JFK: What The Doctors Saw validates there was no exit hole in the back of JFK's head.

[Michael Crane]

Not a single picture or X-ray in this case matches.

Too many X-rays and pictures are missing from the archives.

These missing pictures and X-rays probably show the real damage.

I seriously,for the life of me...can't believe that a person can't get an idea of where the big wound is with this picture.

 

Then,you take witness statements and dial it in even a little further.

Edited December 8, 2023 by Michael Crane

[Steven Kossor]

The jacket covering incident actually occurred before the hard top frame was placed on the car.  I think the picture posted by Adam in section 4 this thread actually shows the bag that contained the hard top frame kept in the trunk and that the jacket was previously removed.  The black-and-white movie I was referring to unmistakably shows the throwing of a jacket onto the driver's side tail light area by an adult male (not a police officer) before cutting away to a movie capturing the assembly of the hard top frame by a man in a suit & tie standing in the driver's doorway area, probably shot by a newsperson.

[Keyvan Shahrdar]

On 12/8/2023 at 1:00 AM, Michael Crane said:

Not a single picture or X-ray in this case matches.

Too many X-rays and pictures are missing from the archives.

 

Michael,  there are X-rays and autopsy pictures and they all refute what the doctors at Parkland have said after the WC report was released.  Facts are facts and narrative is narrative.  I don't understand why people are hell bent on believing a narrative.

Here is a YouTube video of the Nix study which shows you were some of the shots came from, again, facts based and not a narrative.

 

 

[Pat Speer]

On 12/7/2023 at 11:00 PM, Michael Crane said:

Not a single picture or X-ray in this case matches.

Too many X-rays and pictures are missing from the archives.

These missing pictures and X-rays probably show the real damage.

I seriously,for the life of me...can't believe that a person can't get an idea of where the big wound is with this picture.

 

Then,you take witness statements and dial it in even a little further.

So where was it? Prominent CTs have long claimed these people are pointing out a wound low on the far back of the head at the level of the ear, in the location depicted in the so-called "McClelland" drawing. Do you agree? 

[Andrej Stancak]

There is no possibility in my mind that all Parkland staff, the doctors and nurses, would err in reporting the large gaping hole in the right parietal area. I wondered how could autopsy pictures of Kennedy's head not show a hole corresponding to Parkland staff's reports. 

The answer may be that the back of the head in autopsy pictures was manipulated to hide the gaping hole in the right back of Kennedy's head. This could have occurred by matte technology well known and often used for film tricks in 1963.

However, a photographic manipulation may not be perfect and I therefore followed the possibility of residuals of the original head picture could still be retrieved from the altered image. 

Here is the method and the result:

 

[Michael Crane]

On 12/24/2023 at 11:55 PM, Pat Speer said:

So where was it? Prominent CTs have long claimed these people are pointing out a wound low on the far back of the head at the level of the ear, in the location depicted in the so-called "McClelland" drawing. Do you agree? 

Just seeing this now Pat.

My best estimate would be low and off center to the right and extending somewhat up into the ear area.

[Michael Crane]

Good job Sandy on the description of JFK's head.

I firmly believe that President Kennedy's head was badly battered.All this time,the battering and the lacerations was what I believed was an attempt to remove bullets.Now,that you mention it...it very well could have been done to remove the brain.

Just look at how badly the skull was damaged/broken all over for Christ sakes,and from a single bullet?

That dog won't hunt.

Edited December 29, 2023 by Michael Crane

[Pat Speer]

20 minutes ago, Michael Crane said:

Good job Sandy on the description of JFK's head.

I firmly believe that President Kennedy's head was badly battered.All this time,the battering and the lacerations was what I believed was an attempt to remove bullets.Now,that you mention it...it very well could have been done to remove the brain.

Just look at how badly the skull was damaged/broken all over for Christ sakes,and from a single bullet?

That dog won't hunt.

You're on the right track. The number and length of the fractures is indeed inconsistent with a M/C bullet's entering low and exiting high while passing through nothing but brain. 

[Pat Speer]

28 minutes ago, Michael Crane said:

Just seeing this now Pat.

My best estimate would be low and off center to the right and extending somewhat up into the ear area.

Okay. Now go back and look at the photos of those pointing out a spot on the back of the head, and note how few of them are pointing out a location at the level of the ear and below. 

[Michael Crane]

2 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Okay. Now go back and look at the photos of those pointing out a spot on the back of the head, and note how few of them are pointing out a location at the level of the ear and below. 

Pat,it would only take one or two certified professional Dr's to point there,with all of the other evidence that I have learned about.

Edited December 29, 2023 by Michael Crane

[Pat Speer]

12 minutes ago, Michael Crane said:

Pat,it would only take one or two certified professional Dr's to point there,with all of the other evidence that I have learned about.

The vast majority of witnesses, including McClelland, pointed above the ear. And several of those pointing to the level of the ear and below were pointing out the rear-most part of the skull defect once the scalp was peeled back and skull fell to the table. (And yes, Groden was pulling a fast one.)

When the Boston Globe showed the back of the head photo to the Parkland witnesses, along with the McClelland drawing, moreover, more of these witnesses said the McClelland drawing was inaccurate than said the photo was inaccurate.

