On the reliability of witness recollections...

[Greg Doudna]

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The HSCA furthered the coverup that the WC began. Anything that came from it should be viewed with suspicion.

You seem to be unaware of this, which frankly is surprising.

An obvious example is how they took the EOP (external occipital protuberance) entrance wound as seen by Humes and moved it up to the cowlick. Do you think an honest investigation would do that?

And they took the T-3 level wound in the back and moved it up to the base of the neck. So that the SBT would at least look a little bit okay.

Jeez!

Sandy where are you getting the idea that the HSCA photo panel experts moved the wounds in the autopsy interpretation? That’s not right. You’re not being reasonable. And stop imputing to me things I haven’t said. That derails discussion.

The issue is in a case of conflicting expert testimony what is the best method for a truth-seeker to resolve that, and you fly off at me without addressing that question. The gif that Pat Speer showed on the area of the photo at issue he says, and looks to my admittedly uninformed eye, to establish reasonable question whether Mantik’s no-stereo is correct. Pat is saying there’s no stereo there. And it’s not as if this isn’t an answerable question.

Suppose Mantik is possibly right on that—that those HSCA photo panel experts were right on most of their stereo viewing authentication reporting (that’s what Mantik says) but missed it or erred on that one particular area of the one photo or maybe a couple or three photos (let us suppose).

Are you actually opposed—really—to wanting to see independent or mainstream expert eyes judge and agree with that observational description or finding of fact before leaping to PERSONAL BELIEF? 

If the no-stereo claim (in that photo area) of Mantik is true, surely it and Mantik’s interpretation thereof can be seen also by independent and non-CT mainstream expert honest eyes, and verified, if it’s really so, would you not expect? Or do you think the whole outside world is in on the conspiracy, or verification is for sissies?

The issue here isn’t even whether Mantik is right or wrong on this specific claim. It’s an issue of how a reasonable person should know that, an issue of epistemology. 

You’re acting as if I’m not open to learning Dr Mantik is right on this claim if that is the case. Well you’re wrong. If that claim were to be established beyond reasonable question in mainstream expert opinion, that would be significant, go for it, I am as interested as anyone.

[Pat Speer]

39 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Sandy where are you getting the idea that the HSCA photo panel experts moved the wounds in the autopsy interpretation? That’s not right. You’re not being reasonable. And stop imputing to me things I haven’t said. That derails discussion.

The issue is in a case of conflicting expert testimony what is the best method for a truth-seeker to resolve that, and you fly off at me without addressing that question. The gif that Pat Speer showed on the area of the photo at issue he says, and looks to my admittedly uninformed eye, to establish reasonable question whether Mantik’s no-stereo is correct. Pat is saying there’s no stereo there. And it’s not as if this isn’t an answerable question.

Suppose Mantik is possibly right on that—that those HSCA photo panel experts were right on most of their stereo viewing authentication reporting (that’s what Mantik says) but missed it or erred on that one particular area of the one photo or maybe a couple or three photos (let us suppose).

Are you actually opposed—really—to wanting to see independent or mainstream expert eyes judge and agree with that observational description or finding of fact before leaping to PERSONAL BELIEF? 

If the no-stereo claim (in that photo area) of Mantik is true, surely it and Mantik’s interpretation thereof can be seen also by independent and non-CT mainstream expert honest eyes, and verified, if it’s really so, would you not expect? Or do you think the whole outside world is in on the conspiracy, or verification is for sissies?

The issue here isn’t even whether Mantik is right or wrong on this specific claim. It’s an issue of how a reasonable person should know that, an issue of epistemology. 

You’re acting as if I’m not open to learning Dr Mantik is right on this claim if that is the case. Well you’re wrong. If that claim were to be established beyond reasonable question in mainstream expert opinion, that would be significant, go for it, I am as interested as anyone.

To be clear, Greg, Groden and Mantik claimed that an identical false image of an intact back of the head was inserted into both color back of the head images, to conceal a hole. Groden had both images at his disposal for roughly 35 years before finally publishing the second of these images. This, then, allowed those with an interest, including myself, to finally see this for ourselves, and judge whether or not he was correct. 

As shown in the GIF, he was incorrect. If one looks at the middle of the back of the head in the GIF, one can see the hair change in relation to the scalp beneath the hair, and to other clumps of hair. This is as would be expected if the photos were taken from slightly different angles, and not as one would expect if this hair was an identical matte inserted into both photos. 

