda, sir. He had a large wound this size.Mr. SPECTER. Indicating a circle with your finger of the diameter of 5 inches; would that be approximately correct?Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, circular; yes, on this part of the head.Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the rear portion of the head.Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes. I don't understand why we need to keep having this same conversation year after year.... the BACK OF HIS HEAD WAS BLOWN OUT... you want to be contrary, fine. Conclude whatever you Pat... and the gov't conducted a complete investigation and Humes was a gifted and talented surgeon... wow Edited July 20, 2023 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerry Down Posted February 4, 2023 Share Posted February 4, 2023 No eyewitness at the autopsy described seeing the apparent 2-3cm bevelled exit wound in the mystery photo. Why? Cos there was no bevelled exit wound there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 4, 2023 Share Posted February 4, 2023 (edited) Ok Pat... So according to your man BOSWELL his entire skull was missing... and you think this is the same description the people at Parkland described? Notice where he puts the small entry hole in the last image.... I'm done Pat.. As I've said before, I respect what you've done in the many many years you've been doing it... but the way you seem to have mangled the medical evidence simply doesn't fly. Post whatever you like... Common sense dictates a different course of action with.you here. Be well... Edited July 20, 2023 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerry Down Posted February 4, 2023 Share Posted February 4, 2023 13 minutes ago, David Josephs said: Ok Pat... So according to your man BOSWELL his entire skull was missing... and you think this is the same description the people at Parkland described? Notice where he puts the small entry hole in the last image.... I'm done Pat.. As I've said before, I respect what you've done in the many many years you've been doing it... but the way you seem to have mangled the medical evidence simply doesn't fly. Post whatever you like... Common sense dictates a different course of action with.you here. Be well... What do circles labelled 1 and 2 represent on this skull? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 4, 2023 Share Posted February 4, 2023 (edited) On 2/4/2023 at 11:46 PM, Gerry Down said: What do circles labelled 1 and 2 represent on this skull? I think they were lines indicated by Boswell (according his memory), this is one of them somehow Edited February 10, 2023 by Jean Paul Ceulemans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerry Down Posted February 4, 2023 Share Posted February 4, 2023 10 minutes ago, Jean Paul Ceulemans said: I think they were lines indicated by Boswell (according his memory), this is one of them somehow Thanks. For I second I thought he might be indicating exit wounds but that would be unusual as he never mentioned such exit wounds in all of his testimony as far as I remember. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted February 5, 2023 Share Posted February 5, 2023 (edited) Oh my. Boswell's depiction of the damaged area on the skull includes his depiction of the area he thought was damaged beneath the scalp. A lot of the confusion about the head wounds stems from the doctors peeling back the scalp, and large chunks of bone falling to the table. Those desperate to believe there was a large wound on the back of the head frequently misrepresent the wound seen after bone fell to the table as the wound seen before the scalp was peeled back. if the Harper fragment was occipital the large defect would have been centered at and below the level of the ear and have stretched well over onto the left side of the head. No such wound was observed at Parkland or Bethesda. Some cherry-pick statements from minor players to make it seem like such a wound was seen, but it's sloppy at best AND at odds with the bulk of the witnesses, who placed the wound high and on the right side--further back than depicted in the photos, but well above where depicted in the so-called McClelland drawing. This is all stuff covered on my website and in my numerous presentations on the medical evidence. P.S. In support of his notion the Harper fragment is occipital, Dr. Mantik used to claim the orientation of the fragment pushed by Dr. Angel--the pre-eminent forensic anthropologist of his day--which is to say he was an expert at piecing skulls together--was obviously incorrect, because it would place the beveled exit at the midline of the top of the head--where no one saw an entrance. I then pointed out that Mantik was all turned around, and that Angel's orientation actually placed it by the right temple, where so many of Mantik's fellow CTs suspect a bullet entered. His sycophants then attacked and he went after me himself--even though