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

[Keven Hofeling]

1 hour ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

It's important to emphasize that regardless of opinions or statements, facts remain facts. It seems that in this discussion, there are individuals who prefer narratives over factual evidence. Interestingly, some contradict themselves by alleging alterations in the Zapruder film, autopsy images, and X-rays by the government, and then paradoxically cite government officials to support their narrative. It's quite astonishing.

I recommend viewing the Nix Film below, which clearly illustrates the events surrounding JFK's assassination and the manner of his injury. This is not about crafting a story, but rather presenting undeniable evidence and facts.

My objective is to encourage people to focus on factual information rather than getting swayed by narratives.

 

A few days ago you quoted James Jenkins to me contending that you were presenting me with a "fact."

I then presented you with the following photograph of a skull model on which James Jenkins had marked the right temple and occipital-parietal wounds that he witnessed in the Bethesda Morgue the night of the assassination, and ever since you have not wanted to discuss James Jenkins with me anymore (or so it seems to me).

So tell me: Is this photograph of a skull model on which James Jenkins sketched the wounds he witnessed at Bethesda indicative of "facts" or of a "narrative?"

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

P.S. If you still believe Shelley and Lovelady lied about coming in the side, then how do you explain how they got there in time for Vickie Adams to see them when she came downstairs? I have to believe your delusion she never said that has imploded, as she repeated it in 1966 on the Mort Sahl show. I mean, you must know that by now. So how are you processing it? Is the tape of her on the show yet another fake? 

 

In Shelley's first-day statement, he says that after the shots, he ran across the street to the concrete island, where he bumped into Gloria Calvery. He then went back to the steps, went  inside, and called his wife.

In Lovelady's first-day statement, he says that after the shots he went back inside the TSBD.

So they both went back inside right after the shooting. Through the front door.

It is therefore no surprise if Vickie Adams saw Shelley and Lovelady after she ran down the steps.

 

[Keven Hofeling]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I'm sorry but you have no idea what you are talking about. The stuff you are regurgitating has been discussed ad nauseam. Some has been debunked. Some has not.

The bottom line is this. If one is to "trust" the witnesses' then one has to acknowledge that what they said does not support that there was a blow-out wound low on the back of the head. The majority of witnesses pointed to a location above the ear, above the occipital bone. The Harper fragment was thereby not occipital bone, and the doctors thereby did not see cerebellum, but only macerated brain.

And that's a problem for "theorists" (as opposed to researchers). Theorists NEED the back of the head to be blown out so they can delight in the correctness of their theory, and PRETEND the witnesses are pointing to a location low on the back of the head when they are not, and gobble up crapola like this most recent documentary like it is manna from heaven, when it is essentially a scam. 

As I said...do the research. If you do you will realize that many of the Parkland doctors were not conspiracy theorists and did not believe the back of the head was blown out. Heck, in 1963, McClelland told a writer suspecting shots came from the front that there was nothing about the head wound to indicate a shot came from the front. 

P.S. I hope my eyes deceived me, but I think I saw you claim I was both a Warren Commission apologist, and afraid of or unaware of Gary's writings...

This is so wrong it's almost funny. Almost, but not quite... 

P.P.S. I started to look back through your massive post to see if there was anything worth reading, and saw a description of my discussion of Charles Brehm as "a hit piece." This is one of the dumbest things ever written on this forum. If you knew anything about Brehm, you'd know he was not a conspiracy theorist. In the image you present he is pointing to the side of his head where he thought he saw an explosion on the skull. This supports the authenticity of the autopsy photos, and not the low back of the head blow-out conjured up in the conspiracy literature. If you knew anything about me, for that matter, you'd know I consider Brehm one of the most credible witnesses, as he stood by his belief the first shot struck Kennedy, and a third shot was fired after the head shot, long after the LN crowd had taken to claiming the first shot missed, and the third shot was the head shot. "Hit piece", my rump. 

Some people believe the silliest things, such as that it is significant that mortician Tom Robinson said that he believed the quarter inch right temple wound that he sealed with a dab of wax was an exit wound, even though he was not a pathologist, nor an expert in ballistics, and always made it perfectly clear that he was basing his opinion that the right temple wound was an exit wound on the discussions of the pathologists that he had overheard. Can you believe that?