Edited January 17 by Pat Speer

[Keven Hofeling]

12 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

In chapter 18d, as you know, I present a morph of the two color back of the head photos published by Groden This makes it clear Groden and Mantik were full of hooey. The back of the head does not give the same appearance in the two photos. It is not a matte. And this is a fact. 

 

Dear Mr. Speer,

I regret to inform you that the GIFs you have used to support your conclusions about the authenticity of the back-of-the-head autopsy photographs are highly misleading and cannot be considered reliable evidence.

The Deceptive Allure of Morphing GIFs: Their Inability to Convey the Full Picture

Morphing GIFs are visually captivating but often used to illustrate subtle differences between two images. However, it's important to recognize that these transitions may not accurately represent reality, especially when dealing with slightly different photographs.

In the case of the back-of-the-head photographs of JFK, where a morphing GIF is employed to compare two images of the back of his head, the mere blending of the two images fails to provide a dependable portrayal of how the head appeared in the intermediate frames. Here's why:

1. Interpolation vs. Reality: Morphing software relies on a process called interpolation, where it essentially fills in the missing information between two data points. However, this process is ultimately an educated guess and cannot account for the nuances of movement, changes in lighting, or subtle variations that may have occurred between the captured frames.

2. The Influence of Assumptions: The assumptions made by the morphing software can significantly impact the final GIF. Even minor differences in head position, hair movement, or camera angle can result in inaccurate interpolations.

3. The Impact of Perspective: Depending on the angle and distance of the camera, the morphing process can be even more misleading. Slight changes in perspective can cause significant distortions in the intermediate frames, rendering the resulting GIF an unreliable representation of the actual scene.

4. Beyond the Visual: It's important to remember that photos only capture a single moment in time. The morphing GIF, despite its seamless transitions, cannot encapsulate the dynamic flow of movement and the continuous changes that take place between captured frames.

Therefore, while morphing GIFs can be engaging and provide a general sense of change, they should not be considered as definitive evidence of what transpired between two captured images. When dealing with slightly different photographs, particularly those involving movement or complex objects, critical analysis and consideration of alternative interpretations are essential before drawing any conclusions.

In essence, it's crucial to bear in mind the following:

Morphing GIFs are interpolations, not recordings of reality.

Software assumptions can lead to inaccurate representations.

Perspective shifts can introduce distortions.

Photos capture moments, not continuous motion.

By understanding these limitations, we can avoid misinterpreting morphing GIFs and approach them with a healthy dose of skepticism.

[Pat Speer]

3 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

Dear Mr. Speer,

I regret to inform you that the GIFs you have used to support your conclusions about the authenticity of the back-of-the-head autopsy photographs are highly misleading and cannot be considered reliable evidence.

The Deceptive Allure of Morphing GIFs: Their Inability to Convey the Full Picture

Morphing GIFs are visually captivating but often used to illustrate subtle differences between two images. However, it's important to recognize that these transitions may not accurately represent reality, especially when dealing with slightly different photographs.

In the case of the back-of-the-head photographs of JFK, where a morphing GIF is employed to compare two images of the back of his head, the mere blending of the two images fails to provide a dependable portrayal of how the head appeared in the intermediate frames. Here's why:

1. Interpolation vs. Reality: Morphing software relies on a process called interpolation, where it essentially fills in the missing information between two data points. However, this process is ultimately an educated guess and cannot account for the nuances of movement, changes in lighting, or subtle variations that may have occurred between the captured frames.

2. The Influence of Assumptions: The assumptions made by the morphing software can significantly impact the final GIF. Even minor differences in head position, hair movement, or camera angle can result in inaccurate interpolations.

3. The Impact of Perspective: Depending on the angle and distance of the camera, the morphing process can be even more misleading. Slight changes in perspective can cause significant distortions in the intermediate frames, rendering the resulting GIF an unreliable representation of the actual scene.

4. Beyond the Visual: It's important to remember that photos only capture a single moment in time. The morphing GIF, despite its seamless transitions, cannot encapsulate the dynamic flow of movement and the continuous changes that take place between captured frames.

Therefore, while morphing GIFs can be engaging and provide a general sense of change, they should not be considered as definitive evidence of what transpired between two captured images. When dealing with slightly different photographs, particularly those involving movement or complex objects, critical analysis and consideration of alternative interpretations are essential before drawing any conclusions.