he was 100% obviously in error. Within a few years our "feud" came to the attention of Dr. Wecht, and he invited us to debate this issue at the 2013 Wecht conference at Duquesne University Wary of being sabotaged by Mantik or his acolytes with questions about my medical background, etc, I asked if we could on the same bill discuss our disparate findings, and let the audience decide for themselves. On the day of the "debate" however, I received a surprise. Dr. Mantik admitted he'd been in error, and that the beveled exit in Angel's orientation was precisely where I said it was--just back of the right temple. Now, I was hoping this would make him realize that he was wrong about the Harper fragment, and realize that having a bullet exit by the temple was not such a bad thing. Instead, Mantik doubled-down on his claim the Harper fragment was occipital. In articles and books and more articles and books. More recently, I pointed out that the Harper fragment has no raised ridges on its inner aspect, when the occipital bone in the location from where Mantik claims it derived, is ruffled, and has a raised ridge. This was a point previously brought up by Dr. Riley. In response, Mantik claimed he still believes the fragment is occipital, and wonders if maybe just maybe Kennedy's Addison's disease had deformed his bones, so that his occipital bone no longer looked like occipital bone. Yep. Edited February 5, 2023 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted February 5, 2023 Share Posted February 5, 2023 2 hours ago, David Josephs said: Then what is that a photograph of? None of then noted a V shaped cut out in that area either.... and HUBER was inches from the man... you gonna say he didn't know a "terrible wound" from there not being one? I'm in contact with MANTIK as he sends a group of us articles and critiques to review... I'll email him and ask ... just for that 10%... Zealots? C'mon Pat, the huge hole was in the back right of his head... as all but 2 medical personnel point out... it was not the "side" of his head... and I'm terribly sorry but after Parkland all bets are off, given what we know happened between 6:30pm and 8pm at Bethesda there is no way to know what the wounds actually looked like beyond the word of those at Parkland... and Clint Hill if it was as you say, why does the SS punch out the FBI and refuse to let ROSE do the autopsy... 1+1=2 Pat... if you think what was seen and done at Bethesda was an honest autopsy with honest results we truly have nothing further to discuss. Despite singing a different tune for the money... we have his 1964 statement to Specter... kinda hard to get away from this one. Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe as to President Kennedy's condition on arrival at the hospital?Mr. HILL. The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head. Mr. KELLERMAN. OK. This all transpired in the morgue of the Naval Hospital in Bethesda, sir. He had a large wound this size.Mr. SPECTER. Indicating a circle with your finger of the diameter of 5 inches; would that be approximately correct?Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, circular; yes, on this part of the head.Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the rear portion of the head.Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes. I don't understand why we need to keep having this same conversation year after year.... the BACK OF HIS HEAD WAS BLOWN OUT... you want to be contrary, fine. Conclude whatever you Pat... and the gov't conducted a complete investigation and Humes was a gifted and talented surgeon... wow As far as this drawing... I hope you realize that this and other similar drawings were created by Dr. McClelland towards the end of his life, and are grossly at odds with where he'd previously presented the wound. It seems clear, in fact, that he was trying to replicate the wound location presented on the so-called McClelland drawing, which he had repeatedly disavowed, but then come to believe he'd created. (I hope we can agree that he had nothing to do with that drawing.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 5, 2023 Share Posted February 5, 2023 12 minutes ago, Pat Speer said: Boswell's depiction of the damaged area on the skull includes his depiction of the area he thought was damaged beneath the scalp. A lot of the confusion about the head wounds stems from the doctors peeling back the scalp, and large chunks of bone falling to the table. As I explained, that's not how the skull and brain works... Brain cannot just independently separate form the skull... And as I posted, the McClelland drawing looks nothing like what Boswell did... he drew a smaller hole at the rear of the skull... You do get what I'm saying right? A craniotomy requires much more cutting.. Beveled exit in the front... right Just can't stand this... you guys have fun... sorry for trying to bring some sense to the thread... Brains just fell