VICTORY for the credibility of Parkland nurse Audrey Bell

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

Pat,

There has to be a massive size hole in the head to be able to remove the brain.

Once again,in my opinion,this diagram if true,represents the condition of the head after the brain has been removed.

I still say that pictures were taken all during and maybe even some after the autopsy (Spencer)

Hell,there was probably some X-rays that were taken late or after the autopsy also.

 

 

 

Yes, the testimony is clear. The doctors peeled back the scalp and skull fell to the table, exposing a massive defect. There was then little left to do to remove the brain. This big hole is captured in the mystery photo. 

But Groden's exhibits are intended to show the wound as originally seen at Parkland and Bethesda, not after the brain was removed. He even tells his audience that the accuracy of his exhibits has been confirmed by something like 89 witnesses. It's smoke. Total nonsense. Not one credible witness at Parkland said the body arrived at their facility with the giant gaping wound in the image above and those at Bethesda who described such a wound were obviously thinking of the appearance of JFK's head after the brain had been removed. 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 9/30/2023 at 2:20 AM, Pat Speer said:

1. [Dr. Gary Aguilar's] list was cherry-picked to make the case there was a similar blow-out wound viewed at both Parkland and Bethesda.

 

No, Dr. Aguilar's list is not cherry picked. Everybody present at the two hospitals who gave statements or testimony are listed. Their statements over time are documented, so it can be seen when a witness changed his story.

 

On 9/30/2023 at 2:20 AM, Pat Speer said:

He avoided a lot of contrary evidence or evidence that should have made him question the credibility of the witness. For example, he failed to mention that McClelland originally claimed the wound was of the left temple.

 

Not only are you wrong about this, but you are wrong in two different ways. First, Dr. Aguilar did indeed document the left temple wound. Second, you imply from your question that McClelland was referring to the blowout wound when he spoke of the left temple wound. Fact is, McClelland was referring to an entrance wound. Which is why it is not a part of the list that I've copied here.

 

On 9/30/2023 at 2:20 AM, Pat Speer said:

For another example, he presented David Naro's claim he spoke to Clark, without mentioning that Naro--a complete stranger to the research community....

 

I'm not even going to read the remainder of you complaints against Dr. Aguilar's list. Because you have been wrong about in so many ways that you are fully discredited, in my view. My doing anything more would just be a waste of time.

 

On 9/30/2023 at 2:20 AM, Pat Speer said:

2. To be clear, do you accept Gary's argument there was no body alteration, or not? And, if not, is it safe to say you cherry-picked his already cherry picked statements to make an argument he would disagree with? 

 

I haven't read Dr. Aguilar's argument against David Lifton's body alteration theory. But FWIW, this is what I think about it:

• The two-ambulence chicanery did occur. Even so, neither one held the corpse. It was flown in by helicopter in a body bag.
• There were indeed three separate entrances of a casket into the morgue, carried by three groups of men. The casket was empty -- though thought to be occupied -- in one of those entrances. (The second or third one.... I forget which.)
• There was no body alteration. What there was was somebody hitting the top of head with something like a small sledge hammer, thereby fracturing the skull. Then several slits in the scalp made with a sharp knife. Then somebody removing the remainder of the brain along with any bullet fragments. The goal being to obfuscate there being multiple shooters.

 

[Michael Crane]

So Pat,

Do you believe that there was this amount of damage done by one bullet that entered from behind?

 

Or was it something closer to this?

 

Edited October 2, 2023 by Michael Crane

[Michael Crane]

I have to admit that I got a kick out of this head position.

 

[Michael Crane]

This one is kind of cute also.