In essence, it's crucial to bear in mind the following:

Morphing GIFs are interpolations, not recordings of reality.

Software assumptions can lead to inaccurate representations.

Perspective shifts can introduce distortions.

Photos capture moments, not continuous motion.

By understanding these limitations, we can avoid misinterpreting morphing GIFs and approach them with a healthy dose of skepticism.

The back of the head in the photos is not identical. It is therefore not an identical matte. 

[Tom Gram]

I didn’t particularly want to post this since it’s pretty graphic, but it’s kinda hard to articulate what I think I’m looking at in a text description. Forgive the crappy markup I did it on an IPhone. 

The location of the “hole” seems to correlate fairly well with the back wound photo Greg posted, but the “scalp flaps” in that photo appear to be folded over and covering some of the damage toward the back of the head. 

The alleged “instrument” is just something I saw that looked out of place, but it’s not nearly as noticeable in the other TOH photos so it could be an anomaly of some sort. Or I could just be hallucinating. 

Is my interpretation of this photo reasonable? Not reasonable? Totally insane? 

Edited January 18 by Tom Gram

[Sandy Larsen]

7 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Sandy where are you getting the idea that the HSCA photo panel experts moved the wounds in the autopsy interpretation? That’s not right.

 

Greg,

I cannot have an intelligent conversation with you because you are apparently unaware of some of the most fundamental facts... facts that indicate a corrupt HSCA. For example, that the autopsy indicated a small wound near the external occipital protuberance, (EOP) whereas the HSCA said that wound was actually 9 cm higher, up near the president's cowlick!

 

7 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

And stop imputing to me things I haven’t said. That derails discussion.

 

I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Greg Doudna]

37 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Greg,

I cannot have an intelligent conversation with you because you are apparently unaware of some of the most fundamental facts... facts that indicate a corrupt HSCA. For example, that the autopsy indicated a small wound near the external occipital protuberance, (EOP) whereas the HSCA said that wound was actually 9 cm higher, up near the president's cowlick!

I know that Sandy. I was talking about the photography panel experts, which had nothing to do with relocating that wound which was done by pathologists.

Edited January 18 by Greg Doudna

[Keven Hofeling]

25 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

The back of the head in the photos is not identical. It is therefore not an identical matte. 

I must take issue with your reliance on the GIF interpolation you presented as evidence to support your position. My concerns stem from two core issues: the demonstrably fraudulent actions of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) and the inherent limitations of the GIF format.

Firstly, the HSCA's credibility is severely compromised due to its documented history of concealing crucial information from its Forensic Pathology Panel (FPP), as well as the American public, by classifying that information "top secret" for fifty years. That evidence included but is not limited to the testimonies of the Bethesda autopsy witnesses who corroborated the Parkland Hospital witnesses' accounts of the existence of an occipital-parietal wound in the back of the head of President Kennedy. This deliberate suppression of critical evidence prevented the FPP from assessing the complete picture, forcing them to rely for their analysis solely on an incomplete set of autopsy photographs -- based upon the work of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB), and other witness testimony, up to eighteen autopsy photographs are missing from the extant inventory at the National Archives -- with at least the two back-of-the-head photographs being altered.

Furthermore, the HSCA withheld information from the FPP and the public regarding its interviews of the Texas pathologists who identified the Harper Fragment as occipital bone – the only doctors to have directly examined the fragment before it disappeared while in the possession of Dr. George Burkley. This crucial detail was concealed, leaving the FPP to rely solely upon photographic evidence which resulted in their misidentification of the fragment as parietal bone. And adding insult to injury, the HSCA "lost" the camera used to take the autopsy photographs after being unable to match the camera to the photographs, and then proceeded to misrepresent this fact in their final report. These actions paint a disturbing picture of deception and manipulation, casting serious doubt on the validity of their findings.

Secondly, your reliance on the GIF interpolation introduces a deceptive element into the analysis. While Dr. Mantik's stereoscopic testing confirms the presence of a matte insert covering the occipital-parietal wound in the two back-of-the-head photographs, the GIF itself fabricates variation between the images. The program assumes intermediate frames existed as if the GIF was instead a film sequence and interpolated the GIF segment based on this assumption. This created a misleading impression of genuine differences where none exist, suggesting differences between the two photographs upon which the GIF is based which did not actually exist on the ground in the real world.

