Dueling Delusions: LN vs CT

[Marcus Fuller]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Marcus,

If you look at the Zapruder film, frame-by-frame, beginning with 313, you will see that the back of the head stays intact. Only the side of his head is blown open.

Pat and LNers will use this as proof that there was no gaping hole on the back of Kennedy's head. Which is fine. (Not that I agree with it.)

Problem is, it contradicts what the best witnesses saw... the Parkland doctors. (And others, those brought up by Mike Griffith).

The only way to resolve this conflict is to either accept that all those witnesses were wrong, or that those frames in the Z film were altered. Clearly the latter is the case since altering frames in a film is not a terribly difficult thing to do. It far easier to accept that than to believe all those witnesses saw the exact same, wrong thing.

 

The image I saw was from the opposite side to the Zapruder film, but unfortunately I didn't pay any attention to is provenance. It wasn't an actual blow out as such but more of a distention. Obviously I've seen very little in comparison to probably everyone on here but I can't help thinking that the damage to the right side of the head was made as the bullet went past. 

I looked at quite a few graphic photos of similar injuries and noticed (without being too graphic) that damage can occur along the trajectory of the bullet and not just at it's exit. Purely observational of course.

One of the things I also did was to superimpose an accurate skull image over frame 312 of a Zapruder film still, to match the angle of JFK's head at that time. Only the chin up/down angle though and not on any other axis. I made a line to suggest where I believe the bullet entered and where I believe it exited (as per autopsy pics) to see if it made things any clearer. 

There is one thing I know to be factual. When a bullet enters a skull it tears away the edges of the inside surfact giving a rough, almost counter sunk appearance. As the bullet leaves the same damage is left to the outside surface of the skull. I have seen an autopsy photo showing part of a hole on the back of JFK's skull which has damage consistent to an exit wound.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

This is disgusting . Few, if any, have spent more time on this issue than myself, and my website presents the earliest statements of the witnesses which suggested the wound was on the back of the head. 

Your defense of the Fox 5 autopsy photo is destroyed every time I set you straight.

[Pat Speer]

17 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Your defense of the Fox 5 autopsy photo is destroyed every time I set you straight.

LOL. 

One question. 

1. The measurements in the autopsy protocol place the wound at T-!, maybe even lower. Can you show us how a wound that low supports the single-bullet theory, and, assuming that you can not, offer us an explanation as to why "they" would fake a photo so damaging to the proposition the back wound connected to the throat wound? 

[Denny Zartman]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

This is disgusting . Few, if any, have spent more time on this issue than myself, and my website presents the earliest statements of the witnesses which suggested the wound was on the back of the head. . 

I see, moreover, that you claim there were "twenty witnesses who early on said the gaping wound was on the back of the head." This is nonsense. I think you had previously claimed that "20 doctors"had said as much. That was also nonsense, that you backtracked on by admitting very few of them ever said they thought the photos were fakes. 

Much is made on this website of the admissibility of evidence. IF a defense attorney thought it was a good idea to argue the autopsy photos were fake (which would be blitheringly stupid considering they prove there was more than one shooter), just who do you think he would call? 

Clark? Nope. He steered clear of the back of the head crowd, and denounced them in the press, and worked with Lattimer on his Oswald did it book.

Perry? Nope. He said he didn't really get a good look, and refused to denounce the photos.

Carrico? Nope. The same.

McClelland? Not likely. Not only did he initially claim the wound was "of the left temple" and gave no sign of being fired from the front, he also made such easily discredited claims as his creating the so-called McClelland drawing. He would be no help at all.

Well, then, how about Crenshaw? Yes, that's exactly what you need to convince a jury...a witness who admitted he only saw the wounds for a few seconds and who then failed to say anything for decades after, and who was subsequently denounced by his fellow doctors, including McClelland. 

The Parkland doctors all said blah blah blah is a hoax that was easily dismantled by McAdams, of all people. 