out.. OMFG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerry Down Posted February 5, 2023 Share Posted February 5, 2023 15 minutes ago, David Josephs said: Brains just fell out.. OMFG You should consider using more polite language as Christians on the forum would take offense to this kind of language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 5, 2023 Share Posted February 5, 2023 Pat's Medical essays are still on my list "to study". Just for now I only started making a long list of medical terms I need to look up first. First the explanation in English, will lead to more words to studie, etc. When all that is done, I'll be looking up the Dutch terms (and find some more I don't understand). Every now and then (when I see an "intruiging" drawing/picture I save a copy in one of my hundreds of files, this one e.g. : JKF/JFKA/Medical/Head/Shot/damage to skull. Just because I have a feeling it could be interesting some day. Most will probably never get interesting..., that's life... But, I'm taking it easy, step by step... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted February 5, 2023 Share Posted February 5, 2023 58 minutes ago, David Josephs said: As I explained, that's not how the skull and brain works... Brain cannot just independently separate form the skull... And as I posted, the McClelland drawing looks nothing like what Boswell did... he drew a smaller hole at the rear of the skull... You do get what I'm saying right? A craniotomy requires much more cutting.. Beveled exit in the front... right Just can't stand this... you guys have fun... sorry for trying to bring some sense to the thread... Brains just fell out.. OMFG I'm not sure what you're saying. The x-rays show that the skull was shattered on the back of the head. The only thing to keep it intact was the scalp. When Humes peeled back the scalp to remove the brain pieces of skull fell to the table. That the back of the skull was shattered but extant beneath the scalp was confirmed by supposedly CT witnesses Jerrol Custer and James Jenklins. This is what they said happened, and their statements are supported by the autopsy photos, which show the back of the head to be mobile, and the x-rays, which show numerous fractures on the back of the head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 5, 2023 Share Posted February 5, 2023 That's not how it works Pat... If brain was separated from skull, Humes or someone else had to separate it... with a scalpel. Read the dam illustration and learn something already please. It doesn't matter what happens to the skull... and if you remember they claimed there was no damage to the left side at all... Brains do NOT just fall out of a skull... sorry, but you are misinformed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gil Jesus Posted February 5, 2023 Author Share Posted February 5, 2023 (edited) 13 hours ago, Gerry Down said: 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. You're kidding, right ? You think this photograph is showing the front of the head ? Really ? You must be the only one on the planet who thinks so. If you're inclined to believe the F8 ( what I call FE7 ) photo I posted shows the front of the head you would be wrong. If you were correct, and the face was in the foreground, all the damage would have been on the left side ( from Kennedy's perspective ) of the skull.But it wasn't. There was little if any damage to the left side of the skull or the left hemisphere of the brain. All the damage was done in the right side of the skull and the right hemisphere of the brain. No autopsy x-ray supports your assumption that this is the front of the head. No autopsy photograph supports your assumption that this is the front of the head. No witness identification of the massive head wound supports your assumption that this is the front of the head. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/BE7_HI1_21-1-1024x432.jpg In addition, for your assumption to be correct, there would have to be specific physical evidence in the photo that this was showing the front of the head. For example: Where's the right side eye socket ? Where's the nasal cavity ? Where's the right side of his teeth ? The photo shows the bone on the right side to be solid with none of the above present. Why ? Because this is a photo of the BACK of the skull sans the scalp. It's obvious that the photo is oriented correctly with the BACK of the head in the foreground and the face in the rear. An entrance wound in the right front near the hairline is evident as described by autopsy witnesses and the gaping rear exit wound is in the foreground at the right rear is where the Dallas doctors placed it. To suggest anything to the contrary is just being dishonest. And on the edge of that gaping rear wound is a bevelling where the bullet that entered the hairline exited. Edited February 5, 2023 by Gil Jesus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now