Therefore, relying solely on the GIF for evidence is highly inappropriate considering its inherent deceptiveness. Instead, we must focus on Dr. Mantik's thorough and objective analysis, which utilizes established scientific methods and relies on credible sources, including witness testimonies that were liberated by the ARRB from the HSCA's unconscionable "top secret" classification in the 1990's.

In conclusion, no credible researcher could in good conscience endorse the use of the GIF interpolation as evidence. Considering the documented history of HSCA deception and the inherent limitations of the GIF format, Dr. Mantik's finding that a matte insert was added to the two back-of-the-head autopsy photographs to conceal the occipital-parietal wound remains far more persuasive. The truth about the JFK autopsy photographs deserves a rigorous and honest investigation, devoid of manipulation and fabricated evidence. Let's continue this dialogue with integrity in the interests of a relentless pursuit of the truth.

[Keven Hofeling]

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

I didn’t particularly want to post this since it’s pretty graphic, but it’s kinda hard to articulate what I think I’m looking at in a text description. Forgive the crappy markup I did it on an IPhone. 

The location of the “hole” seems to correlate fairly well with the back wound photo Greg posted, but the “scalp flaps” in that photo appear to be folded over and covering some of the damage toward the back of the head. 

The alleged “instrument” is just something I saw that looked out of place, but it’s not nearly as noticeable in the other TOH photos so it could be an anomaly of some sort. Or I could just be hallucinating. 

Is my interpretation of this photo reasonable? Not reasonable? Totally insane? 

 

MORTICIAN TOM ROBINSON'S REACTION UPON BEING SHOWN THE TOP-OF-THE-HEAD AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPH BY THE ASSASSINATION RECORDS REVIEW BOARD:

"...-Top of Head/Superior View of Cranium (corresponds to B & W #'s 7-10):

ROBINSON FROWNED, AND SAID WITH APPARENT DISAGREEMENT, "THIS MAKES IT LOOK LIKE THE WOUND WAS IN THE TOP OF THE HEAD." HE EXPLAINED THAT THE DAMAGE IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH WAS "WHAT THE DOCTORS DID," AND EXPLAINED THAT THEY CUT THIS SCALP OPEN AND REFLECTED IT BACK IN ORDER TO REMOVE BULLET FRAGMENTS (THE FRAGMENTS HE HAD OBSERVED IN A GLASS VIAL).

 

ARRB STAFF MEMBERS ASKED ROBINSON WHETHER THERE WAS DAMAGE TO THE TOP OF THE HEAD WHEN HE ARRIVED AT THE MORGUE AND BEFORE THE BRAIN WAS REMOVED; HE REPLIED BY SAYING THAT THIS AREA WAS "ALL BROKEN," BUT THAT IT WAS NOT OPEN LIKE THE WOUND IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD (emphasis not in original)...." 

 

MD 180 - ARRB Meeting Report Summarizing 6/21/96 In-Person Interview of Tom Robinson", http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md180/html/md180_0001a.htm

 

[Sandy Larsen]

 

This damage "caused by the doctors" is what one technician said Humes was referring to when he noted at the beginning of the official autopsy that surgery of the head had been done.

Of course, multiple slashes through the scalp with a knife is not the medically correct way of getting to the brain. It was obviously done in haste. And it was done before the beginning of the official autopsy.

Horne believes that Humes did it himself, and so do I.

 

 

[Tom Gram]

18 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

 

MORTICIAN TOM ROBINSON'S REACTION UPON BEING SHOWN THE TOP-OF-THE-HEAD AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPH BY THE ASSASSINATION RECORDS REVIEW BOARD:

"...-Top of Head/Superior View of Cranium (corresponds to B & W #'s 7-10):

ROBINSON FROWNED, AND SAID WITH APPARENT DISAGREEMENT, "THIS MAKES IT LOOK LIKE THE WOUND WAS IN THE TOP OF THE HEAD." HE EXPLAINED THAT THE DAMAGE IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH WAS "WHAT THE DOCTORS DID," AND EXPLAINED THAT THEY CUT THIS SCALP OPEN AND REFLECTED IT BACK IN ORDER TO REMOVE BULLET FRAGMENTS (THE FRAGMENTS HE HAD OBSERVED IN A GLASS VIAL).