A better guide is the statements of the first witnesses. Bill Newman, Gayle Newman. Abraham Zapruder and Malcolm Kilduff, quoting Burkley, all said the wound was by the temple before the Parkland doctors held their press conference, and before the Parkland doctors wrote their reports. 

And no, they weren't talking about the forward extension of a massive wound stretching from low on the occipital bone to the temple. That's a straight-up con perpetrated by Groden, etc. The witnesses were relatively consistent on the size of the hole, and the hole they described was nowhere near that size. And no, it's not a matter of flaps being closed to conceal this part of the wound, etc. Clark, and later Humes, said there was a large hole absent of scalp and bone. 

Now, did you hear it? THAT is the smoking gun right there, NOT that some people said they thought the wound was further back on the skull than shown in the photos, and then changed their minds. No one ever changed their minds about the nature of the wound. It turns out, huh, when one ACTUALLY researches this stuff as opposed to cutting and pasting cherry-picked lists, that the missing scalp designates the wound as an ENTRANCE wound, which lends credence to Clark's early conjecture the wound was a tangential wound. Well, this, when added to the discovery of a small wound by the EOP, means there were TWO head wounds, a scientific FACT further demonstrated by the lack of a passage from low to high through the brain. 

So, yes, I'm a bit snippy. This attempt to prove the back of the head was missing, while ignoring the first witnesses, and rejecting the majority of statements by the Parkland doctors best in position to view the wound, has been a SMELLY RED HERRING, that has prevented the case from moving forward for decades. 

The doctors said they saw cerebellum. Why should we believe you over them?

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

LOL. 

One question. 

1. The measurements in the autopsy protocol place the wound at T-!, maybe even lower. Can you show us how a wound that low supports the single-bullet theory,

Who cares about the SBT?  The issue is the nature of the throat and back wounds and what those may tell us about the perps.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

and, assuming that you can not, offer us an explanation as to why "they" would fake a photo so damaging to the proposition the back wound connected to the throat wound? 

They were throwing crap on the wall to see what would stick. The Rydberg drawing has a location in the neck, and the final autopsy report posits 2 different back wound locations.

Somehow you think this garbage outweighs the clothing evidence, the contemporaneous written accounts of witnesses in position of authority, the properly prepared medical evidence, and consensus witness statements.

Edited November 16, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Pat Speer]

22 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

The doctors said they saw cerebellum. Why should we believe you over them?

Don't believe me. Do your own research. 

If you do, you will find that macerated cerebrum, basically smashed cerebrum, has a similar appearance to cerebellum. And you will also find that most of those saying they saw cerebellum later retracted their statements, with some even saying it couldn't have been cerebellum because the wound was well above the cerebellum. One of those who stood by his seeing cerebellum, moreover, was Peters, who insisted he saw cerebellum...while looking down through a hole from the crown. 

As it stands, then, there is very little evidence the back of the head was missing at the level of the cerebellum. It is largely a myth. While there is indeed eyewitness evidence suggesting the large head wound was further back on the skull than shown in the photos, a GIF morphing the photos demonstrates that the crown of the head was a movable flap, which in turn suggests that the wound as seen at Parkland, with JFK's head tilted back for the tracheotomy and his feet up in the air, would have been an inch or two further back than shown in the photos. Which is to say a mere inch or two away from where most placed the wound. 

 

Edited November 17, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

16 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Who cares about the SBT?  The issue is the nature of the throat and back wounds and what those may tell us about the perps.

They were throwing crap on the wall to see what would stick. The Rydberg drawing has a location in the neck, and the final autopsy report posits 2 different back wound locations.

Somehow you think this garbage outweighs the clothing evidence, the contemporaneous written accounts of witnesses in position of authority, the properly prepared medical evidence, and consensus witness statements.

