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

[Pat Speer]

19 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Got it Pat...  thanks for clarifying... . "He surmised it", right. Because - like - he wasn't inches from the man.  Ya see Pat, this isn't about whether you believe or not...  but hey, Dennis David, O'Connor and everyone else who was there and drew a wound in the right temple... not the left, not the ear, not the face, but all of them place it at the right temple... are all wrong according to you because you think the shots came from behind with Oswald at the trigger...

Thanks for clarifying your POV.      And that bullet lodged behind the ear... just another mistake right?  3 shots 2 hits and the magic bullet...  O'Connor's bullet removed from the intercostals, Ebersol copying and altering xrays to remove evidence of a frontal shot... smoke and mirrors and more lies...  the Nix, Muchmore and Zapruder films, and Moorman's photo... all evidence of an EOP wound...   and not the in your face obviousness of a shot to the right temple...

Attacking Horne sure does make your explanations and work that much more persuasive, and oodles less biased.

You mean this Tom Robinson?  What's that say about a wound in the temple?  He selling a book too or trying to cement his place in history?

 

And of course David Mawell, Jeremy Gunn & Tim Wray were selling snake oil as well

-Visible damage to skull caused by bullet or bullets (as opposed to damage caused by pathologists):
‘Robinson described 3 locations of wounds: 
-he saw 2 or 3 small perforations or holes in the right cheek during embalming, when formaldehyde seeped through these small wounds and slight discoloration began to occur (and executed a drawing of three slits, or holes, in the right cheek of the President on a photocopy of a frontal photograph of the President);
-he described a “blow-out” which consisted of a flap of skin in the right temple of the President’s head, which he believed to be an exit wound based on conversations he heard in the morgue amongst the pathologists (and executed two drawings of this right temporal defect on both a photocopy of a right lateral photograph of the President, and on a right lateral anatomy diagram of the human skull);
-he described a large, open head wound in the back of the President’s head, centrally located right between the ears, where the bone was gone, as well as some scalp. He related his opinion that this wound in the back of the President’s head was an entry wound occuring from a bullet fired from behind, based on conversations he heard in the morgue among the pathologists. (Robinson executed two drawings of the hole in the back of the President’s head, one on an anatomy drawing of the posterior skull, and one on an anatomy drawing of the lateral skull. On the annotated lateral skull drawing, the wound in the rear of the head is much larger than the wound in the right temple.)

Yes indeed Pat, those crack pathologists who performed that immaculate autopsy... were SURE the shots had come from behind, at the NAVAL hospital, with unnamed brass shouting direction of what to do and not to do.

What Fantasy Island episode did you get all this from ?

And his HSCA testimony... wonder why they didn't call him to the WC for testimony, huh? 

Pretty much everything you've presented was debunked years ago, and is explained on my website. 

Although David Lifton and I disagreed on much, we shared our disdain for this decades later insistence an entry wound on the forehead was observed at Parkland or at the autopsy. As pointed out to me..by Lifton...Dennis David, a star witness for the forehead entry people...never even saw the body. So why did Mantik prop him up as an important witness?

Because he was desperate. 

At a quick gander I saw you resurrect the bullet behind the ear nonsense. This was included in an FBI memo written after they'd received a call from Sibert and O'Neill. Sibert and O'Neill wrote an actual report and there was no mention of such a thing. A large fragment was removed from behind the EYE at the autopsy and the writer of the memo obviously misunderstood, or perhaps even Sibert and O'Neill mis-reported this over the phone. In any event, there is no eyewitness evidence for such a thing, and no evidence for such a thing on the autopsy photos and x-rays. 

I think Mantik would agree that no such bullet was recovered, moreover. I know he thinks the x-rays have been tampered with in certain areas but the last I checked he believes they were Kennedy's x-rays. And I've never heard him say anything about the x-rays being tampered with to conceal a bullet behind the ear. 

 

Edited February 5, 2023 by Pat Speer

[David Josephs]

5 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Sibert and O'Neill wrote an actual report and there was no mention of such a thing.

Really... the FBI disavowed evidence of another bullet...  amazing

[Pat Speer]

13 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Thanks Micah... yes very true.   

At the same time, black on an xray GENERALLY suggests that something is missing, especially if the xray is of a bony structure like the skull, and the amount of black is significantly large.

And since they were all supposed to be fully jacketed bullets.. what's with the fragment trail from temple to rear?

The fragment "trail" is actually on the outside of the skull and suggests the impact and break-up of a bullet at the supposed exit location. As pointed out by Mantik, long before I, there was no brain in the upper right quadrant of the skull. So how could there be a trail of fragments across the brain where there was no brain? 

[Mark Ulrik]

Pat, I watched your video* and wondered exactly what your current stance is re: orientation, drainage hole, specimen jar, etc. Can it be summed up in a neat graphic?

*) I added the overlay in the green frame to a screenshot below.