 

ARRB STAFF MEMBERS ASKED ROBINSON WHETHER THERE WAS DAMAGE TO THE TOP OF THE HEAD WHEN HE ARRIVED AT THE MORGUE AND BEFORE THE BRAIN WAS REMOVED; HE REPLIED BY SAYING THAT THIS AREA WAS "ALL BROKEN," BUT THAT IT WAS NOT OPEN LIKE THE WOUND IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD (emphasis not in original)...." 

 

MD 180 - ARRB Meeting Report Summarizing 6/21/96 In-Person Interview of Tom Robinson", http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md180/html/md180_0001a.htm

 

I’m familiar with Robinson’s statements to the ARRB. You have to admit that one guy’s memory 33 years after the fact is not exactly conclusive evidence. 

Has anyone else ever rejected the top of head photo as an accurate depiction of JFK’s wound? Is there any other evidence to suggest that the photo is misleading? 

[Keven Hofeling]

With only the exceptions of Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck, no-one in
the world got a better look at the back of President Kennedy's head,
and his wounds, than nurse, Diana Bowron at Parkland hospital.

As she explained in this interview, Bowron actually washed the
President's hair after his death, and assisted in cutting away his
clothing when he was first brought in.

Yet, when she tried to talk about the condition of the President's
head, in her WC testimony, Arlen Specter promptly guided her to a
different subject.

But Harold Livingstone was no Specter and was eager to let
nurse Bowron go into great detail about what she saw that day. This is
her complete interview as it appeared in Livingstone's book, *Killing
the Truth*.

Livingstone's interview of Diana Bowron

HL = Harold Livingstone
DB = Diana Bowron

"...HL: Do you remember when the body was wrapped up to go into the coffin,
was a towel put around the head before the sheets were wrapped around it?

DB: A towel?

HL: Yes.

DE: No.

HL: No towel?

DB: No towel, because I washed his hair. This is what I was going to write
to you about all these autopsy photographs with all the blood clots and
everything on the back....

HL: Is there anything peculiar about those pictures?

DB: Very peculiar, very peculiar. (Very long pause as she awaits a
question.)

HL: Well, I think they're fake as hell.

DB: Definitely. Definitely. On those pages that you told me, there's three
together, top of the F 6 and F 7, and something that-all are fake
completely because I washed all the clots out of his hair before I wrapped
it up.

HL: Yeah.

DB: And also somebody, which I don't know whether you know any- thing
about-I haven't seen it written anywhere-we wrapped him up, and Margaret
had gone, and somebody came in and flashed a badge or this thing at me and
just gave me a plastic bag, and said I was to collect all the bits of
brain and any bits of skull that was floating about. So I had to unwrap
everything again, and collect all these bits and give them to him.

HL: And you don't know who he was?

DB: No. You know the situation, you sort of-I was new to the States, and
you're sort of only a lowly nurse and these guys come flashing things at
you, you're never quite sure, you can't stand up and say, "Yeah, who are
you, who's authority?"

HL: Do you think he was connected to the hospital or to the Secret
Service?

DB: I don't think he was connected to the hospital, no.

HL: Would you say that Kennedy was alive when you first saw him?

DB: No, he was dead. Sure he was.

HL: And that was in the car?

DB: In the car, yes.

HL: So you saw him in the car?

DB: I had to - I got into the back of the car because we couldn't get him
out, because we had to get the Governor out first. So then I was with him
in the back, sort of trying to do first aid. And I couldn't get a pulse at
all, from anywhere, and I mean the damage that was done to his head, when
you've worked in things like that your first impulse is, "Oh God," you
know, "Forget it," but of course, being the President, you can't.

HL: So, in order to do the last rites, you think they sort of faked it a
little bit?

DB: Yes.

HL: And what was the status of his head? Did you see any other wounds
besides the head wound?

DB: There was the wound in the back.

HL: You saw that?

DB: In the, lower down on his back, the entry wound for the bullet.

HL: How far down was it?

DB: Oh, no, wait a minute, I'll send back your photograph, and mark with
an arrow where I think it was. But, I mean, it's lower than the top one.

HL: Did you turn over the body?

DB: Yes.

HL: Did anybody tell you to wash the body? I mean, tell the nurses to
clean up the body?