No. The clothing evidence is central to all of it. The clothing evidence, the autopsy measurements,  and photos all confirm one another, and all destroy the SBT and the single-assassin conclusion. 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

No. The clothing evidence is central to all of it. The clothing evidence, the autopsy measurements,  and photos all confirm one another,

No, Pat, the bullet holes in the clothes are at least two inches lower.

This distinction is crucial.  The authenticated cervical x-ray shows damage which could only have been caused by the throat entrance shot.  You want to attribute the damage at T1 to the back shot, an egregious obfuscation.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

and all destroy the SBT and the single-assassin conclusion. 

A fact established in 1966 when Gaeton Fonzi rubbed the clothing defects in Arlen Specter’s face.

 

[Chris Bristow]

20 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Yes, but he said similar things at other times. I have watched probably ten interviews of McClelland, and have seen him speak in person at two conferences. And he was very cautious. He said he thought the photos were legit but that scalp was lifted to conceal the extent of the wound on the back of the head. (Which makes little sense considering Clark said from the first the large wound was missing scalp and bone.) But he would go further. Much to the chagrin of David Lifton and others, who were desperate to believe the tracheotomy incision was far too large, and somehow mysterious, he would say the incision in the photos was as he remembered it looking at Parkland. 

"Regarding McClelland you said. "and later said he thought the autopsy photos were legit, but deceptive".
 Dr McClelland doubled down on the main issue in that very same soundbite from the NOVA doc. He stated pulling the scalp up covered the existence of the "large wound" as he simultaneously demonstrated it to be in the occipital parietal. It is the hole that the Warren Commission denied and is somehow missing from the X-rays and photos. Deception has always been the rule for Parkland skeptics when it comes to the occipital parietal wound, but we all know what Dr McClelland's views were. 
 His opinion offered in the NOVA doc while looking at the back of head photo was an immediate, off the cuff, remark. The fact he ignored the reports of the missing scalp in his attempted explanation is barely worth mention.   
 The same old tired talking points have been strung together and repackaged so many times and in so many ways that your efforts have become absolutely transparent. The endless repeating of misleading and puffed up arguments have been refuted many times.  
SOME EXAMPLES:
 McClelland had theorized the scalp may have been pulled up to cover the wound. That has led to another deceptive line to confuse photo alterationists. Paraphrased as:  "Even Dr McClelland has said the head photo wasn't photoshopped!"  The alterations being led to assume McClelland agreed there was no coverup. When actually he was talking about a literal coverup!. Deceptions like that demonstrate the shaky ground the skeptics stand on.  Another well known and misleading generalization is about the doctors recanting their statements. It often ignores the fact that only a few doctors had done so. The additional fact that doctors were being attacked for their views, and had a good reason to 'recant', is more than noteworthy.
 Dr Crenshaw was maligned by the highly prestigious medical journal, JAMA. This is a prime example of an attack on Parkland staff . I feel compelled to repeat what so many already know. The JAMA article inferred that Crenshaw may not even have been in the room that day!  Imagine what being maligned and called a xxxx by that prestigious journal could do a  doctors reputation! Whether retired or in practice, it is very damaging to them and their families. Of course we have  doctors who testified under oath to the Warren Commission that he WAS in the room. Doctors Curtis, McClelland, Sayler,and even Baxter(Who was one of the 4 doctors interviewed for that JAMA article.). JAMA was sued and settled out of court. We are left to ask why such provably incorrect claims have been made over the decades?
  It is fully apparent to anyone versed on the subject that the skeptics have completely failed to make their case. The repetition of inadequate arguments has served well to highlight the transparency of the deception. That is why I said earlier that the debate has been over for some time. The head wound issue has always been a house of cards for the skeptics. That issue, imo, that has already been brought down.
 I'm not saying this to end on a snarky note but the rehashing of the head wound issue has become extremely boring. Repeating it over and over just benefits the skeptics. You all cannot allow the debate to resolve itself, because you have already lost. 
  
