Confused & looking for opinions on JFK's brain.

[Micah Mileto]

27 minutes ago, Michael Crane said:

Could be Micah.I am not knowledgeable in that area.

Also here is study of the Harper fragment's chain of custody: http://www.old.reddit.com/r/JFKeveryday/comments/jz5hvu/small_wounds_in_the_front_of_jfks_head_part_12

Edited March 3, 2023 by Micah Mileto

[Michael Crane]

14 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

Here is study of the Harper fragment's chain of custody: http://www.old.reddit.com/r/JFKeveryday/comments/jz5hvu/small_wounds_in_the_front_of_jfks_head_part_12

Here is what I get when I click on.

 

Edited March 3, 2023 by Michael Crane

[Micah Mileto]

5 minutes ago, Michael Crane said:

Here is what I get when I click on.

 

Fixed.

[Michael Crane]

Thanks Boss!

[David Josephs]

7 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

Also here is study of the Harper fragment's chain of custody: http://www.old.reddit.com/r/JFKeveryday/comments/jz5hvu/small_wounds_in_the_front_of_jfks_head_part_12

Wasn't the Harper fragment found the day after they scoured Dealey for debris?

I thought that was the case... so how that piece gets where it was, as I see it, does not relate to the result of a shot...
but the placing of a bone in a location.. well after the fact... to support a rear shot scenario.

But hey, I'm wrong about so much on this thread  who's to say...  Yet if I remember correctly, no one sees this bone on the 22nd

[David Josephs]

11 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I go through these witnesses and more one by one on my website and demonstrate that the blow-out wound low on the back of the head proposed by all too many is nonsense.

I am simply astonished by this.  I'm terribly sorry you cannot work thru what occurred between Parkland and 8pm to so drastically change the wounds in order to hide a frontal shot. 

Seems as if you, along with the many, have been fooled by accepting the autopsy materials as genuine and indicative of the damage in Dallas...  when as one goes thru the entire case we find example after example of altered, created, and "lost" evidence at the hands of the FBI, CIA, military, etc...

Yet you have the temerity to assert these agencies are presenting truth and these non-military personnel, and military personnel finally allowed to speak the truth...  are lying.

Let the chips fall where they may...  You've made your case...  the members have their own brains.  Thanks for stating your position with clarity... 

 

 

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, David Josephs said:

I am simply astonished by this.  I'm terribly sorry you cannot work thru what occurred between Parkland and 8pm to so drastically change the wounds in order to hide a frontal shot. 

Seems as if you, along with the many, have been fooled by accepting the autopsy materials as genuine and indicative of the damage in Dallas...  when as one goes thru the entire case we find example after example of altered, created, and "lost" evidence at the hands of the FBI, CIA, military, etc...

Yet you have the temerity to assert these agencies are presenting truth and these non-military personnel, and military personnel finally allowed to speak the truth...  are lying.

Let the chips fall where they may...  You've made your case...  the members have their own brains.  Thanks for stating your position with clarity... 

 

 

Yes, I must be a real nutcase. I studied the medical evidence not by swallowing gallons of ooze from questionable sources, but by comparing what is in the official record vs what is in textbooks and scientific literature. 

This thread is on the brain. It turns out, by golly, that the brain damage described in the autopsy report and testimony is incompatible with the trajectory pushed by the WC, and that the trajectory pushed by the HSCA was incompatible with the Z-film. The large head wound was not an exit for a bullet striking the forehead or back of the head, but a tangential wound of both entrance and exit. This leaves the small entrance by the EOP as a separate shot. 

When all the pieces are added up, it's fairly clear two guns were involved. When one studies the happenings in the TSBD, for that matter, it's even more clear Oswald was not a shooter. So the official evidence, minus spin, actually leads toward conspiracy. One need not believe in widespread body and film altercation, or cover stories designed to hide that Oswald was on the front porch, etc. That stuff is all distraction. 

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Wasn't the Harper fragment found the day after they scoured Dealey for debris?