DB: No. I think it was just sort of a general consensus that-I think it
was Doris, actually, who said clean him up and get him ready. But, I mean,
we would have done it anyway, sort of as a courtesy. I mean, you don't
sort of leave the President, you know, to go to his-

HL: But you definitely saw-did it look like an entry or an exit wound in
his back?

DB: Entry wound.

HL: Okay. What size was it?

DB: Oh, it was small.

HL: Were the edges turned in?

DB: Yes.

HL: You remember that?

DB: Yes. The thing is, when you work in emergency rooms and you get to
know what looks like an entry wound and what looks like an exit, you know.

HL: Sure, yeah. There's like an abrasive collar or whatever.

DB: Mmm, yeah.

HL: Could you tell how far that hole went in to his back-or did you probe
it or..

DB: No, no.

HL: And, so did you see the wound in the throat before? When he was in the
car?

DB: Yes.

HL: Okay. And what did that look like?

DB: Well, that looked like an entry wound. It was larger than the one in
the back, and from what I can remember, I mean, I didn't see them in a
close space of time so I could actually say it was twice as big, but I got
the impression it was bigger? than the one that was in the back.

HL: Just by a bit? Or a whole lot?

DB: Quite a bit. Yeah, a whole lot, I'd say.

HL: But you still think it was an entry wound?

DB: Yes.

HL: Okay. Now, on the head wound, did you see anything that looked like
holes or perforations in the skull and the temple areas, or the forehead?

DB: No.

HL: No?

DB: No.

HL: You haven't read my second book, have you? High Treason 2?

DB: No.

HL: Okay. I'm going to send it to you, if you like. The reason is that if
you had read it, it might influence what you're telling me now ...

DB: Uh-huh.

HL: Because I have, I have reports from the morticians in Washington. So,
since you haven't read it-that's good. Because, what you're telling me is
not influenced by what I wrote already. But do you remember any
perforations in the head or did you see any holes or anything like a
bullet hole anywhere on his skull or in the back of the skull?

DB: At the back of the skull, an enormous hole.

HL: And would you-is that in the general area where that drawing- those
drawings-I'm sure you've seen them-where they've got a big piece of skull
missing in the very back of the head?

DB: Yes.

HL: Would you say that the hole's extended as far around as to be just
behind the right ear?

DB: Yes. It was more towards the right ear, definitely, then the left. But
it was, it was big. I mean, I could-and for when I did the thing, I had to
pack, you know, linens into there.

HL: And did you mean when you prepared the body for the coffin?

DB: Well, before that.

HL: Oh, to stanch the flow?

DB: Yes, to stanch the flow.

HL: Do you remember anything about the cerebellum?

DB: There wasn't much there.

HL: Not much brain?

DB: No.

HL: On the back of the head, did it extend around as far as the top of the
head? How much of the top of the head was missing? Was top of, was bone
missing as far as the sagittal suture-is that the one that goes across the
head?

DB: Hang on, you're getting terribly technical. I haven't nursed for
years. I'll have to go back to the textbooks.

HL: How much skull was missing on the top of the head, would you say, that
extended into that back of the head region?

DB: Oh, a reasonable amount.

HL: So part of the top of the head was missing in the back?

DB: Just trying to think how to put it to you. The hole was basically
almost the size of a saucer, and sort of from the occiput. So there was
quite a reasonable amount missing from the top as well.

HL: Was the occiput missing itself?

DB: I would say-

HL: I mean the protuberance.

DB: Part of it, yes.

HL: Okay. And how about the face, his face, how did that look?

DB: Well, it was-it looked like a face, let's put it that way. When he
left us, his eyes were closed, which they weren't in these photographs.

HL: His eyes were closed, not open?

DB: Yes.

HL: Would they, would they normally open after death after they'd already
been closed?

DB: Not usually, no.

HL: Or could they have opened on the emergency table?

DB: Well, no. When we put him in the coffin, you know, before we wrapped
him up and everything and then they were closed and when we wrapped his
head up in the sheets, they were closed then. So, with the pressure of the
material on them ...

HL: You think they would have stayed closed?

DB: I would think so. I mean, I'm not a mortician.

HL: Okay. But when you saw him in the car, were his eyes open or closed?

DB: Open, sort of half open.

HL: And how about in the-on the ER table, do you remember?

DB: They were open.