 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Chris Bristow said:

I'm not saying this to end on a snarky note but the rehashing of the head wound issue has become extremely boring. Repeating it over and over just benefits the skeptics. You all cannot allow the debate to resolve itself, because you have already lost. 

👏😎

[Micah Mileto]

21 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Exactly, Pat. .....

"The next time some conspiracy buff brings up the "gaping" nature of JFK's trach wound, show them the video on this webpage of Dr. Robert McClelland saying on PBS-TV in 1988 that the trach incision in the autopsy pictures looks "exactly the same size and the same configuration" as it was when he saw it at Parkland. .... And even though I think Dr. McClelland is as kooky as a 9-dollar bill with regard to his comments concerning the location of JFK's large head wound, I certainly don't have any reason to think he's kooky about his comments regarding the trach wound -- and that's because I don't believe for a single second that anybody "altered" any of JFK's wounds between Parkland and Bethesda." -- David Von Pein; November 2013

~~~~~~~~~

"Some people have even said 'Oh, that tracheostomy has been altered; it's too big a wound'. Well, I can speak for that -- no, it had not been altered. That's exactly the way it was made at Parkland. It's just that people expected it to be smaller." -- Dr. R.N. McClelland; Via This Excellent 2009 Interview

~~~~~~~~~

Related Discussion:

DR. PERRY, DAVID LIFTON, & THE TRACH WOUND

 

One of the primary pieces of evidence for an altered throat wound is Lifton’s reported 1966 interviews with Parkland doctors, where they were each asked to recall the length of the tracheostomy incision. Drs. Charles Carrico, Charles Baxter, Marion Jenkins, and Gene Akin were reportedly interviewed on 1/8/1966, Robert McClelland on 11/9/1966, Ronald Jones on 11/10/1966, and Paul Peters on 11/12/1966. It reads in Best Evidence, starting with Carrico (Link):

 

[…Part III. A Search for New Evidence, Chapter 11: The Tracheotomy Incision: Dallas vs. Bethesda]

 

On November 8, 1966, I telephoned him, introducing myself as a UCLA graduate student attending a legal seminar held by "Professor Wesley Liebeler, who was on the Warren Commission." I told him I was doing a paper on the tracheotomy operation.

"Dr. Perry testified that he made this incision in the neck... you were there when this happened, correct?"
 

"Right."
 

"Could you tell me approximately the length of the tracheotomy incision that was made?"
 

"Gee. It's been a while. Probably-it would just be a guess-between two and three centimeters, which is close to an inch."
 

"Between two and three centimeters?"
 

"Yes."
 

I asked: "Do you think the incision that Dr. Perry made might have been, let's say, four centimeters?"
 

Replied Carrico: "Oh, I really don't know. But it, that would probably be the upper limit. I doubt if it was that large."

As with Perry, the confident tone of Dr. Carrico carried the message that he did not need more than an inch to insert the tracheotomy tube.
 

The next doctor was Charles Baxter, who assisted Perry with the tracheotomy.
 

I posed the question:

LIFTON: Now, about what was the length of the incision?
 

BAXTER: Oh, it's roughly an inch and a half.
 

LIFTON: ...you could see the incision before they placed the tracheotomy tube into the incision?
 

BAXTER: Oh, yes. Yes.
 

LIFTON: So at that time you remember it as being an inch and a half [3.8cm]?
 

BAXTER: Yeah, roughly.¹

 

The assassination, I commented, was three years before. How sure was he of the details? "It's pretty vivid," replied Baxter, adding: "It's such a common operation that it's just standard. I think he probably had the most standard of standard operations . .. you do exactly what you're trained to do . . . if it wasn't standard, I don't know what it would have been."

 

Besides asking each doctor about the incision length, I also sought his reaction to an 8cm (3.2in) incision.