 

[Chris Bristow]

On 10/1/2023 at 2:06 AM, Pat Speer said:

Salyer went to the Lancer JFK conference and stood in front of a largely CT crowd and told them the wound was on the side and top of the head. And this wasn't new. He'd been quoted saying as much several times before. I knew what he was gonna say. But I was surprised to find he wasn't alone. Salyer, Goldstrich, and Loeb spoke at Lancer before a large audience, most of which was expecting them to say there was a large blow-out wound on the back of the head. Their appearance was made to help promote "the Parkland Doctors" movie, I think it was, in which the doctors were allowed to tell their stories. In any event, most of the audience was all excited about their appearance, thinking they were gonna say the wound was on the far back of the head and the mainstream media was finally gonna notice or whatever. But none of them did. In fact, Salyer and Loeb both said the wound was not on the far back of the head. Also attending this conference were Newman and Jenkins, both of whom similarly denied there had been a wound on the far back of the head. As stated, there were grumblings from the crowd, and much consternation on the faces of those in attendance who'd been expecting these doctors to "finally tell the truth" or some such thing. It was a lot like when Buell Frazier appeared and was heckled by a guy wanting to know why he wouldn't admit Kennedy was on the front steps, or whatever. Some--perhaps the majority--go to these conferences expecting to be told what they already believe, and get angry when told something that challenges their beliefs. After my first appearance at Lancer, Deb Conway--who wasn't familiar with my research and didn't know what to expect--came up to me and told me she thought I'd really given people something to think about, and to not worry if they don't come up and congratulate me or whatever because it wold take ten years or so to sink in. She was undoubtedly an optimist. 

As far as any photos published by Groden showing Salyer's interpretation of the wound location...the photo I recollect seeing is of Salyer pointing to the side of his head, by his ear. Not to the far back of his head.

But, assuming Groden has such a photo, let me expand.

On my website I go through Groden's "witnesses" and show how some of them were repeating what they'd been told by others or were guessing based on other information. There were two witnesses, however, whose recollections were grossly misrepresented and whose presence in Groden's book was a disgrace. As I recall the images of both Paul O'Connor and Jerrol Custer were taken from a video put out by Groden, where they described the whole top right side of JFK's head missing. (They were presumably describing the wound as seen after the doctors peeled back the scalp and bone fell to the table.) In any event, they pointed with their hand as they said the wound stretched from the front of the skull by the hairline and extended all the way back to the base of the skull. And Groden made a screen grab of them with their hands on the back of their heads and said this was where they saw the wound. This was disgraceful. He was trying to convince his readers that the Parkland doctors and Bethesda doctors saw the same wound on the back of the head, and that there had been no alteration of the body, and knew O'Connor and Custer had described a wound many times the size of the wound observed at Parkland--and were almost certainly describing the size of the wound after the brain had been removed... And yet he made out they were describing the wound in the McClelland drawing. Well, this would lead me to suspect that any photo in his possession of Salyer pointing to the far back of his head would be of a similar nature: a scam. 

As I have stated a couple times there is good reason to believe that witnesses may have decided not to mention the O.C. wound. One example I already listed is the character assassination Crenshaw suffered in the JAMA article. So the fact that many flipped their story could easily be due to events like that. That is the more plausible scenario, as opposed to believing they flipped because most of the got it wrong on 11/22 or just copied what others said. It is the far more logical assumption by a long shot.
 The large parietal wound at the autopsy does not relate to my point. Not that I ignore it, it is the lack of the O.C. wound at the autopsy that was reported by so many at Parkland that indicates a coverup. 
 The photo at bottom which shows Sayler is from the film clip I have seen on Youtube. He clearly puts the wound behind the ear at the O.C.
 O'Conner and Custer would not be describing the wound after the bone fell out because they were asked to describe the gunshot wound. Why would you "presume" that? Custer's best look was when he did the x-rays. That was when he held the head in his hands as he positioned it on 3 different axis at one time for an x-ray. To my best recollection O'Conner described the wound as he saw it when he first unwrapped the head. 
 The fact that very credible witnesses like Baxter, Carrico and Clark ALL put the wound in the occipital on 11/22 is very strong evidence that their account were unbiased and accurate. Especially Clark who based his decision to stop resuscitation based on his very close look at the wound in the "Right occipital parietal". Clark's account alone is virtually unassailable.
   There is a plausible reason for some to flip but no good reason to explain so many getting it wrong yet giving the same basic location when contrasted against the official location.
Saying people lied or just repeated what they heard is speculation. But the consistent accounts from 11/22 and the WC is fact. How could Clark, again, a neurosurgeon, hold JFK's head in his hands and get it so wrong. You really have to reach to explain that away. He based the decision to give up on the president on his opinion that the wound was "unsurvivable". I know I have said that a few times in the last day or three but it has no valid explanation. None!
  The strongest case is by far that the Parkland staff indeed saw what they claimed. Good reason for them to clam up about the O.C wound so naming more people who flipped does not make your case. It only points to 2 options. They lied about the O.C. or they lied when they flipped. When we allow for the possibility that they flipped to avoid the heat, your argument has little meat left on the bones. 