HL: Okay. If you can try to remember anybody taking pictures in there,
photographs, it's very important because there's a reason to think that
some of these autopsy pictures-I published a lot more of them in my last
book-that they're not taken at Bethesda, you know. Now, do you think that
any part of his face-like the right eye and the right forehead above it -
did that sag in or was there any bone missing in that area? Did his face
look so perfectly normal? Did you feel his face?

HL: You washed his face?

DB: I can't remember whether I washed it or Margaret washed it. I know I
washed his hair.

HL: Well, you would have noticed if a large piece of bone-see, the X-rays,
if you look at the X-rays in my book, they show the whole right front of
the face is gone from the eye area. And the lateral view X-ray is not the
same as the AP view. There's a lot more bone missing in the lateral view.
But most of the-most of them have the whole right eye area, from the top
of the orbit, at least, plus the forehead and the temporal bone is gone.

DB: No, no. I mean, I would have noticed something like that. You know, to
say his face looked like a dead body's face. You know, there was no injury
to the face.

HL: Yeah.

DB: It was just to his-the back of his head. And the one in his, in his
throat. But and by then it was the tracheostomy opening. But his face
itself, no.

HL: Okay. One more question about that. Do you remember any laceration
across the scalp from front to back where it comes on to the forehead,
where the scalp would have been lacerated and it goes straight back from
that area? Picture the right eyebrow. A laceration about a half an inch
into his forehead, and then going straight back, where the scalp was torn.
Do you remember anything like that?

DB: No.

HL: You would have because you washed the hair, right?

DB: Yes. When I say washed it, I just took cotton swabs and washed all the
clotting blood off. I mean, I didn't shampoo it or anything.

HL: So, in this massive hole, was there a flap of scalp there, or was
scalp actually gone?

DB: It was gone. Gone. There was nothing there. Just a big, gaping hole.

HL: We're talking about scalp first, and then bone, right?

DB: Yeah. There might have been little lumps of scalp, but most of the
bone over the hole, there was no bone there.

HL: Was there any part of a flap of scalp over that big defect in the bone
missing?

DB: What I'm saying is that the hole where the bone had gone, perhaps the
skin was a little bit smaller, if you know what I mean, but only
fractionally, just over the edge .

HL: So the scalp was blown out, too?

DB: Yes.

HL: I don't know if I should ask you this question-but did you have enough
experience either before or after to think that that was either an exit or
an entry hole?

DB: Well, to me it was an exit hole.

HL: Yeah.

DB: I mean, I've never seen one as big as that, but-

HL: Okay. Listen, you're going to draw me a picture, aren't you, to show
just where that hole is?

DB: Yeah...."

(unquote)
 

https://alt.assassination.jfk.narkive.com/QbgORExR/nurse-diana-bowron

 

[Keven Hofeling]

Bethesda Tech Paul O'Connor Disputes Authenticity of BOH Autopsy Photo in KRON Documentary (1988)

 

Bethesda Tech Floyd Riebe on Alteration of BOH Autopsy Photos - KRON's JFK An Unsolved Murder (1988)

 

Bethesda X-Ray Tech Jerrol Custer Says X-Ray is Fraudulent in KRON's JFK: An Unsolved Murder (1988)

 

Bethesda X-Ray Tech Jerrol Custer Showing JFK Head Wound on KRON's JFK: An Unsolved Murder

 

Bethesda Autopsy Tech Paul O'Connor Demonstrates JFK Head Wound in KRON's An Unsolved Murder (1988)

 

Bethesda Autopsy Photographer Floyd Riebe Demonstrates JFK Back of Head Wound

 

Former FBI Francis O'Neil Demonstrates Location of Back of Head Wound and Discusses Remains of Brain

 

Former FBI Agent Francis O'Neil demonstrating Location of the Back of the Head Wound

 

Mortician Tom Robinson Demonstrates JFK Back of the Head Wound Location and Discusses Missing Brain

 

EXCERPT FROM THE 9/11/1997 ARRB DEPOSITION OF JAMES W. SIBERT REGARDING HIS SKULL DIAGRAM OF JFK'S HEAD WOUND:

"...Q: With the wound that you have drawn on this document now marked Exhibit 188. Was that the largest wound that you saw - on the skull?

A: That was the largest wound.

Q: You referred to, a moment ago, that you were shown some things by the HSCA staff. Do you recall what you were shown?

A: I can’t even recall that. I can’t remember whether they were schematic drawings, or what they were. But he said, “Have you ever seen this before?”

