Dueling Delusions: LN vs CT

[Sandy Larsen]

16 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

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).

 

This is just one example of Pat's cherry picking. It's what a person does when he has preconceived notions and biases. He has no choice but to cherry pick the evidence to make it fit.

 

[Sean Coleman]

 

 

Welcome to headwoundgate

 

Edited December 1, 2023 by Sean Coleman

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Sean Coleman said:

Welcome to headwoundgate.

 

Thanks Sean.

Gotta love those animated gifs. Makes it easier to understand what we're seeing.

 

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

This is just one example of Pat's cherry picking. It's what a person does when he has preconceived notions and biases. He has no choice but to cherry pick the evidence to make it fit.

 

Nonsense, Sandy. 

I thought you'd read my website. In it, go through dozens of witnesses, and show how the claim they all said the same thing--that there was a gaping hole in the occipital region--is a con job.

As the assassination literature correctly focuses on the doctors who spent the most time with Kennedy, and made the earliest statements, I present both their early statements and their subsequent statements so the reader can decide for themselves.

Essentially, those most involved in Kennedy's care refused to say the autopsy report was incorrect and that the autopsy photos were fake. This left writers like Lifton, Fetzer and even Aguilar in a bind. So they decided to attack these men and claim they were gutless cowards or worse. I have a problem with that. Unlike Lifton (with whom I was friendly), Fetzer (with whom I was not friendly), and Aguilar (a friend), I consulted with cognitive psychologists and read dozens of books and articles on human cognition and memory, and it became incredibly clear to me that the frequent claim doctors couldn't be mistaken--and couldn't honestly disavow their mistakes--was nonsense. The world of medicine is a world of specialization. Doctors routinely defer to the expertise of others, and to the official record. Heck, even McClelland said he thought the photos were legit. 

Now, could they have been correct in their earliest reports? I concluded "probably not". The Plaza witnesses and Bethesda witnesses and evidence all suggest a wound centered above the ear. It makes no sense that the wound was moved backwards before reaching Parkland and then back again after leaving Parkland. 

As I continued reading, and digested dozens of books and articles about the wound ballistics of the Carcano and similar rifles, it became clear to me (and now others, as I'm told some of my findings will be mentioned at Duquesne) that the exact location of the large gaping hole on Kennedy's head is of little importance, and that it is the NATURE of this wound that is all important. Large gaping holes like the one on Kennedy's head are not symptomatic of Carcano ammunition fired at that range, UNLESS the bullet strikes at an angle, and leaves a wound of both entrance and exit. Now, amazingly, Clark said this was his initial impression of the wound. The top forensic pathologists, moreover, concur that a large gaping hole of scalp and bone represents an entrance, not exit. (Apparently, I was the first to read and fully comprehend the footnotes in the report of the HSCA Pathology Panel, in which they tried to skate around the implications of this forensic fact by saying they thought the autopsy doctors were mistaken about the missing scalp, and in which they concealed that Clark had previously and separately shared the doctors' conclusion.)

In any event, the "smoking gun" is not that some doctors tasked with saving Kennedy's life originally claimed the wound was on the far back of his head (but then changed their minds), it is that the descriptions, photos, and x-rays of the wound, as observed and recorded at both Parkland and Bethesda, is 100% crystal clear evidence for a tangential wound of both entrance and exit. And this, in turn, when taken with the EOP entrance observed and recorded at Bethesda, means there were TWO headshots. 

Now, that's my contribution to the case, not tracking down some old man or woman and trying to get them to point to a location on their skull at odds with the autopsy photos, nor searching blurry images for Rorschach assassins on the knoll. 

And I won't apologize for reading and learning, and presenting those with an interest with something more concrete than the paper-thin nonsense in the assassination literature. 

 

[Joe Bauer]

2 hours ago, Sean Coleman said:

 

IMG_3432.MOV 483.04 kB · 0 downloads  

 

Welcome to headwoundgate

 

That above and front of the ear blown out skull bone flap is enormous!

[Jean Ceulemans]

That skull flap indeed is big, I guess this is the piece Jacky "put back in place" before reaching out to the other piece on the back of the limo ?  Shouldn't be hard to locate the actual hole IMO ?

But I have trouble seeing the hole versus hair covering the hole.  I have never entered the matter of the medical evidince, but this is one of those pictures hard to not see every how and then.

[Sandy Larsen]

48 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Nonsense, Sandy. 

 

Not nonsense, Pat. Fact.

 

48 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

I thought you'd read my website. In it, go through dozens of witnesses, and show how the claim they all said the same thing--that there was a gaping hole in the occipital region--is a con job.

 

First, note that I've not said a single word about the gaping hole being in the occipital region. I've always said the hole was on the back of the head, on the right side. Which is what nearly all the Parkland doctors and nurses said.