I thought that was the case... so how that piece gets where it was, as I see it, does not relate to the result of a shot...
but the placing of a bone in a location.. well after the fact... to support a rear shot scenario.

But hey, I'm wrong about so much on this thread  who's to say...  Yet if I remember correctly, no one sees this bone on the 22nd

Yes, it was found on the day after. But no, no one "scoured" the plaza for debris. The Harper fragment was the largest skull fragment found outside the limousine. The z-film shows a large fragment rocketing into space in the direction of where it was found. Coincidence? 

P.S. The "fragment was moved" nonsense is yet another Mantik invention. I proved to him that the fragment was not found behind the limo's position, but in front of its position. So he had to cough up something to explain how a fragment from low on the back of JFK's head could end up in front of where he was struck. Voila! Someone moved it!

[David Josephs]

17 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Yes, it was found on the day after. But no, no one "scoured" the plaza for debris. The Harper fragment was the largest skull fragment found outside the limousine. The z-film shows a large fragment rocketing into space in the direction of where it was found. Coincidence? 

P.S. The "fragment was moved" nonsense is yet another Mantik invention. I proved to him that the fragment was not found behind the limo's position, but in front of its position. So he had to cough up something to explain how a fragment from low on the back of JFK's head could end up in front of where he was struck. Voila! Someone moved it!

You have no idea how that fragment got to be where it was found...  none.  Only assumptions based on a wrong shooting conclusion fostered by the WCR, the FBI and the Military. 

And now you are going to tell us that a large number of city personnel did not walk the plaza grass area looking for "evidence" on the 22nd...  that that grass area was NOT swarmed over by hundreds of people and this "largest skull fragment" from the right rear of his head as a result of a south-eastern frontal shot, winds up west of the limo ...  and is not seen or found until the following day...  and amazingly it's location helps support the bogus "shot from behind and only from behind" scenario you and the WC continue to push.

How fortuitous is that, right?

And wow Pat, you showed him a picture of where it was found and somehow convinced him this was in front of the limo..?   Gee, you're good... how DID you do it? 

 

[David Josephs]

40 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Yes, I must be a real nutcase. I studied the medical evidence not by swallowing gallons of ooze from questionable sources, but by comparing what is in the official record vs what is in textbooks and scientific literature. 

And therein lies the entire problem my man...   you think the official record is the truth and continue to try and use it to explain the events in Dallas when the BRAIN, SKULL and AUTOPSY work was all a sham designed to support a conclusion that MUST lead back to Oswald in the 6th floor window.  

When and if you ever come out of that fog, maybe you'll be able to evaluate what happened realistically.  Until then all your analysis amounts to is support for an incredibly corrupt and compromised government investigation.

As I've said, members here are very smart, conscientious and insightful.  Seeing thru charade of yours will not be hard.

Pretty sad state of affairs when a respected researcher sells his soul to support such an obviously corrupt report.

Don't you find it kind of disingenuous to accept the medical evidence as fact while rejecting so much of the other "evidence" offered in that rag and accompanying 26 volumes and 1550 WCDs?

You are aware there was a conspiracy to kill JFK as well as to cover up the facts, right?

[David Josephs]

I am so done with all these charades.  

Enjoy your narrative... I'm done bothering with it...  60 years and you support the medical evidence from the WCR...

    Rock on.

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, David Josephs said:

I am so done with all these charades.  

Enjoy your narrative... I'm done bothering with it...  60 years and you support the medical evidence from the WCR...

    Rock on.

Charades.... 

It took forever but you finally admitted Mantik's orientation for the mystery photo was in error. This orientation is the cornerstone for much of his research. if you look closely you will find that many widely-accepted positions on the evidence are just nonsense. 

(To be clear, I agree with Mantik on several key issues. I adore Tink Thompson, but was perhaps the only person at a mini-conference in which Thompson and Mantik debated the dicta-belt evidence, to side with Mantik. I also believe he is correct in his assertion the SBT bullet trajectory heads through bone. Some of the top medical evidence people think he overstates the case, but I came to conclude he's spot on.) 