Or the idea that in order for Charles Brehm's hand gesture over the right side of the back of his head to mean he was denoting a shot from the front of the limousine, he would have to be "a conspiracy theorist." As if the implications of evidence are subjective like that. 

It has never occurred to some people that the value of the evidence is in truth enhanced and exemplified by the fact that the bringer of bad news has no bias, and not even the least understanding of the significance of the facts he or she has brought to the table.

Some people just don't get this empirical principle, and I have no idea why....

[Pat Speer]

19 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

Some people believe the silliest things, such as that it is significant that mortician Tom Robinson said that he believed the quarter inch right temple wound that he sealed with a dab of wax was an exit wound, even though he was not a pathologist, nor an expert in ballistics, and always made it perfectly clear that he was basing his opinion that the right temple wound was an exit wound on the discussions of the pathologists that he had overheard. Can you believe that?

Or the idea that in order for Charles Brehm's hand gesture over the right side of the back of his head to mean he was denoting a shot from the front of the limousine, he would have to be "a conspiracy theorist." As if the implications of evidence are subjective like that. 

It has never occurred to some people that the value of the evidence is in truth enhanced and exemplified by the fact that the bringer of bad news has no bias, and not even the least understanding of the significance of the facts he or she has brought to the table.

Some people just don't get this empirical principle, and I have no idea why....

Since you're cherry-picking snippets of my website to try to make me look like a meany, who just won't play footsie with the hoaxers, I thought I'd let the readers judge for themselves. 

From chapter 18c:

 

Well, then, what about the entrance on the front of the head observed by Robinson? Certainly, Robinson's recollection of THAT wound is important. Well, WHAT entrance on the front of the head? He saw no such thing.

Here is his discussion with Purdy of the wound he observed.

PURDY: Did you notice anything else unusual about the body which may not have been artificially caused, that is caused by something other than the autopsy?

ROBINSON: Probably, a little mark at the temples in the hairline. As I recall, it was so small it could be hidden by the hair. It didn't have to be covered with make-up. I thought it probably a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet that caused it.

PURDY: In other words, there was a little wound.

ROBINSON: Yes.

PURDY: Approximately where, which side of the forehead or part of the head was it on?

ROBINSON: I believe it was on the right side.

PURDY: On his right side?

ROBINSON: That's an anatomical right, yes.

PURDY: You say it was in the forehead region up near the hairline?

ROBINSON: Yes.

PURDY: Would you say it was closer to the top of the hair?

ROBINSON: Somewhere around the temples.

PURDY: Approximately what size?

ROBINSON: Very small, about a quarter of an inch.

PURDY: Quarter of an inch is all the damage. Had it been closed up by the doctors?

ROBINSON: No, he didn't have to close it. If anything, I just would have probably put a little wax in it.

When asked later what he thought caused this wound, moreover, he claimed "I think either a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet. Or a very small piece of shrapnel." When then asked if that was the only place he thought a bullet could have exited, he repeated "It was no bullet. It was a fragment or a piece of the bone." When then asked yet again--for once and for all--what he thought caused the wound, he reiterated "A piece of the bone or metal exiting."

So, Robinson did not call this wound an entrance, nor think it was an entrance. No, he believed it to have been an exit for a very small fragment of some sort, or perhaps even a mark created by shrapnel. This is NOT the description of an entrance hole for an explosive round, nor a high-velocity bullet hole of any kind.

Heck, it was a wound so small that Robinson wasn't even sure he put wax in it.

P.S. If YOU are pushing that Robinson saw a tiny entrance wound by the temple that eluded others, to what end are you pushing this? Is that YOUR theory? And, if so, are you gonna take the next step and admit that Horne, Mantik, and Chesser's claim there was a tiny entrance wound high on the forehead is incorrect? Or are you anxious to accept that both wounds are real, and that the Parkland witnesses and Bethesda doctors and assistants ALL missed not one but TWO entrance wounds on the front of JFK's head? 

Oh wait, Jenkins. Jenkins initially said there was a gray mark on the bone by the temple that he thought denoted an entrance wound, and later made out that he saw a bullet hole there, and not just a gray mark on the bone. And Horne claimed in JFK: What the Doctors Saw that the bullet creating the wound observed by Jenkins REALLY entered high up on the forehead, inches away from the temple and where Jenkins had pointed to on his head. So who are you siding with? Jenkins or Horne? They can't both be right. Choose. Or not. 