 

I asked Jenkins: "Do you think the incision could have been three and a quarter inches?" "No, I don't think so," he replied.²

 

Dr. Carrico responded: "Jiminy Christmas. How big is eight centimeters?" "Three and a quarter inches," I replied (actually it is 3.2 inches). Replied Carrico: "It would be certainly the exception. It would have to be an unusual circumstance."³

 

Carrico asked me if the autopsy report gave the incision length, but I dodged the question.

 

I asked Baxter if he ever made tracheotomy incisions that were three inches long: "No, we seldom do. You don't need that much."⁴

 

Dr. Peters told me of his most vivid recollection. The incision had been made when he walked into the room, and Dr. Perry had one, possibly two, fingers in it. Quantifying his recollection of length was difficult. Dr. Peters estimated: "With two fingers, there's about, well, an inch and three quarters . . . at most, it was two inches."⁵

 

In the course of my inquiries about length, I developed some contrary data, and evidence that doctors at Parkland were discussing my calls.

 

The problem first arose with McClelland. I had trouble reaching him, and had to leave my name. When I did reach him, I had the feeling he was anticipating what I was going to ask. When I came to the question of incision length, his reply agreed exactly with Dr. Humes' testimony: "In centimeters, that would be something like eight centimeters, seven or eight centimeters."⁶ I asked McClelland whether he thought that was the usual length of a tracheotomy. McClelland, a professor of surgery at Parkland Memorial Hospital, replied: "That's about the usual length, uh huh."⁷ McClelland then admitted he had heard about Liebeler and his course. Curious to see just how far McClelland would go to allay my suspicions, I asked: "Would you say that if eight [centimeters] is the normal size, would you say they sometimes run up to, let's say, ten to twelve centimeters?" (Twelve centimeters is 4.8 inches.)

 

"Oh, they might. They might," replied Professor McClelland. "You just make whatever's necessary to get into the neck. And it's conceivable that in certain people with rather short stocky necks, that you might have to make an incision that large a size."⁸

 

Try as I might, I found it difficult to imagine having to make a tracheotomy incision nearly five inches long to get into someone's neck. I concluded that Dr. McClelland, whose statements about the throat wound being an entry had received such widespread publicity, did not wish to become further embroiled in the assassination controversy.

 

Dr. Jones was the only other doctor who gave me an answer that agreed with Humes' testimony: "Probably two and a half or three inches, somewhere along in there. . . "⁹ He also told me that Dr. McClelland had told him I had called and asked about the length of the incision.

 

During these interviews, another criterion for estimating the incision length arose. Dr. Carrico explained that a tracheotomy tube had a flange—a piece of material perpendicular to the tube, that permits the tube to "sit" on the patient's neck. To keep the tube in place, straps from the flange are often tied around the neck. Carrico suggested that I determine what kind of tracheotomy tube was used and measure the flange. If the incision didn't extend beyond the flange, that would provide at least an upper limit. Dr. Carrico said he had no recollection of whether this particular incision extended beyond the flanges, but that normally it didn't. I decided to ask this question of the remaining doctors on my list.

 

Dr. Baxter said he didn't think the incision could be seen beyond the flange, whose width he estimated at 1 1/4 inches, at most."¹⁰ Jenkins didn't know.¹¹ McClelland said the incision did extend from the flange.¹² Jones, who had talked with McClelland, said the same thing.¹³ Dr. Akin, who had given me a 2 1/2-inch incision estimate, was nevertheless emphatic that the incision would not show beyond the flange. "Tracheotomy tubes are far too wide for an incision to be showing beyond that, unless an unreasonably large incision has been made."¹⁴

 

What, then, was the flange size on the tracheotomy tube used on President Kennedy? The tube was not saved, but Dr. Baxter told me it was definitely a plastic one, and it was either a number seven, eight, or nine. I checked a medical catalog and found the maximum width was 4cm. *

 

My flange-length research corroborated the estimates I received from Drs. Perry and Carrico that the tracheotomy incision was "2-3cm" long.

 

[...]