 

Edited February 16 by Chris Bristow

[Michael Griffith]

On 9/30/2023 at 2:28 PM, Pat Speer said:

I guess you didn't read Bell's article, or my posts in response. It turns out that in a section excised by Micah in his first post (presumably because it didn't deal with the head wounds) Bell mentioned giving a fragment (singular) to a Department of Public Safety officer. I believe this is the official story. Years later she told the HSCA there were multiple fragments and that she gave them to the FBI, which led numerous writers and researchers to  ooh and ahh and assume there was some mass cover-up of the "real" fragments...perhaps because they were too numerous to have come from CE 399. 

This made her a CT darling. 

Well, years after that, she was contacted by the ARRB. And she now shares a story about Perry showing her the head wound, and it's being low on the back of the head. 

While the 1968 article by Bell should cause one to doubt the position first shared with me by Lifton (that she was never even in Trauma Room One) it undoubtedly damages her credibility in other ways. To the extent even that one seriously interested in the truth should avoid listing her among important witnesses. 

I mean, I ended up concluding the back of the head wound described by most researchers is nonsense. But it's not as if there are only a few reasons to believe there was such a wound. We have Clark, first and foremost. And the supporting cast. As has been argued in this thread, one can conclude those stating the wound was not on the far back of the head (Giesecke, Salyer) were mistaken and those claiming they were mistaken when they said it was on the far back of the head  (Carrico, Perry, Jenkins, Baxter, Jones) were pressured to do so. I don't buy it. But one is not insane to do so. 

Adding the likes of Crenshaw and even McClelland into the mix--people who didn't come forward for decades or who changed their stories after their initial reports--and then appeared to revel in the attention, is questionable to begin with. But relying on Bell--who had no support for her story to begin with--and who it now turns out had written an article within a few years of the assassination that was in direct opposition to her subsequent claims regarding the fragments--well, that's just self-defeating, and fodder for a future Litwin article. 

So once again you are weakening the case for conspiracy by offering convoluted alternative explanations, holding certain witnesses to an unreasonably rigid standard, and dismissing solid evidence. A few facts:

-- As Nurse Bell pointed out to the ARRB, the 11/22/63 evidence envelope that she herself filled out on the day of the shooting reads "fragments," plural, not "fragment" (ARRB meeting report, 4/14/97, p. 1).

-- It was the FBI that quoted Nurse Bell as saying that she handed over a single fragment to a Texas state trooper. Bell disputed that report:

          When shown an FBI FD-302 dated November 23,1963 (Agency File Number 000919, Record #180-l 0090-10270), she felt it was inaccurate in two respects: it quotes her as turning over “the metal fragment (singular),” whereas she is positive it was multiple fragments; it says she turned over the fragment to a Texas State Trooper, whereas she recalls turning it over to plainclothes Federal agents who were either FBI or Secret Service. (Ibid., p. 1)

-- Nurse Bell also disputed CE 842:

          When shown CE 842 (page 841 in Warren Commission Volume XVII), she said that the fragments photographed in the container were too small, and were too few in number, to represent what she handled on 1 l/22/63. (Ibid., p. 2)

-- As for your sad dismissal of the right-rear exit wound, let's look at what the Parkland doctors wrote while the events were still fresh in their minds on the very day of the shooting in their 11/22/63 medical reports:

Dr. Kemp Clark, neurosurgeon:

Two external wounds, one in the lower third of the anterior neck, the other in the occipital region of the skull, were noted. . . .

There was a large wound in the right occipital-parietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring. . . .  

There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound. (Summary report of Dr. Kemp Clark, 11/22/63, pp. 1-2, CE 392)

Dr. Charles Carrico:

Two wounds were noted. One small penetrating wound of the neck in lower 1/3. The other wound had avulsed the calvarium and shredded brain tissue present and profuse oozing. . . .