Edited January 2 by Pat Speer

[Micah Mileto]

34 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

 

Robinson would later say that he saw more than one small holes in the front of the head.

 

From Harrison Livingstone’s 1992 book High Treason 2:

 

[...p. 284-285, Chapter 14. New Evidence: The 1991 Dallas Conference]

 

There may very well have been a puncture to the left temple, because the mortician told me the head was penetrated in several places by shrapnel,2 which he filled with wax, but the Dallas doctors later strongly retracted the observation of an entry wound in the temple.

 

[...p. 290]

 

Malcolm Kilduff, acting White House press secretary, points to the spot on the autopsy photographs that could be an entry hole, just above the corner of the right eyebrow. Tom Wilson’s computer study of that spot, visible on the Groden Right Superior autopsy photograph, indicates that it is in fact a hole through the skull. One of the morticians, Tom Robinson, told the author how he filled a penetrating hole in the same area with wax. “I didn’t have to do anything more to it,” he said. Robinson thought it was one of a few very small penetrating skull wounds and exits from “shrapnel.”

 

[...p. 579-581, Chapter 28. What Really Happened]

 

On August 17, 1991, just two days after speaking with Joe Hagen, president of Gawler’s Funeral Home, which prepared John Kennedy’s body for his coffin, I interviewed his assistant, Tom Robinson.

 

[...]

 

“The body had been cleaned up before we got it. The face was perfect and undamaged except for a small laceration about a half inch into the forehead, which I covered up.”

 

I asked him if any of the frontal bone or bone behind any part of the face, forehead, or front top of the head underlying the scalp was damaged.

 

“It may have been fractured [and I couldn’t see that], but it was perfectly intact. I don’t think any of it had been removed or replaced before we got it. The face was perfect. It would have fallen in without the frontal bone.”

 

“There was one very small hole in the temple area, in the hairline. I used wax in it, and that is all that I had to do. I just put a little wax in it.”

 

“What side was it on?”

 

“I can’t remember for sure, but I think it was on the right side.” In another interview he told me that the skull was penetrated in two or three more places by shrapnel, which he filled with wax. These places were near the eyes.10

 

There was only one significant hole of any kind in the head beside small puncture wounds, and that was the large defect. He said that it was in the very back of the head and could not be seen with the head on the pillow. The scalp back there was badly mangled and “some of it was missing.”

 

[…]

 

His face was perfect and did require work of any kind, and the frontal bone underlying it was intact, but slightly fractured.

 

[...Notes, Chapter 14]

 

2. Interview with Tom Robinson, October 6, 1991.

 

[...Notes, Chapter 28]

 

10. Interview of October 6, 1991.

 

On 5/26/1992, Robinson was interviewed by private investigator Joe West. West’s personal notes read:

 

Wounds:

 

• large gaping hole in back of head. Patched by stretching piece of rubber over it. Thinks skull full of Plaster of Paris.

 

• smaller wound in right temple.
 

Crescent shape, flapped down (3")

 

• (approx 2) Small shrapnel wounds in face.
 

Packed with wax.

 

(Link 1 [link 2] [link 3, Journal News, 12/28/2013])

 

Crescent shaped what? Scalp or skull? Either one doesn’t sound like it could be the result of an ordinary round bullet entrance. Joe West is not alive now to confirm what he meant by the double prime " symbol. 3 centimeters? 3 inches? In Robinson’s 1/12/1977 statement, he said the temple wound he saw was "Very small, a quarter of an inch" (ARRB MD 63 [text] [audio]).