[Eddy Bainbridge]

Thankyou for your continued engagement Pat. Please can you give a view on the sequence of the photographs (Odd circular appearing forehead blob+ jagged throat wound photo V bloody/shredded rear head and forehead notch photo).

Do you believe the body arrived at Bethesda looking like one, or the other? I think you have attempted to explain that the witnesses were largely wrong about what they saw/described, but are you claiming they actually saw the damage as portrayed  in the bloodied photo?

[Michael Crane]

On 2/28/2023 at 5:50 PM, Pat Speer said:

Let it be noted that David J refuses to disavow anything by David M...and is now insisting the close up is in the same orientation as I have placed it for 15 years or so...and is acting like this is news to me!

P.S. On closer inspection, I realize that the photo with what he claims is a bullet hole has been around awhile. This makes the gif morphing this with the other photo taken from this orientation quite helpful. It shows that what he claims is a hole is not a hole. And no, his bit about photoshop is nonsense. It makes no sense for "them" to alter one image of a top of the head photo no one was supposed to see but then fail to alter its partner.

Here, moreover, is the right profile photo showing this area from a better angle. Is there a hole there? That went unseen by all the doctors at Parkland and Bethesda? I think not. 

 

I certainly hope that I am not trying to sound like Mr.Researcher because,I'm far from it.It's just that I have never seen this picture that far down from the chin.

Edited March 3, 2023 by Michael Crane

[Pat Speer]

49 minutes ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

Thankyou for your continued engagement Pat. Please can you give a view on the sequence of the photographs (Odd circular appearing forehead blob+ jagged throat wound photo V bloody/shredded rear head and forehead notch photo).

Do you believe the body arrived at Bethesda looking like one, or the other? I think you have attempted to explain that the witnesses were largely wrong about what they saw/described, but are you claiming they actually saw the damage as portrayed  in the bloodied photo?

I'm not sure what you mean. The photos are largely consistent. There is a bone fragment attached to the scalp in the early photos that was removed or fell off in the latter photos. But beyond that?

As far as the witnesses, my theory or whatever is more in keeping with the witnesses than most other theories. If you go through the archives for this site, you will find that Lifton and Fetzer et al claimed those seeing an explosion from the temple or top of the head (such as the Newmans and Zapruder) were unreliable. Similarly, I have long claimed the bulk of the witnesses were correct in noticing one large wound--I think many placed it a bit too far back on the skull, that's all. Now contrast that to some CTs who claim 1) these witnesses uniformly failed to notice a bullet wound on the forehead, and 2) many of these witnesses were incorrect in placing the wound above the ear, as it was really at and below the level of the ear. In short then, these CTs insist there was an entrance wound that no one one saw and that these witnesses also screwed up and placed the exit wound too high. 

Their thinking was as follows:

1. The Harper fragment was found behind the limousine's position at the time of the shooting. (This was a mistaken claim in an early FBI report that Harper did his best to correct.)

2. The Harper fragment was occipital bone. (This was the impression of someone shown the Harper fragment early on, at a time there was still plenty of buzz that the head shot came from the front. Since that time the photos have been examined by a forensic anthropologist and a neuroanatomist, who totally reject this claim, and for good reason. The interior aspect of the fragment looks nothing like occipital bone. When confronted with this, moreover, Dr. Mantik mused that maybe JFK's Addison's disease had deformed his skull bones. I kid you not.) 

3. A number of Parkland witnesses thought they saw cerebellum. This would suggest a low exit. (The reality is that macerated brain gives the appearance of cerebellum and that a number of those initially claiming they saw cerebellum later corrected themselves. Now, naturally, those wishing to subscribe to the low blow-out wound seen by no one claim these doctors are all XXXXX. And that leads back to my earlier statement--that my "theories" are more in line with the witnesses than many of those claiming to be supporting the witnesses.)  

Edited March 3, 2023 by Pat Speer