. . . wound of the trachea was seen immediately below the larynx. . . .

. . . attempt to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue. . . . (Admission note of Dr. Charles Carrico, 11/22/63, pp. 1-2, CE 392)

Dr. Charles Baxter:

The president had a wound in the midline of the neck. . . .

wounds of the temporal and occipital bones . . . and the brain was lying on the table. (Admission note of Dr. Charles Baxter, 11/22/63, p. 1, CE 392)

Dr. Robert McClelland:

The president was at that time comatose from a massive gunshot wound of the head and a fragment wound of the trachea. . . .

Cause of death was the massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple. (Admission note of Dr. Robert McClelland, 11/22/63, pp. 1-2, CE 392)

(NOTE: The "left temple" was undoubtedly a viewer's-left reference and referred to the same small hole in the right temple that mortician Tom Robinson saw and filled with wax.) 

Dr. Marion T. Jenkins:

There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound. (Statement of Dr. Marion T. Jenkins, 11/22/63, p. 2, CE 392)

--------------------------

Now, compare these fresh, only-hours-old statements on the large head wound with those of other Parkland medical personnel and federal agents made a few months later:

Dr. Ronald Jones, Parkland doctor:

. . . he had a large wound in the right posterior side of the head. . . . 

There was large defect in the back side of the head as the President lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted with the brain. . . . 

The hole [in the throat] was very small and relatively clean cut, as you would see in a bullet that is entering rather than exiting from a patient. (6 H 53-56)

Dr. Gene Akin, Parkland doctor:

The back of the right occipital-parietal portion of his head was shattered, with brain substance extruding. . . .

I assume the right occipital-parietal region was the exit, so to speak, that he had probably been hit on the other side of the head, or at least tangentially in the back of the head. . . .

This [the neck wound] must have been an entrance wound. . . . (6 H 65-67)

Dr. Paul Peters, Parkland doctor:

It was pointed out that an examination of the brain had been done. . . .

We saw the wound of entry in the throat and noted the large occipital wound. . . .

I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput. . . . (6 H 70-71)

Nurse Patricia Hutton, who helped treat Kennedy:

Mr. Kennedy was bleeding profusely from a wound in the back of his head. . . .

A doctor asked me to place a pressure dressing on the head wound. This was no use, however, because of the massive opening on the back of the head. (21 H 216)

Nurse Diana Bowron, who helped treat Kennedy, who packed gauze squares into his head wound, and who wrapped his head in a sheet to prepare the body for the casket:

Mr. SPECTER. You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON. The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER. And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON. Well, it was very bad--you know.
Mr. SPECTER. How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON. I just saw one large hole. (6 H 136)

Nurse Margaret Henchliffe, a Parkland nurse who helped treat JFK:

Mr. SPECTER. Did you see any wound anywhere on his body? 
Miss HENCHLIFFE. Yes; he was very bloody, his head was very bloody when I saw him at the time. 
Mr. SPECTER. Did you ever see any wound in any other part of his body? 
Miss HENCHLIFFE. When I first saw him—except his head. 
Mr. SPECTER. Did you see any wound on any other part of his body? 
Miss HENCHLIFFE. Yes : in the neck. 
Mr. SPECTER. Will you describe it, please? 
Miss HENCHLIFFE. It was just a little hole in the middle of his neck. 
Mr. SPECTER. About how big a hole was it? 
Miss HENCHLIFFE. About as big around as the end of my little finger. 
Mr. SPECTER. Have you ever had any experience with bullet holes? 
Miss HENCHLIFFE. Yes. 
Mr. SPECTER. And what did that appear to you to be? 
Miss HENCHLIFFE. An entrance bullet hole—it looked to me like. 
Mr. SPECTER. Could it have been an exit bullet hole? 
Miss HENCHLIFFE. I have never seen an exit bullet hole—I don't remember seeing one that looked like that. (6 H 141)

Jackie Kennedy, JFK’s wife, who held his head in her hands on the way to the hospital:

I was trying to hold his hair on. But from the front there was nothing. I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on. (5 H 180, declassified version—this portion of her testimony was omitted from the published version, but it was “declassified” in 1972)

Clint Hill, the Secret Service agent who jumped onto the back of the limo and got a close-up look at JFK’s large head wound:

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. (2 H 141)

William Greer, the Secret Service agent who drove the limo:

Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe about the President with respect to his wounds?
Mr. GREER. His head was all shot, this whole part was all a matter of blood like he had been hit.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the top and right-rear side of the head?
Mr. GREER. Yes, sir; it looked like that was all blown off. (2 H 124)

Edited October 3, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Joe Bauer]

Showing the Zapruder film for the 8,550th time again but in regards to the actual JFK head wounds I ask that you go back to the very basic real time visual evidence and ask you to describe what "you" see?

In the micro-second of the head shot I see a huge blowout of skull and scalp close to but just above and to the right of JFK's right-side ear!

A major section of scalp and skull starting from just above the ear and continuing to a right-side temporal area.

A huge piece blowout.

I see this exploded out piece coming off as a "flap" of hair and bone. A flap that remained attached to JFK's skull.

In the Z film one can easily see the pink spray cloud emanating from this blowout as well as the pink matter exposed underneath by the blowout.

It is all brightly illuminated in the direct noon time sun. You can even see a "glistening" from all the blood and fluid that was just underneath the blown off skull.

Now, how this upper right side skull blowout connects to or in any way contradicts a rear occipital blowout I cannot say. 

I do wonder however, if Jackie Kennedy may have pulled up the blown out "flap" on JFK's upper right-side head, to try to piece back together her husband's skull?

What I see in the bright pink, bloody spray right of the ear blowout Z film footage confuses me.

I my opinion it seems so obvious as to my blown off flap and it's location description being correct.

Closest Dealey Plaza grassy knoll sidewalk bystander witness Bill Newman ( 15 feet away when the head shot occurred ) always described a much more upper right side of the skull blow out wound as I do.

He said something like "we seen his ear blowed off." Which was specifically inaccurate upon close visual study, but was still far from describing a much farther back right rear blowout.

Clint Hill described a large blowout hole farther back from JFK's right ear and with a large amount of brain matter missing from it's interior. And Hill was just inches away from JFK's head?

Does anyone else here see the JFK skull flap blowout as I describe and it's just above but to the right of JFK's right side ear temporal location upon looking closely at the Z film below?

And I have to assume that at least some of the Parkland doctors eventually viewed the Z film. If they did, they would clearly see this major brain matter exposing skull flap blow out above JFK's right ear, right? I would have liked to have viewed the Z film with them and asked them what they think they were seeing in regards to it?

 

0:33

NOW PLAYING

 

 

Zapruder Film Restored HD

 

 

Edited October 3, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[Pat Speer]

5 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

So once again you are weakening the case for conspiracy by offering convoluted alternative explanations, holding certain witnesses to an unreasonably rigid standard, and dismissing solid evidence. A few facts:

-- As Nurse Bell pointed out to the ARRB, the 11/22/63 evidence envelope that she herself filled out on the day of the shooting reads "fragments," plural, not "fragment" (ARRB meeting report, 4/14/97, p. 1).

-- It was the FBI that quoted Nurse Bell as saying that she handed over a single fragment to a Texas state trooper. Bell disputed that report:

          When shown an FBI FD-302 dated November 23,1963 (Agency File Number 000919, Record #180-l 0090-10270), she felt it was inaccurate in two respects: it quotes her as turning over “the metal fragment (singular),” whereas she is positive it was multiple fragments; it says she turned over the fragment to a Texas State Trooper, whereas she recalls turning it over to plainclothes Federal agents who were either FBI or Secret Service. (Ibid., p. 1)

-- Nurse Bell also disputed CE 842:

          When shown CE 842 (page 841 in Warren Commission Volume XVII), she said that the fragments photographed in the container were too small, and were too few in number, to represent what she handled on 1 l/22/63. (Ibid., p. 2)

-- As for your sad dismissal of the right-rear exit wound, let's look at what the Parkland doctors wrote while the events were still fresh in their minds on the very day of the shooting in their 11/22/63 medical reports:

Dr. Kemp Clark, neurosurgeon:

Two external wounds, one in the lower third of the anterior neck, the other in the occipital region of the skull, were noted. . . .