 

From a report on Robinson’s 6/21/1996 interview by the Assassination Records Review Board:

 

-Visible damage to skull caused by bullet or bullets (as opposed to damage caused by pathologists):

Robinson described 3 locations of wounds:

 

-he saw 2 or 3 small perforations or holes in the right cheek during embalming, when formaldehyde seeped through these small wounds and slight discoloration began to occur (and executed a drawing of three slits, or holes, in the right cheek of the President on a photocopy of a frontal photograph of the President);

 

-he described a “blow-out” which consisted of a flap of skin in the right temple of the President’s head, which he believed to be an exit wound based on conversations he heard in the morgue amongst the pathologists (and executed two drawings of this right temporal defect on both a photocopy of a right lateral photograph of the President, and on a right lateral anatomy diagram of the human skull);

 

-he described a large, open head wound in the back of the President’s head, centrally located right between the ears, where the bone was gone, as well as some scalp. He related his opinion that this wound in the back of the President’s head was an entry wound occuring from a bullet fired from behind, based on conversations he heard in the morgue among the pathologists. (Robinson executed two drawings of the hole in the back of the President’s head, one on an anatomy drawing of the posterior skull, and one on an anatomy drawing of the lateral skull. On the annotated lateral skull drawing, the wound in the rear of the head is much larger than the wound in the right temple.)

 

[…]

 

Fox Autopsy Photographs:

 

After completing his four drawings of head wounds and describing those wounds, ARRB staff showed Mr. Robinson a set of what is alleged to be the Fox autopsy photographs to see whether they were consistent with what he remembered seeing in the morgue at Bethesda. His comments follow, related to various Fox photos:

 

-Right Superior Profile (corresponds to B & W #s 5 and 6): He does not see the small shrapnel holes he noted in the right cheek, but he assumes this is because of the photo’s poor quality.

 

-Back of Head (corresponds to B & W #s 15 and 16): Robinson said: “You see, this is the flap of skin, the blow-out in the right temple that I told you about, and which I drew in my drawing.” When asked by ARRB where the hole in the back of the head was in relation to this photograph, Robinson responded by placing his fingers in a circle just above the white spot in the hairline in the photograph, and said “The hole was right here, where I said it was in my drawing, but it just doesn’t show up in this photo.”

 

(ARRB MD 180)

 

Diagram marked by Robinson: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md88.pdf

 

Robinson pointed to the large gaping area on the other side of a bone flap on the autopsy photos as the wound he was describing. But, he did draw a comparatively smaller triangular mark on the diagram. Robinson’s earlier statements also indicate a SMALL-sized wound: "a little mark at the temples in the hairline. As I recall, it was so small, it could be hidden by the hair. It didn't have to be covered with make-up", "Very small, a quarter of an inch", "he didn't have to close it. If anything I just would have probably put a little wax on it" (ARRB MD 63, 1/12/1977 HSCA interview [text] [audio]), "a small laceration", "one very small hole in the temple area, in the hairline. I used wax in it, and that is all that I had to do. I just put a little wax in it" (Livingstone, High Treason 2, 1992, p. 284-285, 578-581).

[Pat Speer]

7 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

Robinson would later say that he saw more than one small holes in the front of the head.

 

From Harrison Livingstone’s 1992 book High Treason 2:

 

[...p. 284-285, Chapter 14. New Evidence: The 1991 Dallas Conference]

 

There may very well have been a puncture to the left temple, because the mortician told me the head was penetrated in several places by shrapnel,2 which he filled with wax, but the Dallas doctors later strongly retracted the observation of an entry wound in the temple.

 

[...p. 290]

 

Malcolm Kilduff, acting White House press secretary, points to the spot on the autopsy photographs that could be an entry hole, just above the corner of the right eyebrow. Tom Wilson’s computer study of that spot, visible on the Groden Right Superior autopsy photograph, indicates that it is in fact a hole through the skull. One of the morticians, Tom Robinson, told the author how he filled a penetrating hole in the same area with wax. “I didn’t have to do anything more to it,” he said. Robinson thought it was one of a few very small penetrating skull wounds and exits from “shrapnel.”

 

[...p. 579-581, Chapter 28. What Really Happened]

 

On August 17, 1991, just two days after speaking with Joe Hagen, president of Gawler’s Funeral Home, which prepared John Kennedy’s body for his coffin, I interviewed his assistant, Tom Robinson.

 

[...]

 

“The body had been cleaned up before we got it. The face was perfect and undamaged except for a small laceration about a half inch into the forehead, which I covered up.”

 

I asked him if any of the frontal bone or bone behind any part of the face, forehead, or front top of the head underlying the scalp was damaged.

 

“It may have been fractured [and I couldn’t see that], but it was perfectly intact. I don’t think any of it had been removed or replaced before we got it. The face was perfect. It would have fallen in without the frontal bone.”

