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

[Gil Jesus]

15 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

I know.

Below is how the HSCA actually orientated the picture.

Notice how the bone flap on the right-hand-side of JFKs skull lines up, the same flap as seen on the Zapruder film when the bullet fragments exited at that point from Oswalds shot from the rear.

 

The Parkland medical staff worked on Kennedy for 20 minutes. Name the one who identified a "bone flap" on the right side of the head or a hole in the top of the head like you have there.

[Gerry Down]

Just trying to be helpful Gil. No point in following a red herring thinking the photo shows an exit wound on the back of the head.

Watch the best evidence research video. Lifton shows drawings of the head wound as seen by the autopsy witnesses. Those drawings show the top right front of the skull intact with the defect more above the ear and going backwards. This is exactly what the orientation of the mystery photo shows as in the previous image I posted.

[Mark Ulrik]

On 2/11/2023 at 6:52 AM, Gil Jesus said:

That's all you have ? Baden ? Baden is an idiot. That photo shows the damage on the right side. If that were the front of the head, the damage would have been on the LEFT side of the President's head. There's no scalp covering the face. There's no anatomical features such as the eye socket, nasal cavity or teeth to support Dr. Baden and your contentions. You believe your little uncoroborated fantasies but there's no evidence to support that.

What did I claim that was incorrect? Please be specific. It seems to me that you were the one using the HSCA interpretation of the photo in support of your own (although they're diametrically opposite).
 

[David Josephs]

As bad as Humes and Boswell were at this, they still reflected the scalp as one is supposed to in a craniotomy..

I don't think the diagram is too hard for anyone to follow and recognize the process.

Top square image at the bottom right #10 and the one above it #9 SHOULD have been the way our expert surgeons would have done it.  Have not seen instructions which reflects the scalp over the ears from side to side..

The cut in #9 looks like the extension of lacerations down towards the ear - meaning that the skin flaps we see in that autopsy image SHOULD be the same and that hole is in the right rear of the head... where virtually everyone who saw him placed it.  I was the one who created the image in Gil's post showing the correct orientation on the head itself. and could even be rotated clockwise slightly so the flaps of scalp reflect straight over his eyes.

His second sentence is pure crap...  See VIII. 11. Detach the dura from the scalp... and then the number of cuts needed to separate dura from scalp...  Also needing cutting, IX. 4. a. the optic nerves, b. carotid arteries, c. "other nerves" as well as #5, #6, #7.

Unless someone did all this before 8pm, the brain will not fall out of the skull...  pieces of brain separated from brain, yes, but if the brain was actually 1500 cc's there was A LOT more work to do to remove the brain...  Even if most of the brain was destroyed... whatever was left on the left side of his skull would need cutting through the dura at least, and the nerves for sure. 

 

HUMES WC Testimony:

To better examine the situation with regard to the skull, at this time, Boswell and I extended the lacerations of the scalp which were at the margins of this wound, down in the direction of both of the President's ears. At that point, we had even a better appreciation of the extensive damage which had been done to the skill by this injury.
We had to do virtually no work with a saw to remove these Portions of the skull, they came apart in our hands very easily, and we attempted to further examine the brain, and seek specifically this fragment which was the one we felt to be of a size which would permit us to recover it.

[Gil Jesus]

Did Dr. Baden see the wound ? No. He was orienting the wound from a photo. Dr. David Mantik saw the same photo and oriented it quite differently.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/jfknumbers/posts/3089882507940600/

But, like i said, neither one of these men actually saw the wound.

For Baden's orientation ( front right part of the skull ) to be correct, the bevelled semi-circled exit would have to be in the frontal part of the skull.

Since neither Baden nor Mantik saw the actual wound, let's defer to someone who DID see the wound and see if his recollection supports Dr Baden.

Dr. Humes testified to the HSCA Medical Panel that the bevelled semi-circle exit was in either the temporal or parietal bone. ( 7 H 249 ) This blows away Dr. Baden's  opinion that the exit wound was in the "right front part of the skull" as sheer utter nonsense.

It's also not supported by the autopsy photos, unless you can name one that does support it.