There was a large wound in the right occipital-parietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring. . . .  

There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound. (Summary report of Dr. Kemp Clark, 11/22/63, pp. 1-2, CE 392)

Dr. Charles Carrico:

Two wounds were noted. One small penetrating wound of the neck in lower 1/3. The other wound had avulsed the calvarium and shredded brain tissue present and profuse oozing. . . .

. . . wound of the trachea was seen immediately below the larynx. . . .

. . . attempt to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue. . . . (Admission note of Dr. Charles Carrico, 11/22/63, pp. 1-2, CE 392)

Dr. Charles Baxter:

The president had a wound in the midline of the neck. . . .

wounds of the temporal and occipital bones . . . and the brain was lying on the table. (Admission note of Dr. Charles Baxter, 11/22/63, p. 1, CE 392)

Dr. Robert McClelland:

The president was at that time comatose from a massive gunshot wound of the head and a fragment wound of the trachea. . . .

Cause of death was the massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple. (Admission note of Dr. Robert McClelland, 11/22/63, pp. 1-2, CE 392)

(NOTE: The "left temple" was undoubtedly a viewer's-left reference and referred to the same small hole in the right temple that mortician Tom Robinson saw and filled with wax.) 

Dr. Marion T. Jenkins:

There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound. (Statement of Dr. Marion T. Jenkins, 11/22/63, p. 2, CE 392)

--------------------------

Now, compare these fresh, only-hours-old statements on the large head wound with those of other Parkland medical personnel made a few months later:

Dr. Ronald Jones, Parkland doctor:

. . . he had a large wound in the right posterior side of the head. . . . 

There was large defect in the back side of the head as the President lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted with the brain. . . . 

The hole [in the throat] was very small and relatively clean cut, as you would see in a bullet that is entering rather than exiting from a patient. (6 H 53-56)

Dr. Gene Akin, Parkland doctor:

The back of the right occipital-parietal portion of his head was shattered, with brain substance extruding. . . .

I assume the right occipital-parietal region was the exit, so to speak, that he had probably been hit on the other side of the head, or at least tangentially in the back of the head. . . .

This [the neck wound] must have been an entrance wound. . . . (6 H 65-67)

Dr. Paul Peters, Parkland doctor:

It was pointed out that an examination of the brain had been done. . . .

We saw the wound of entry in the throat and noted the large occipital wound. . . .

I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput. . . . (6 H 70-71)

Nurse Patricia Hutton, who helped treat Kennedy:

Mr. Kennedy was bleeding profusely from a wound in the back of his head. . . .

A doctor asked me to place a pressure dressing on the head wound. This was no use, however, because of the massive opening on the back of the head. (21 H 216)

Nurse Diana Bowron, who helped treat Kennedy, who packed gauze squares into his head wound, and who wrapped his head in a sheet to prepare the body for the casket:

Mr. SPECTER. You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON. The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER. And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON. Well, it was very bad--you know.
Mr. SPECTER. How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON. I just saw one large hole. (6 H 136)

Nurse Margaret Henchliffe, a Parkland nurse who helped treat JFK:

Mr. SPECTER. Did you see any wound anywhere on his body? 
Miss HENCHLIFFE. Yes; he was very bloody, his head was very bloody when I saw him at the time. 
Mr. SPECTER. Did you ever see any wound in any other part of his body? 
Miss HENCHLIFFE. When I first saw him—except his head. 
Mr. SPECTER. Did you see any wound on any other part of his body? 
Miss HENCHLIFFE. Yes : in the neck. 
Mr. SPECTER. Will you describe it, please? 
Miss HENCHLIFFE. It was just a little hole in the middle of his neck. 
Mr. SPECTER. About how big a hole was it? 
Miss HENCHLIFFE. About as big around as the end of my little finger. 
Mr. SPECTER. Have you ever had any experience with bullet holes? 
Miss HENCHLIFFE. Yes. 
Mr. SPECTER. And what did that appear to you to be? 
Miss HENCHLIFFE. An entrance bullet hole—it looked to me like. 
Mr. SPECTER. Could it have been an exit bullet hole? 
Miss HENCHLIFFE. I have never seen an exit bullet hole—I don't remember seeing one that looked like that. (6 H 141)