 

“There was one very small hole in the temple area, in the hairline. I used wax in it, and that is all that I had to do. I just put a little wax in it.”

 

“What side was it on?”

 

“I can’t remember for sure, but I think it was on the right side.” In another interview he told me that the skull was penetrated in two or three more places by shrapnel, which he filled with wax. These places were near the eyes.10

 

There was only one significant hole of any kind in the head beside small puncture wounds, and that was the large defect. He said that it was in the very back of the head and could not be seen with the head on the pillow. The scalp back there was badly mangled and “some of it was missing.”

 

[…]

 

His face was perfect and did require work of any kind, and the frontal bone underlying it was intact, but slightly fractured.

 

[...Notes, Chapter 14]

 

2. Interview with Tom Robinson, October 6, 1991.

 

[...Notes, Chapter 28]

 

10. Interview of October 6, 1991.

 

On 5/26/1992, Robinson was interviewed by private investigator Joe West. West’s personal notes read:

 

Wounds:

 

• large gaping hole in back of head. Patched by stretching piece of rubber over it. Thinks skull full of Plaster of Paris.

 

• smaller wound in right temple.
 

Crescent shape, flapped down (3")

 

• (approx 2) Small shrapnel wounds in face.
 

Packed with wax.

 

(Link 1 [link 2] [link 3, Journal News, 12/28/2013])

 

Crescent shaped what? Scalp or skull? Either one doesn’t sound like it could be the result of an ordinary round bullet entrance. Joe West is not alive now to confirm what he meant by the double prime " symbol. 3 centimeters? 3 inches? In Robinson’s 1/12/1977 statement, he said the temple wound he saw was "Very small, a quarter of an inch" (ARRB MD 63 [text] [audio]).

 

From a report on Robinson’s 6/21/1996 interview by the Assassination Records Review Board:

 

-Visible damage to skull caused by bullet or bullets (as opposed to damage caused by pathologists):

Robinson described 3 locations of wounds:

 

-he saw 2 or 3 small perforations or holes in the right cheek during embalming, when formaldehyde seeped through these small wounds and slight discoloration began to occur (and executed a drawing of three slits, or holes, in the right cheek of the President on a photocopy of a frontal photograph of the President);

 

-he described a “blow-out” which consisted of a flap of skin in the right temple of the President’s head, which he believed to be an exit wound based on conversations he heard in the morgue amongst the pathologists (and executed two drawings of this right temporal defect on both a photocopy of a right lateral photograph of the President, and on a right lateral anatomy diagram of the human skull);

 

-he described a large, open head wound in the back of the President’s head, centrally located right between the ears, where the bone was gone, as well as some scalp. He related his opinion that this wound in the back of the President’s head was an entry wound occuring from a bullet fired from behind, based on conversations he heard in the morgue among the pathologists. (Robinson executed two drawings of the hole in the back of the President’s head, one on an anatomy drawing of the posterior skull, and one on an anatomy drawing of the lateral skull. On the annotated lateral skull drawing, the wound in the rear of the head is much larger than the wound in the right temple.)

 

[…]

 

Fox Autopsy Photographs:

 

After completing his four drawings of head wounds and describing those wounds, ARRB staff showed Mr. Robinson a set of what is alleged to be the Fox autopsy photographs to see whether they were consistent with what he remembered seeing in the morgue at Bethesda. His comments follow, related to various Fox photos:

 

-Right Superior Profile (corresponds to B & W #s 5 and 6): He does not see the small shrapnel holes he noted in the right cheek, but he assumes this is because of the photo’s poor quality.

 

-Back of Head (corresponds to B & W #s 15 and 16): Robinson said: “You see, this is the flap of skin, the blow-out in the right temple that I told you about, and which I drew in my drawing.” When asked by ARRB where the hole in the back of the head was in relation to this photograph, Robinson responded by placing his fingers in a circle just above the white spot in the hairline in the photograph, and said “The hole was right here, where I said it was in my drawing, but it just doesn’t show up in this photo.”