 

* In 1973, Parkland Memorial Hospital was renovating the emergency room area, and offered to sell the National Archives implements used in the emergency room—not the implements used on November 22, 1963. One item provided was a plastic tracheotomy tube. At my request, the Archivist measured the flange length. It was 1 1/4 inches long (1 1/4 inches is 3.1 centimeters).

 

[...]

 

Dr. McClelland goaded me into asking the question with his talk of a 7-8cm incision as being “usual.” I asked him about the edges:

 

LIFTON: . . . Could you tell me, if you were going to describe the edges of the incision, do you have any idea . . . were they smooth edges? Was it a smooth incision?

 

MCCLELLAND: Well ... as I say, when I got there, the incision had been made; and according to Dr. Perry's statement to me as I walked in the room, the first thing he said to me was that there was a wound in the neck, through which he had made the incision. Just as an extension of this wound . . . So I actually did not see the edges of the tracheotomy where it had extended it. And it was smooth, uh, since it was made, of course, with a knife [emphasis added].¹⁷

 

A few days later, I talked with Dr. Peters:

 

LIFTON: In what words would you best describe the edges of that incision?

 

PETERS: Oh, I guess "sharp."

 

LIFTON: Sharp?

 

PETERS: Yeah.

 

LIFTON: In other words, because it was made with a knife by a surgeon?

 

PETERS: That's right. It was a fairly neat incision, pretty close to the midline.¹⁸

 

Dr. Jones used the same word: “sharp.”¹⁹

 

[Sandy Larsen]

16 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

...my website presents the earliest statements of the witnesses which suggested the wound was on the back of the head.

 

If it doesn't include ~20 Parkland doctors and nurses, then it's an incomplete list. As shown by Dr. Aguilar's list.

 

16 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I see, moreover, that you claim there were "twenty witnesses who early on said the gaping wound was on the back of the head." This is nonsense.

 

I backed my claim with Dr. Aguilar's list. Remember, the one complete with citations?

 

16 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I think you had previously claimed that "20 doctors"had said as much. That was also nonsense, that you backtracked on by admitting very few of them ever said they thought the photos were fakes. 

 

I have no idea how many of the doctors "thought the photos were faked." I never admitted what you say I did.

 

16 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

This attempt to prove the back of the head was missing, while ignoring the first witnesses, and rejecting the majority of statements by the Parkland doctors best in position to view the wound, has been a SMELLY RED HERRING, that has prevented the case from moving forward for decades.

 

You're the one who has done what I've highlighted in red here, not us. I've done the exact opposite TWICE myself, by producing Dr. Aguilar's list of Parkland doctors and nurses, which gives exhaustive lists of each of their statements.

 

[Michael Griffith]