Jackie Kennedy, JFK’s wife, who held his head in her hands on the way to the hospital:

I was trying to hold his hair on. But from the front there was nothing. I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on. (5 H 180, declassified version—this portion of her testimony was omitted from the published version, but it was “declassified” in 1972)

Clint Hill, the Secret Service agent who jumped onto the back of the limo and got a close-up look at JFK’s large head wound:

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. (2 H 141)

William Greer, the Secret Service agent who drove the limo:

Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe about the President with respect to his wounds?
Mr. GREER. His head was all shot, this whole part was all a matter of blood like he had been hit.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the top and right-rear side of the head?
Mr. GREER. Yes, sir; it looked like that was all blown off. (2 H 124)

I deal with this on my website. Many of these witnesses were most certainly not describing a wound on the far back of the head. 

[Pat Speer]

16 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

This one is kind of cute also.

 

I wrote what is essentially a book on this, Michael. And you are correct if your point is that 6.5 mm FMJ bullets don't leave small entrances an inch or two away from huge exits. And yet the size of the exit is undisputed--witnesses at both Parkland and Bethesda described a huge exit. Well, this led many a researcher to muse that hunting ammunition or AR-15 ammunition was used. But my research led me down a different road. All clues, in fact, point to a bullet's clipping the top of the head at an angle, and creating a tangential wound of both entrance and exit, with the small entrance by the eop representing a second wound. 

 

 

 

[Pat Speer]

8 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Showing the Zapruder film for the 8,550th time again but in regards to the actual JFK head wounds I ask that you go back to the very basic real time visual evidence and ask you what "you" see?

In the micro-second of the head shot I see a huge blowout of skull and scalp close to but "to the right" and just above JFK's right side ear!

A major section of scalp and skull starting from just above the ear and continuing to a lower temporal level parallel to the ear. A huge piece blowout. I see this exploded out piece come off as a "flap" of hair and bone. A flap that remained attached to JFK's skull.

In the Z film one can easily see the pink matter exposed by the blowout.

It is brightly illuminated in the direct noon time sun. You can even see a "glistening" from all the blood and fluid that was just under the blown off skull.

Now, how this upper right side skull blowout connects to or in any way contradicts a rear occipital blowout I cannot say. 

I do wonder however, if Jackie Kennedy may have pulled up the blown out "flap" on JFK's upper right-side head, to try to piece back together her husband's skull?

What I see in the bright pink, bloody spray right of the ear blowout Z film footage confuses me.

I my opinion it seems so obvious as to my blown off flap and it's location description being correct. Yet, maybe I'm wrong.

Closest Dealey Plaza bystander witness Bill Newman ( 15 feet away when the head shot occurred ) always described a much more upper right side of the skull blow out wound as I do.

He said something like " we seen his ear blowed off." Which was specifically inaccurate upon close visual study, but was far from describing a much farther back right rear blowout.

Clint Hill described a large blowout hole farther back from JFK's right ear and with a large amount of brain matter missing from it's interior. And Hill was just inches away from JFK's head?

Does anyone else here see the JFK skull flap blowout as I describe and it's just above but to the right of JFK's right side ear temporal location upon looking closely at the Z film below?

And I have to assume that at least some of the Parkland doctors eventually viewed the Z film. If they did, they would clearly see this major brain matter exposing skull flap blow out above JFK' right ear, right? I would have liked to have viewed the Z film with them and asked them what they think they were seeing in regards to it?

 

0:33

NOW PLAYING

 

 

Zapruder Film Restored HD

 

 

If I catch your drift, Joe, it appears you're thinking the flap on top of the head was closed up at Parkland, but opened up in the autopsy photos. If so I think that's probably true. When I morphed the back of the photos together moreover I discovered that the rear most part of the defect at the autopsy opened up a bit between photos. Well, in such case the wound would have appeared more rearward at Parkland than in the autopsy photos. 