 

(ARRB MD 180)

 

Diagram marked by Robinson: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md88.pdf

 

Robinson pointed to the large gaping area on the other side of a bone flap on the autopsy photos as the wound he was describing. But, he did draw a comparatively smaller triangular mark on the diagram. Robinson’s earlier statements also indicate a SMALL-sized wound: "a little mark at the temples in the hairline. As I recall, it was so small, it could be hidden by the hair. It didn't have to be covered with make-up", "Very small, a quarter of an inch", "he didn't have to close it. If anything I just would have probably put a little wax on it" (ARRB MD 63, 1/12/1977 HSCA interview [text] [audio]), "a small laceration", "one very small hole in the temple area, in the hairline. I used wax in it, and that is all that I had to do. I just put a little wax in it" (Livingstone, High Treason 2, 1992, p. 284-285, 578-581).

Yes, of course. Robinson did not see the large wound during the autopsy, only during its reconstruction. He then saw a large wound in the middle of the back of the head, which is as would be expected considering it was a cosmetic reconstruction designed to hide the wounds from public view. So what did the man performing the reconstruction say? How did he describe the wounds?

From chapter 18c:

The strangeness of Horne's embrace of Robinson as proof the bullet exploded from the back of Kennedy's head gets even stranger when one considers that Horne's interviews with Robinson and VanHoesen established that the reconstruction of Kennedy's skull was performed by a never-interviewed third man, Ed Stroble. Now, to be fair, Stroble was long-dead by the time of the ARRB. But that hadn't stopped Horne and the ARRB from interviewing the friends and relatives of other long-dead witnesses, such as George Burkley and Robert Knudsen, to see what they had to say. 

We can be grateful, then, that on 11-25-13, the (Illinois) Herald & Review published an article on Stroble. This article reprinted a 1964 letter from Stroble to a friend named Linda Gobengeiser. It read “I was simply astounded that you had ever heard about my being the one to embalm Pres. Kennedy, or rather to put him back together. I’m under orders from the White House, Secret Service and the FBI not to discuss any factors relating to points of entry of bullets, nor their effects. So I can’t tell you anything that would be interesting evolving from natural curiosity. I can, however, tell you that it took all my knowledge and acquired skills to make him presentable. That along with a lot of good luck. The good luck part, only an embalmer would understand." Beyond Gobengeiser, the article also quoted Lynn Kull, a friend of Stroble's and a fellow mortician. According to Kull, Stroble visited his family's funeral home in December 1963, to show them the check he'd received for working on the President. According to Kull, Stroble was indiscreet during this visit, and told them that the president had been "shot in the very top of the cranium" and was also "hit about the seventh vertebrae in his back." According to Kull, Stroble also stressed that "Kennedy’s face was not marred."  

The "very top of the cranium," not the back of the cranium. While Kull is a second-hand witness reporting what someone told him 50 years before, he nevertheless has more credibility than some of the "back of the head" witnesses propped up by the wilder conspiracy theorists. 

 

[Keven Hofeling]

52 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Since you're cherry-picking snippets of my website to try to make me look like a meany, who just won't play footsie with the hoaxers, I thought I'd let the readers judge for themselves. 

From chapter 18c:

 

Well, then, what about the entrance on the front of the head observed by Robinson? Certainly, Robinson's recollection of THAT wound is important. Well, WHAT entrance on the front of the head? He saw no such thing.

Here is his discussion with Purdy of the wound he observed.

PURDY: Did you notice anything else unusual about the body which may not have been artificially caused, that is caused by something other than the autopsy?

ROBINSON: Probably, a little mark at the temples in the hairline. As I recall, it was so small it could be hidden by the hair. It didn't have to be covered with make-up. I thought it probably a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet that caused it.

PURDY: In other words, there was a little wound.

ROBINSON: Yes.

PURDY: Approximately where, which side of the forehead or part of the head was it on?

ROBINSON: I believe it was on the right side.

PURDY: On his right side?

ROBINSON: That's an anatomical right, yes.

PURDY: You say it was in the forehead region up near the hairline?

ROBINSON: Yes.

PURDY: Would you say it was closer to the top of the hair?

ROBINSON: Somewhere around the temples.

PURDY: Approximately what size?

ROBINSON: Very small, about a quarter of an inch.

PURDY: Quarter of an inch is all the damage. Had it been closed up by the doctors?

ROBINSON: No, he didn't have to close it. If anything, I just would have probably put a little wax in it.

