Dueling Delusions: LN vs CT

[Sandy Larsen]

@Jean Ceulemans

And what about the drawings done by Parkland doctors and nurses, and FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill, who attended the autopsy:

 

 

 

 

Drawn by FBI Agent Francis O'Neill for the HSCA.

 

Drawn by FBI Agent James Sibert for the HSCA.

 

 

 

 

 

Drawn by Dr. James Jenkins for the HSCA.

 

 

Wound (circle) drawn by mortician John Robinson.

 

 

Wound drawn by nurse Audrey Bell for the ARRB.

 

 

Drawn by nurse Diana Bowron.

 

 

Wound drawn by Dr. Robert Grossman for the ARRB.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

@Jean Ceulemans

And what about the doctors and nurses pointing to where the gaping wound was? The (fraudulent) back-of-head autopsy photos makes these professional look like fools. No wonder some of them changed their minds when they saw the autopsy photos. They didn't want to look like fools.

[Pat Speer]

I hope you realize, Sandy, that those drawings and photos contradict each other, and that you can't claim they all are correct when they don't even agree with each other. 

Let's make an analogy. A German Shepherd wins Best in Show at an untelevised dog contest. Years later, those in attendance are asked what breed of dog won the contest. As only a few outside the judges say it was a German Shepherd, and a group of friends from the crowd say it was a dachshund, some writers put out some books saying the Shepherd didn't win,  the dachshund won, and the awards ceremony photos published in the paper are all fakes. Over the years even more are asked which dog won, including some who may not have actually been there. The consensus among these witnesses, some of whom may not have even been there, is that the Shepherd didn't win. But here's the problem. When it comes to claiming who did win, these witnesses are all over the place. Some say it was a chihuahua, some say it was a poodle, some say it may have been the shepherd after all. Only a small minority say it was a dachshund. So what do the writers who stirred up the controversy do? Do they say "Well, I guess it wasn't a dachshund?" No, they double-down and claim the fact so many didn't think it was a German Shepherd PROVES it was a dachshund. 

It's a con, and a transparent one. Go back and look at the photos and sort them by low on the back of the head, high on the back of the head, and top of the head near the ear. And give us a score. And then multiply those scores by numbers representing the credibility of the witnesses--if they were provably there, how long they had a look, how long before they first came forward, and the consistency of their statements. And you will see for a fact that the low on the back of the head blow-out proposed by the likes of Crenshaw, Bell, and McClelland (sometimes) is total nonsense. Heck, this was even acknowledged by Millicent Cranor, in an article accusing me of pretending people take such claims seriously so I can pretend the back of the head cult is bonkers. 

So, no, it wasn't a dachshund. Why won't you admit as much?

 

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

@Jean Ceulemans

And what about the drawings done by Parkland doctors and nurses, and FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill, who attended the autopsy:

 

(Note that this was drawn by McClelland late in life and that it mirrors the 1967 drawing wrongly attributed to him--y'know the one that he had previously said was inaccurate. Note also that it is in conflict with his previous representations of the wound.)

 

(Note that this is a drawing created more than 30 years after the assassination by an aged doctor who saw Kennedy's wound for but a few seconds, and who had since read much conspiracy material and had been embraced by the research community. Now note that the wound he depicts Is far too low to be the wound depicted by most other witnesses, and far too lateral to be the wound claimed by Mantik, etc." 

Drawn by FBI Agent Francis O'Neill for the HSCA.

(Note that O'Neil placed this wound along the top of the right side of the head when viewed from behind. This is not the wound depicted in the other drawings. And this is not surprising considering he said this wound was an exit for a bullet entering low on the back of the head, and that there was no entry on the front of the head.)

 

(Well, this one is a puzzle. Here is what Sibert and O'Neill reported on the night of the shooting. "Total body x-ray and autopsy revealed one bullet entered back of head and thereafter emerged through top of skull." So, no, Sibert is not a low on the back of the head blow-out witness. He was precisely the opposite.) 

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

 

 

Drawn by Dr. James Jenkins for the HSCA.

(Note: Jenkins told William Law, myself, and others that the back of the head was NOT blown out but shattered, with the skull still attached to the scalp. So what he is depicting here is most certainly not the wound as it first appeared. Note also that he claimed the front of this wound was visible when viewing the front of JFK, which proves it is not the wound depicted in most of the other drawings.)

 

 

Wound (circle) drawn by mortician John Robinson.

(Note: Robinson was describing the wound he saw during the reconstruction of the skull. This was not a forensic reconstruction but a cosmetic one, in which the missing scalp and skull was shifted to the back of the head so it could be concealed in a pillow.)

 

(Note: Bell is not a credible witness. No one remembered her being in the room, and her claims about the number of fragments recovered from Connally's wrist blossomed over the years. Much as Crenshaw, moreover, her depiction is grossly at odds with the other witnesses, to the extent even that one can not say she was right without saying most everyone else was wrong.)

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Wound drawn by nurse Audrey Bell for the ARRB.

 

 

Drawn by nurse Diana Bowron.

(Note that this was drawn many years after the shooting, after Bowron had come in contact with conspiracy theorists. Much as Crenshaw and Bell, moreover, her depiction of the wound is much too low to be considered a depiction of the same wound location as most others.)

 

 

Wound drawn by Dr. Robert Grossman for the ARRB.

(Note: Grossman said there was an ENTRANCE wound in this location and that the top of the head was blown off and that the autopsy photos are accurate and that people claiming there was a shot from the front are full of beans. So WHY are you presenting his claim there was an entrance wound where the autopsy said there was an entrance as evidence this area was blown out by a shot from the front? Wild.)

 

Edited November 28, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

55 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

I hope you realize, Sandy, that those drawings and photos contradict each other, and that you can't claim they all are correct when they don't even agree with each other. 

 

They are all approximations of the same wound. The one on the back of the head, as nearly every Parkland doctor and nurse said.

 

[Marcus Fuller]

Sandy, just as an update. The photo I was referring to the other day where you could see a 'distortion' on the back of JFK's head was the Mary Moorman photograph. In fact, there is a section on The Men Who Killed Kennedy where a guy named Tom Wilson is is studying the Zapruder film etc. He points it out on that 

[Pat Speer]

On 11/28/2023 at 12:26 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

 

They are all approximations of the same wound. The one on the back of the head, as nearly every Parkland doctor and nurse said.

 

And yet very few of them felt certain of their impressions, to the extent they would say the autopsy photos were fakes. Well, why would they do that? Oh yeah, they were trying to remember something they saw for a few seconds years and decades before. Well, what did you wear to your sixth grade graduation, Sandy? Quick. Now, what if I was to tell you all the other kids say you wore some blue jeans and a plaid shirt? Does that refresh your memory? Okay, so now I have you believing you wore some blue jeans and a plaid shirt to your 6th grade graduation. Will you swear to it? And swear the graduation photo of you wearing brown jeans and red shirt are fakes? 

Of course not. The vast majority of witnesses knew their memories had been influenced by others and were not to be trusted. 

[Sandy Larsen]

12 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

And yet very few of them felt certain of their impressions, to the extent they would say the autopsy photos were fakes. Well, why would they do that?

 

For one thing, not all of them got a close look. I imagine that some of them thought they must have had a false first impression when they saw the autopsy photos.

Another thing is that a lot of people don't want to be involved in controversy. So they just agree with whatever is commonly accepted and get on with their lives.

Regardless, first impressions are usually the most accurate. Photographs trump those, but only if they aren't fraudulent.

Why do you think that the government covered things up, but wouldn't touch a photograph in doing so?