P.S.  The gif showing the flap towards the back of the head can be viewed and studied towards the bottom of chapter 13 at patspeer.com,

Edited October 3, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Michael Crane]

9 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Showing the Zapruder film for the 8,550th time again but in regards to the actual JFK head wounds I ask that you go back to the very basic real time visual evidence and ask you what "you" see?

In the micro-second of the head shot I see a huge blowout of skull and scalp close to but "to the right" and just above JFK's right side ear!

A major section of scalp and skull starting from just above the ear and continuing to a lower temporal level parallel to the ear. A huge piece blowout. I see this exploded out piece come off as a "flap" of hair and bone. A flap that remained attached to JFK's skull.

In the Z film one can easily see the pink matter exposed by the blowout.

It is brightly illuminated in the direct noon time sun. You can even see a "glistening" from all the blood and fluid that was just under the blown off skull.

Now, how this upper right side skull blowout connects to or in any way contradicts a rear occipital blowout I cannot say. 

I do wonder however, if Jackie Kennedy may have pulled up the blown out "flap" on JFK's upper right-side head, to try to piece back together her husband's skull?

What I see in the bright pink, bloody spray right of the ear blowout Z film footage confuses me.

I my opinion it seems so obvious as to my blown off flap and it's location description being correct. Yet, maybe I'm wrong.

Closest Dealey Plaza bystander witness Bill Newman ( 15 feet away when the head shot occurred ) always described a much more upper right side of the skull blow out wound as I do.

He said something like " we seen his ear blowed off." Which was specifically inaccurate upon close visual study, but was far from describing a much farther back right rear blowout.

Clint Hill described a large blowout hole farther back from JFK's right ear and with a large amount of brain matter missing from it's interior. And Hill was just inches away from JFK's head?

Does anyone else here see the JFK skull flap blowout as I describe and it's just above but to the right of JFK's right side ear temporal location upon looking closely at the Z film below?

And I have to assume that at least some of the Parkland doctors eventually viewed the Z film. If they did, they would clearly see this major brain matter exposing skull flap blow out above JFK' right ear, right? I would have liked to have viewed the Z film with them and asked them what they think they were seeing in regards to it?

 

0:33

NOW PLAYING

 

 

Zapruder Film Restored HD

 

 

Hello Joe,

I think it's safe to say that everybody on the forum has seen the Zapruder film.

Here is my take (Jim Rome style)

The Zapruder film has been tampered with.There are plenty of still frames that appear to show a "side of the head blowout"

What the plotters have done is "combined" a frontal shot along with the rear shot making it appear as 1 shot.

The head spray lasts longer than one frame as stated by Dino Brugioni ( who also states 6 or more shots)

*Is the flap even real? I'm not convinced one way or the other.

Edited October 3, 2023 by Michael Crane

[Michael Crane]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I wrote what is essentially a book on this, Michael. And you are correct if your point is that 6.5 mm FMJ bullets don't leave small entrances an inch or two away from huge exits. And yet the size of the exit is undisputed--witnesses at both Parkland and Bethesda described a huge exit. Well, this led many a researcher to muse that hunting ammunition or AR-15 ammunition was used. But my research led me down a different road. All clues, in fact, point to a bullet's clipping the top of the head at an angle, and creating a tangential wound of both entrance and exit, with the small entrance by the eop representing a second wound. 

 

 

 

So glad to hear that.

I sincerely enjoy being able to communicate with elite researchers such as yourself.All this time,I thought that the evil forces had gotten to you Gary Mack style.That you were denying a low or EOP back of the head wound.

Hip,hip hooray!

Edited October 2, 2023 by Michael Crane

[Michael Crane]

4 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

*Is the flap even real? I'm not convinced one way or the other.

I would expect that if this flap is real....do you really think that it would be black on the inside?

I was able to blow up the death stare picture real big,but it was too big of a file the site told me.

Edited October 3, 2023 by Michael Crane

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

I would expect that if this flap is real....do you really think that it would be black on the inside?

I was able to blow up the death stare picture real big,but it was too big of a file the site told me.

dark red appears black on black and white film