Since Dr. Baden has a reputation for being a Warren Commission apologist, I'm not surprised you would refer to his testimony and avoid mentioning the testimony of a more reliable witness ( Dr. Humes ) who actually SAW the wound. 

 

[Mark Ulrik]

6 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

 

Did Dr. Baden see the wound ? No. He was orienting the wound from a photo. Dr. David Mantik saw the same photo and oriented it quite differently.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/jfknumbers/posts/3089882507940600/

But, like i said, neither one of these men actually saw the wound.

For Baden's orientation ( front right part of the skull ) to be correct, the bevelled semi-circled exit would have to be in the frontal part of the skull.

Since neither Baden nor Mantik saw the actual wound, let's defer to someone who DID see the wound and see if his recollection supports Dr Baden.

Dr. Humes testified to the HSCA Medical Panel that the bevelled semi-circle exit was in either the temporal or parietal bone. ( 7 H 249 ) This blows away Dr. Baden's  opinion that the exit wound was in the "right front part of the skull" as sheer utter nonsense.

It's also not supported by the autopsy photos, unless you can name one that does support it.

Since Dr. Baden has a reputation for being a Warren Commission apologist, I'm not surprised you would refer to his testimony and avoid mentioning the testimony of a more reliable witness ( Dr. Humes ) who actually SAW the wound.

I'm sorry, but the issue is that you were using the HSCA interpretation of the photo in support of your own. And now that you've realized your mistake, you're trying to move the goalpost by invoking Humes. That's not very sportsmanlike of you.

[Gil Jesus]

Lone Nutters live by a double standard. We can do it to you but if you do it to us, we'll scream bloody murder.

What do you expect from people who will convict a suspect in a murder case after hearing only the Prosecution's side of the case ? In their world, the suspect is guilty until proven innocent. And the more he cries out that he's innocent, the more guilty he is.

Witnesses aren't credilble, unless they can add something to the case against Oswald. Then you can take their observations and testimony to the bank.

That's the way it works in their world.

I've always been a bit leery of alleged foreigners who strongly support the Warren Commission. Why would they even care about this case ? What's they're stake in all of this ? 

Do I care if Princess Diana was killed in an accident or was murdered ? No.

Do I care about the kidnapping and murder of Aldo Moro ? No.

So why are they so rabid to support the Warren Commission's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole assassin of President Kennedy and there was no conspiracy ?

 

[Mark Ulrik]

I rest my case.

[Pat Speer]

I have a video series on the so-called mystery photo, in which I demonstrate its likely orientation. I have since modified my impression, but only slightly. I have chapters on this on my website, in which I demonstrate that the mis-appraisal of the mystery photo led Dr. Baden to make some ridiculous claims, including that the Harper fragment sprung from Kennedy's right temple. It's all smoke...that will clear in time, and quite likely lead to yet another re-examination of the evidence. 

The fact remains that the beveled bone is not frontal bone, and that the Clark Panel on down have wrongly claimed it was frontal bone. 

Here is an image from chapter 13b in which I demonstrate one of the problems created by the Clark panel's claim the photo showed frontal bone. 

[Joe Bauer]

Page 74

Q. I'd like to ask you some questions about this. First, was this document, Exhibit 1, in your possession at any point during which you were writing the autopsy protocol?
A. Probably. Probably was. Over the weekend, yeah.
Q. I'd like to draw your attention to a few items on the first page of this document. Right next to the marking for brain, there's no entry of a weight there. Do you see that on the document?
A. Yes, I see that it's blank, yeah.
Q. Why is there no weight for the brain there?
A. I don't know. I don't really--can't really recall why.
Q. Was the fresh brain weighed?
A. I don't recall. I don't recall. It's as simple as that.
Q. Would it be standard practice for a gunshot wound in the head to have the brain weighed?
A. Yeah, we weigh it with gunshot wound or

---

Page 75

no. Normally we weigh the brain when we remove it. I can't recall why--I don't know, one, whether it was weighed or not, or, two, why it doesn't show here. I have no explanation for that.