Many of the doctors said the wound extended into the occipital region. Do you believe they were conning us?

 

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

That skull flap indeed is big, I guess this is the piece Jacky "put back in place" before reaching out to the other piece on the back of the limo ?  Shouldn't be hard to locate the actual hole IMO ?

But I have trouble seeing the hole versus hair covering the hole.  I have never entered the matter of the medical evidince, but this is one of those pictures hard to not see every how and then.

Yes, it seems clear to me that, as seen at Parkland, and on the back of the head with brain-soaked hair photo above, the temple flap was pretty much closed, and the top flap was spilled backward, which created the illusion the hole of missing scalp and bone was further back on the skull than later shown in the back of the head photo taken with the hair pulled to JFK's left. 

But that photo is also deceiving. Due to the red spot in the BOH photo with the hair draped to the left, which people incorrectly believe is at the crown of the head, some have claimed the photo shows the hole of missing scalp and bone to have been on the front of the head, when it is not. It is above the ear, on the posterior (or occipital) aspect of the head when viewed from above. 

Edited November 17, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Sean Coleman]

3 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Yes, it seems clear to me that, as seen at Parkland, and on the back of the head with brain-soaked hair photo above, the temple flap was pretty much closed, and the top flap was spilled backward, which created the illusion the hole of missing scalp and bone was further back on the skull than later shown in the back of the head photo taken with the hair pulled to JFK's left. 

But that photo is also deceiving. Due to the angle of the head in the photo, some have claimed the photo shows the hole of missing scalp and bone to have been on the front of the head, when it is not. It is above the ear, where it appears as well on the x-rays. 

so the two gifs show the same head/wound?

[Pat Speer]

5 minutes ago, Sean Coleman said:

so the two gifs show the same head/wound?

Yep. They are both of Kennedy at Bethesda. In standard autopsy fashion the first shows the head as it first appeared, and the second shows the head later in the autopsy, when they were trying to ascertain the number and extent of the wounds. 

Intriguingly, I've seen it argued by a prominent forensic pathologist that the first of these should not have been taken, as it was disrespectful to show the brain in the hair, and needlessly gory. I was a bit surprised by that because I thought the taking of such photos was SOP, and forensic journals are filled with such photos. 

[Sean Coleman]

7 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Yep. They are both of Kennedy at Bethesda. In standard autopsy fashion the first shows the head as it first appeared, and the second shows the head later in the autopsy, when they were trying to ascertain the number and extent of the wounds. 

Intriguingly, I've seen it argued by a prominent forensic pathologist that the first of these should not have been taken, as it was disrespectful to show the brain in the hair, and needlessly gory. I was a bit surprised by that because I thought the taking of such photos was SOP, and forensic journals are filled with such photos. 

Aaahhh, I get it now. Those 2 gifs always confused me. That’s one of my many many many puzzlements sorted.

[Marcus Fuller]

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

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.)

 

It's not that particular one. I'll see if I can find the one I mean. There's an image (maybe a still) from the left of the motorcade after the fatal shot. The hair is sort of pushed outwards in a kind of mound. Looks to be about the size of a Jewish Kippah and in the same sort of position where they are worn, if that makes sense.

One thing about the first photo though and just my observation. Just above the right eye is where I believe the bullet entered, but there is what looks to me like a 'V' shaped incision. Generally speaking nature doesn't create straight lines. The 'V' shape is also equal as it would be if someone had centred the apex of the V in line with the entrance wound, then cut towards the back of the head. I can draw these things easier than I can explain them but they're only my observations and probably of little use to anyone.

 

[Sean Coleman]

On 11/17/2023 at 8:14 PM, Pat Speer said:

Yep. They are both of Kennedy at Bethesda. In standard autopsy fashion the first shows the head as it first appeared, and the second shows the head later in the autopsy, when they were trying to ascertain the number and extent of the wounds. 

Intriguingly, I've seen it argued by a prominent forensic pathologist that the first of these should not have been taken, as it was disrespectful to show the brain in the hair, and needlessly gory. I was a bit surprised by that because I thought the taking of such photos was SOP, and forensic journals are filled with such photos. 

Waitaminnit…….these guys say something else. I’m confused again, what’s going on?

 

Edited December 1, 2023 by Sean Coleman

[Jean Ceulemans]

8 minutes ago, Sean Coleman said:

Waitaminnit…….these guys say something else. I’m confused again, what’s going on?

No no no, 14 of these just have an itch,  and 2 didn't hear the question.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

27 minutes ago, Sean Coleman said:

Waitaminnit…….these guys say something else. I’m confused again, what’s going on?

 

Exactly!

But Pat will say that they aren't pointing low in the occipital area. And then somehow he'll translate that to mean they're pointing to the top of the head. At least that's what he did the last time someone posted that collage for him. Go figure.