And yet...for roughly 40 years...we've been told the Parkland witnesses uniformly claimed the wound was as depicted in the drawing. It is just not true. It is a hoax. 

As far as doctors pointing out wound locations...I hope you realize that that's not exactly scientific. None of them took notes. And none of them were asked to point out the location prior to the McClelland drawings publication in Thompson's book as a supposed depiction of what they saw.  

So...who did point out the wound location, in the immediate aftermath of the shooting? 

Edited December 29, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Michael Crane]

Forget Humes...he told half truths and half lies under pressure.

The others besides Gayle could be just short of pointing to the temple  😉 

[Keven Hofeling]

On 12/25/2023 at 12:55 AM, Pat Speer said:

So where was it? Prominent CTs have long claimed these people are pointing out a wound low on the far back of the head at the level of the ear, in the location depicted in the so-called "McClelland" drawing. Do you agree? 

JFK's large avulsive head wound was located in the lower occipital-parietal region on the right side of the back of JFK's head. Sure there is slight variation of this location between the different eyewitnesses who have sketched the wound, or demonstrated the location by hand placement, but this is to be expected, memory being what it is.

Chronic nitpicking upon the negligible variations as a means of arguing for an entirely different location (such as the top or side of JFK's head) seems to me to overlook the unlikelihood that if all of these witnesses were mistaken they would all be mistaken in almost precisely the same way, as well as the fact that we don't have witnesses diagramming the large avulsive wound as being on the top or the side of JFK's head.

The wound drawing ratified by Dr. McClelland is a reasonable approximation, just as are those of Audrey Bell, Dianna Bowron, Charles Crenshaw, Francis X. O'Neill Jr., Tom Robinson and James W. Sibert.

The near unanimity of these diagrams, combined with the abundant witness testimony placing the large avulsive head wound in the occipital-parietal region would, in my view, result in the autopsy photographs and X-rays, the Autopsy Protocol, and the Zapruder film being excluded from evidence were a FRE 402 Hearing to be held on their admissibility into evidence in a modern American court proceeding.

 

Edited December 31, 2023 by Keven Hofeling
Added an additional name to the makers of the wound sketches.

[Keven Hofeling]

30 minutes ago, Michael Crane said:

The others besides Gayle could be just short of pointing to the temple  😉 

Indeed, and that is the explanation for Newman and Zapruder pointing to their right temples -- they had just witnessed a bullet impacting that very location. And Malcolm Kilduff was merely demonstrating where JFK's physician, George Burkley, had just told him the bullet had entered JFK's head.

As for James Humes, as you pointed out, this is a little more complicated, as Humes was denoting the location of the clandestine craniotomy mortician Tom Robinson and X-ray Tech Ed Reed witnessed him perform (as well as the location of the incision Ed Reed told the HSCA he had seen Humes make in JFK's forehead); although as Humes, Boswell and Finck all repeatedly denied that a craniotomy had been performed, viewers of Humes's hand gesture were all in the dark, and for the most part, remain there to this day...

Edited December 29, 2023 by Keven Hofeling
Spelling

[Pat Speer]

9 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

JFK's large avulsive head wound was located in the lower occipital-parietal region on the right side of the back of JFK's head. Sure there is slight variation of this location between the different eyewitnesses who have sketched the wound, or demonstrated the location by hand placement, but this is to be expected, memory being what it is.

Chronic nitpicking upon the negligible variations as a means of arguing for an entirely different location (such as the top or side of JFK's head) seems to me to overlook the unlikelihood that if all of these witnesses were mistaken they would all be mistaken in almost precisely the same way, as well as the fact that we don't have witnesses diagramming the large avulsive wound as being on the top or the side of JFK's head.

The wound drawing ratified by Dr. McClelland is a reasonable approximation, just as are those of Audrey Bell, Dianna Bowron, Charles Crenshaw, Francis X. O'Neill Jr., Tom Robinson and James W. Sibert.

The near unanimity of these diagrams, combined with the abundant witness testimony placing the large avulsive head wound in the occipital-parietal region would, in my view, result in the autopsy photographs and X-rays, the Autopsy Protocol, and the Zapruder film being excluded from evidence were a FRE 402 Hearing to be held on their admissibility into evidence in a modern American court proceeding.

Except they weren't mistaken in precisely the same way, and very few said the wound was in the location presented in the McClelland drawing. 

The low occipital blow-out is a hoax. The only doctor to place it there is Crenshaw, and he failed to come froward for 30 years and only did so after becoming immersed in the CT literature. The same could be said for McClelland, who originally described a wound of the left temple--presumably meaning the right temple--and insisted for more than a decade that there was nothing about the wound to make him think a shot came from the front. 

The best evidence for such a wound is contained in the original reports, minus McClelland. And the key doctors--Perry, Carrico, Jenkins, Baxter, Clark--all later disavowed their statements regarding cerebellum within those reports and/or buddied up with the likes of John Lattimer, who claimed Oswald did it and the conspiracy crowd are wackos. 

In short, there is no way to present the Parkland witnesses as unified and consistent without cherry-picking and saying the men most involved in JFK's treatment were incompetent, cowards, or XXXXX.