When asked later what he thought caused this wound, moreover, he claimed "I think either a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet. Or a very small piece of shrapnel." When then asked if that was the only place he thought a bullet could have exited, he repeated "It was no bullet. It was a fragment or a piece of the bone." When then asked yet again--for once and for all--what he thought caused the wound, he reiterated "A piece of the bone or metal exiting."

So, Robinson did not call this wound an entrance, nor think it was an entrance. No, he believed it to have been an exit for a very small fragment of some sort, or perhaps even a mark created by shrapnel. This is NOT the description of an entrance hole for an explosive round, nor a high-velocity bullet hole of any kind.

Heck, it was a wound so small that Robinson wasn't even sure he put wax in it.

P.S. If YOU are pushing that Robinson saw a tiny entrance wound by the temple that eluded others, to what end are you pushing this? Is that YOUR theory? And, if so, are you gonna take the next step and admit that Horne, Mantik, and Chesser's claim there was a tiny entrance wound high on the forehead is incorrect? Or are you anxious to accept that both wounds are real, and that the Parkland witnesses and Bethesda doctors and assistants ALL missed not one but TWO entrance wounds on the front of JFK's head? 

Oh wait, Jenkins. Jenkins initially said there was a gray mark on the bone by the temple that he thought denoted an entrance wound, and later made out that he saw a bullet hole there, and not just a gray mark on the bone. And Horne claimed in JFK: What the Doctors Saw that the bullet creating the wound observed by Jenkins REALLY entered high up on the forehead, inches away from the temple and where Jenkins had pointed to on his head. So who are you siding with? Jenkins or Horne? They can't both be right. Choose. Or not. 

Just in case you're not following my meaning...

 

 

[Pat Speer]

10 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

Just in case you're not following my meaning...

 

 

Ok. Robinson said he heard the doctors discussing an entrance wound on the back of the head during the autopsy. I suppose I should add that to my website, as this undoubtedly hurts the theory they were expanding a large exit wound or whatever. Heck, he also recognizes the flap by the temple in the photos, which is also shown in the Z-film. So Robinson is a heckuva witness for the authenticity of the Z-film and photos. Cool. 

[Keven Hofeling]

47 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Ok. Robinson said he heard the doctors discussing an entrance wound on the back of the head during the autopsy. I suppose I should add that to my website, as this undoubtedly hurts the theory they were expanding a large exit wound or whatever. Heck, he also recognizes the flap by the temple in the photos, which is also shown in the Z-film. So Robinson is a heckuva witness for the authenticity of the Z-film and photos. Cool. 

That's right, Tom Robinson isn't the ballistics expert you keep peddling him to be. He had no idea whether the right temple wound or back of the head wound were actually entry or exit wounds...

BIG BACK OF HEAD WOUND

LITTLE RIGHT TEMPLE WOUND

 

 

 

Edited January 2 by Keven Hofeling

[Micah Mileto]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

 

Could your proposed "tangential 6.5 skull shot" have sent one or more fragments out of the front of the skull? It may depend on the proposed size of the shrapnel exit wound, because larger fragments would have more velocity.

[Micah Mileto]

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1uvGaBl2_EanXn4OwQrr083_yiLVrNGYK?usp=sharing

 

Could this be one or two holes in the right front of the head on the F8 skull photos, or just a glisten of light?

[Pat Speer]

4 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

Could your proposed "tangential 6.5 skull shot" have sent one or more fragments out of the front of the skull? It may depend on the proposed size of the shrapnel exit wound, because larger fragments would have more velocity.

In my scenario the bullet erupted upon impact with the skull, with many of the fragments embedding into the scalp. if this is what happened, then some of them may have made contact with the face area when the skull flap blew forward. Alternatively, it could be that the divots noted by the morticians were made by the triangular fragment when it broke loose. In any event, no one viewing the face noted a bullet entrance on the face, including the morticians claiming they noticed some minor defects on the face. 

And yes, I know, the morticians weren't pathologists. But one would think they'd seen a few bullet wounds, and could tell the difference between a tiny defect and the entrance of a high-velocity bullet. I mean, no abrasion ring. No bullet wipe. No skin tears. Just a small defect. It doesn't add up as a bullet entrance. 

[Micah Mileto]

25 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

In my scenario the bullet erupted upon impact with the skull, with many of the fragments embedding into the scalp. if this is what happened, then some of them may have made contact with the face area when the skull flap blew forward. Alternatively, it could be that the divots noted by the morticians were made by the triangular fragment when it broke loose. In any event, no one viewing the face noted a bullet entrance on the face, including the morticians claiming they noticed some minor defects on the face. 