15 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

"Regarding McClelland you said. "and later said he thought the autopsy photos were legit, but deceptive".
 Dr McClelland doubled down on the main issue in that very same soundbite from the NOVA doc. He stated pulling the scalp up covered the existence of the "large wound" as he simultaneously demonstrated it to be in the occipital parietal. It is the hole that the Warren Commission denied and is somehow missing from the X-rays and photos. Deception has always been the rule for Parkland skeptics when it comes to the occipital parietal wound, but we all know what Dr McClelland's views were. 
 His opinion offered in the NOVA doc while looking at the back of head photo was an immediate, off the cuff, remark. The fact he ignored the reports of the missing scalp in his attempted explanation is barely worth mention.   
 The same old tired talking points have been strung together and repackaged so many times and in so many ways that your efforts have become absolutely transparent. The endless repeating of misleading and puffed up arguments have been refuted many times.  
SOME EXAMPLES:
 McClelland had theorized the scalp may have been pulled up to cover the wound. That has led to another deceptive line to confuse photo alterationists. Paraphrased as:  "Even Dr McClelland has said the head photo wasn't photoshopped!"  The alterations being led to assume McClelland agreed there was no coverup. When actually he was talking about a literal coverup!. Deceptions like that demonstrate the shaky ground the skeptics stand on.  Another well known and misleading generalization is about the doctors recanting their statements. It often ignores the fact that only a few doctors had done so. The additional fact that doctors were being attacked for their views, and had a good reason to 'recant', is more than noteworthy.
 Dr Crenshaw was maligned by the highly prestigious medical journal, JAMA. This is a prime example of an attack on Parkland staff . I feel compelled to repeat what so many already know. The JAMA article inferred that Crenshaw may not even have been in the room that day!  Imagine what being maligned and called a xxxx by that prestigious journal could do a  doctors reputation! Whether retired or in practice, it is very damaging to them and their families. Of course we have  doctors who testified under oath to the Warren Commission that he WAS in the room. Doctors Curtis, McClelland, Sayler,and even Baxter(Who was one of the 4 doctors interviewed for that JAMA article.). JAMA was sued and settled out of court. We are left to ask why such provably incorrect claims have been made over the decades?
  It is fully apparent to anyone versed on the subject that the skeptics have completely failed to make their case. The repetition of inadequate arguments has served well to highlight the transparency of the deception. That is why I said earlier that the debate has been over for some time. The head wound issue has always been a house of cards for the skeptics. That issue, imo, that has already been brought down.
 I'm not saying this to end on a snarky note but the rehashing of the head wound issue has become extremely boring. Repeating it over and over just benefits the skeptics. You all cannot allow the debate to resolve itself, because you have already lost.    

You are severely misstating the evidence.

You ignore the initial, 11/22/63 reports written by the Dallas doctors. Over and over again they said there was a large right-rear wound.

You ignore the numerous statements from the medical personnel and federal agents at the autopsy--nearly all of them said they saw a large right-rear/back-of-head wound.

You ignore the devastating and crucial accounts of the Parkland nurses who handled the skull, who cleaned the skull, who packed the head wound with gauze, and who prepared the body for placement in the casket--all of them insisted there was a large wound in the back of the head.

And you ignore the telling account of Aubrey Rike, who actually held the back of JFK's head in his hands while he helped place the body in the casket--he could feel the sharp edges of the back-of-head wound. 

How you can say that the skeptics have "completely failed to make their case" is hard to comprehend. You take the word of a handful of witnesses who deny the back-of-head wound and ignore the far more numerous witnesses who said they saw it (and in some cases actually handled it).

Edited November 17, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Sandy Larsen]

16 hours ago, Marcus Fuller said:

I have seen an autopsy photo showing part of a hole on the back of JFK's skull which has damage consistent to an exit wound.

 

Markus,

Is this the photo you are referring to?

If so, I agree with you that it is consistent with a blowout wound on the back of the head. In fact, we can see a head support piece on which the back of the head should be resting. So the back of the head (on the right side) is missing in this photo.

 

Yet the back of the head is fully intact according to the back-of-head photo.

 

 

This is actually a drawing of the photo made by Ida Dox. She was instructed to make it look like there was a bullet hole in the cowlick area in an effort to support the fabricated scenario that the gaping wound was on the top of the head, not the back. But other than that, the drawing looks pretty much like the actual photo.

(It's getting harder to find plain autopsy photos in web searches. At least with Google.)

 

[Sandy Larsen]

 

BTW, what we see here is inconsistent with simple gunshots to the head.

At least one of the autopsy technicians said that it appeared that somebody had taken a knife and made multiple cuts through the scalp, and that this is what the autopsist, commander Humes, was referring to when he noted that surgery to the head had been performed (prior to the autopsy!!).

It is my belief that somebody whacked the top of Kennedy's head with a hammer to break the skull up, and then cut through the scalp in order to retrieve what was left of the brain. Then at some point somebody else's brain was inserted in its place. It was this other brain that was photographed.

This hypothesis answers the question as to how the brain practically fell out on its own, as described by at least one autopsy technician.