[Pat Speer]

3 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Really... the FBI disavowed evidence of another bullet...  amazing

Yes, David, the Sibert and O'Neill report--the very report that started Lifton down the body alteration cul-de-sac, the mother lode of all documents supporting body alteration, was written to conceal that a bullet not reported by any eyewitness was found behind the ear...because we know, we just know, that an FBI memo reporting second-hand information could not possibly be incorrect. 

Right? 

Nope. 

[David Josephs]

6 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

a bullet not reported by any eyewitness was found behind the ear...

Prior to Bethesda Pat, who would be an eyewitness to a bullet lodged behind his ear?

No surgery in Dallas... and this an internal memo between FBI senior staff...  as I've said for years and years...

The Evidence IS the Conspiracy...  and you think it talks about the events of that day...

nice

[Pat Speer]

12 minutes ago, Mark Ulrik said:

Pat, I watched your video* and wondered exactly what your current stance is re: orientation, drainage hole, specimen jar, etc. Can it be summed up in a neat graphic?

*) I added the overlay in the green frame to a screenshot below.

I currently believe the skull was angled a bit backwards from this orientation and that the beveling is actually on the top of the head, just forward of the crown. 

[Mark Ulrik]

2 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

I currently believe the skull was angled a bit backwards from this orientation and that the beveling is actually on the top of the head, just forward of the crown.

Thanks. But how does the specimen jar (if that's what it is) fit into this?

[Pat Speer]

37 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Prior to Bethesda Pat, who would be an eyewitness to a bullet lodged behind his ear?

No surgery in Dallas... and this an internal memo between FBI senior staff...  as I've said for years and years...

The Evidence IS the Conspiracy...  and you think it talks about the events of that day...

nice

The memo noting the bullet behind the ear was an FBI memo based on a call from Sibert and O'Neill. This call was made during the autopsy. It was second-hand reporting. As no one at the autopsy, including Sibert and O'Neill, recalled such a bullet, and they instead recalled a large fragment's being recovered from behind the eye, it is clear to me it was misreporting, or misremembering, akin to Hoover's early claim the rifle was found on the fifth floor, etc. 

To me, the claims the body was faked are a red herring. It leads people away from what we know, or at least what I know. I know the medical evidence, when taken at face value, is at odds with the single-assassin solution. And I know, for a fact, that the subsequent panels to inspect the evidence, from the Clark Panel on down, were designed to conceal the truth by pushing alternative single-assassin scenarios they thought would be more palatable. But were not. At least not to anyone who was paying attention.

When I first started down this rabbit hole, most everyone, CT and LN alike, was still claiming that the bullet entered near the cowlick. LNs embraced the Clark Panel's movement of the entrance wound because it helped with the trajectory. And CTs embraced the Clark Panel's movement of the entrance wound because it "proved" to them that those darn military doctors were incompetent and that civilian Forensic Pathologists would have been so much better. 

Over the last 15 years or so, however, that ship sailed, whereas a large percentage of LNs have come to doubt the cowlick entrance, and virtually all CTs now think it was bs. I had something to do with that. 

Over the next decade more ships will sail. 

Edited February 5, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

17 minutes ago, Mark Ulrik said:

Thanks. But how does the specimen jar (if that's what it is) fit into this?

It's still the key. The specimen jar and drainage hole disprove most every orientation of the photo. People look at the photo and say "Hey, it looks like forehead" or "Hey, I think I can place the Harper fragment in the photo if it was oriented like this."  But they never study the photo to see if they can figure it out separate from what they choose to believe. I did just that. And have been waiting almost two decades now for someone to perform a similar study, to see what they come up with. 

 

[Micah Mileto]

45 minutes ago, Mark Ulrik said:

Pat, I watched your video* and wondered exactly what your current stance is re: orientation, drainage hole, specimen jar, etc. Can it be summed up in a neat graphic?

*) I added the overlay in the green frame to a screenshot below.

Pat changed his opinion since his 2009 videos - his website now says that he believes the skull photos show the UPPER back of the skull, not the lower back as suggested above.

[Gerry Down]

The key to the mystery photo is understanding that what we have on the internet is a cropped version. Experts who have viewed the uncropped version in person say the extra detail allows them to orientate the image as showing the front of the head, not back of the head.

[Micah Mileto]

26 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

The key to the mystery photo is understanding that what we have on the internet is a cropped version. Experts who have viewed the uncropped version in person say the extra detail allows them to orientate the image as showing the front of the head, not back of the head.

Like what? Any anatomical markers? My suspicion now is that the skull photographs show the upper back of the head and the curved-looking protrusion off to the side in dim lighting is the external occipital protuberance.

 

2 medical professionals also identified a nipple off to the other side in the full-quality stereoscopic viewer - that would also support the idea of the photos showing the back of the head.

Edited February 5, 2023 by Micah Mileto

[Gerry Down]

5 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

Like what? Any anatomical markers? 

The bone flap can be seen on the extreme left of the photo. This is the same bone flap that can seen on the right hand side of JFKs head as seen in the autopsy photos positioned directly behind JFK as he is lying flat on the autopsy table, and looking down his body as he is on that table.

[Gerry Down]

If I recall correctly, even Dr Chesser states the mystery photo is of the front of the head and he has seen the uncropped version.