And yes, I know, the morticians weren't pathologists. But one would think they'd seen a few bullet wounds, and could tell the difference between a tiny defect and the entrance of a high-velocity bullet. I mean, no abrasion ring. No bullet wipe. No skin tears. Just a small defect. It doesn't add up as a bullet entrance. 

Robinson and even allegedly Crenshaw spoke of multiple tiny wounds on the face. This could be from a bullet or from shrapnel entering from the front, or perhaps bullet or skull fragments passing through the facial bones and through the skin. Could it be possible that exiting and flapping fragments of skull bone pierced the face from the outside?

 

Again, Dr. Gene Akin AKA Solomon Ben-Israel and Hugh Huggins are witnesses who have stated directly on record, unambiguously, that they saw a small ENTRANCE wound on the front of Kennedy's head. And I am not aware of any serious reason to doubt Gene Akin AKA SBI. There are also the witnesses who said there was a small spot of blood on the front of the head which looked like it could be mistaken for a wound. And, of course, the witnesses who stated that  they saw what could've been one or more small holes, or a spot of bullet metal on the frontal head area caused by shrapnel.

 

You also don't need to believe in alteration to accept the possibility of a small frontal head wound. So why not join the temple wound parade?

Edited January 2 by Micah Mileto

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Micah Mileto said:

Robinson and even allegedly Crenshaw spoke of multiple tiny wounds on the face. This could be from a bullet or from shrapnel entering from the front, or perhaps bullet or skull fragments passing through the facial bones and through the skin. Could it be possible that exiting and flapping fragments of skull bone pierced the face from the outside?

 

Again, Dr. Gene Akin AKA Solomon Ben-Israel and Hugh Huggins are witnesses who have stated directly on record, unambiguously, that they saw a small ENTRANCE wound on the front of Kennedy's head. And I am not aware of any serious reason to doubt Gene Akin AKA SBI. There are also the witnesses who said there was a small spot of blood on the front of the head which looked like it could be mistaken for a wound. And, of course, the witnesses who stated that  they saw what could've been one or more small holes, or a spot of bullet metal on the frontal head area caused by shrapnel.

 

You also don't need to believe in alteration to accept the possibility of a small frontal head wound. So why not join the temple wound parade?

Ironically, I pointed out years ago that Angel's orientation of the Harper fragment put a wound of entrance (and exit) right by the temple, and this led to an onslaught of abuse by a certain someone claiming no one could conceive of a wound in that location.

Then, a few years later, he started claiming there was a wound in that location. 

As far as Akin, to my recollection he failed to discuss an entrance wound in his testimony, and only mentioned it decades later, after he'd left the medical profession. Is that correct? 

Mr. SPECTER - Did you observe any wounds on him at the time you first saw him?
Dr. AKIN - There was a midline neck wound below the level of the cricoid cartilage, about 1 to 1.5 cm. in diameter, the lower part of this had been cut across when I saw the wound, it had been cut across with a knife in the performance of the tracheotomy. The back of the right occipitalparietal portion of his head was shattered, with brain substance extruding.

If I am remembering things clearly, he also said the McClelland drawing was inaccurate.

So he's not much help to the "small entrance on the front of the head/blow-out wound low on the back of the head" theory. No. not at all. 

 

Edited January 2 by Pat Speer

[David Von Pein]

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

In Shelley's first-day statement, he says that after the shots, he ran across the street to the concrete island, where he bumped into Gloria Calvery. He then went back to the steps, went  inside, and called his wife. In Lovelady's first-day statement, he says that after the shots he went back inside the TSBD. So they both went back inside right after the shooting. Through the front door. It is therefore no surprise if Vickie Adams saw Shelley and Lovelady after she ran down the steps.

I see that Sandy still hasn't given up on his very silly notion about both Lovelady & Shelley telling a pack of lies to the WC.

Mr. Larsen can't seem to accept the simple notion that Lovelady and Shelley merely provided more details in their later (1964) statements than they did in their earlier statements. (As discussed years ago at the link below.)

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Shelley-And-Lovelady

 

Edited January 2 by David Von Pein