And I looked at it. And I said, “No, I

Page 74

haven’t:” And that was my recollection.

Q: Now, were there any other wounds that you could identify as being on the head or skull area from the time before the first incision was made?

A: No.

Q: Did you see any wounds or injuries on the neck?

A: The front of the neck, you’re speaking of?

Q: Any part of the neck.

A: Yes. This tracheotomy incision was very evident.

Q: Okay. Were there any other wounds that you noticed at that time on the body?

A: No.

Q: Later in - during the course of the autopsy, did you ever see any additional wounds? So, maybe you did not see them before the first incision.

A: No…."

ARRB Deposition of James Sibert

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Sibert_9-11-97.pdf

 

HSCA BACK OF HEAD WOUND WITNESSES

 

In formerly suppressed witness interviews that were not available to David Lifton when he wrote Best Evidence, but were to Doug Horne, the HSCA reported the following:

• Bethesda lab technologist James Jenkins told the HSCA that, “he saw a head wound in the ‘…middle temporal region back to the occipital.’”[2]
• In an affidavit prepared for the HSCA, FBI agent James Sibert wrote that, "The head wound was in the upper back of the head … a large head wound in the upper back of the head…”[3]
• The HSCA’s Andy Purdy interviewed Tom Robinson, the mortician who prepared John Kennedy's remains for burial.: "Approximately where was (the skull) wound located?" Purdy asked. "Directly behind the back of his head," Robinson answered. Purdy: "Approximately between the ears or higher up?" Robinson, "No, I would say pretty much between them.”
• Jan Gail Rudnicki, Dr. Boswell's lab assistant on the night of the autopsy, told the HSCA’s Mark Flanagan, the “back-right quadrant of the head was missing.”[4]
• When first asked, John Ebersole, MD, the attending radiologist who took JFK's autopsy X-rays, told the HSCA, “The back of the head was missing,” Hethen waffled after being shown the autopsy photographs.[5]
• Regarding the Commanding officer of the military District of Washington, D. C., Philip C. Wehle, the HSCA reported that, “(Wehle) noted that the wound was in the back of the head so he would not see it because the President was lying face up.”[6] (emphasis added throughout)

__________________________________

 

[2] HSCA interview with Curtis Jenkins, Jim Kelly and Andy Purdy, 8-29-77. JFK Collection, RG 233, Document #002193, p.4. Also reproduced in ARRB Medical Document #65, see p.4 and diagram on p. 16.

[3] HSCA rec # 002191. Also reproduced in ARRB Medical Document #85, see p. 3 and diagram on p. 9.

[4] HSCA rec. # 180-10105-10397, agency file number # 014461, p. 2.)

[5] https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md60/html/Image04.htm

__________________________________

 

'JFK: WHAT THE DOCTORS SAW - AN IMPORTANT ADDITION, AND A MISSED OPPORTUNITY'

Written by Gary Aguilar | Thursday, 04 January 2024 04:08 | https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/jfk-what-the-doctors-saw-an-important-addition-and-a-missed-opportunity

 

"Dr. Gary Aguilar examines and evaluates the evidence in the Paramount Plus special exposing the deceptions surrounding the false claims of the House Select Committee on the exit hole in the rear of Kennedy’s skull." 

 

Gary L. Aguilar, MD, is one of the few physicians outside the government ever permitted to examine the still-restricted photographs and X-rays taken during President Kennedy’s autopsy. He has published widely on the medical evidence in professional journals, books and on-line. He has lectured before academic medical, academic medico-legal, and non-professional public audiences on the subject. He is currently Clinical Professor of Ophthalmology, U.C. San Francisco, and the head of ophthalmology and the Vice Chief of Staff at Saint Francis Memorial Hospital in San Francisco.

 

Edited January 18 by Keven Hofeling

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

Postmortems for dummys.

Autopsy 101. HEAD RESTS.

101.1 The head is supported by a small head-rest ($49.95).

101.2 The head-rest rests between the table & the back of the head (if supine).

101.3 The head rest hides a small central area at the center of the back of the head.

101.4 If the back of the head has a very large area of missing skull bone then u will need to use two head rests, one each side of the defect.

101.5   Instead of using 2 head rests, use a single super sized head rest ($99.95).

101.6  We recommend the JFK1000 ($110)(beware of cheap imitations). 

101.7 WARNING -- the back of the head is not the top of the head (the top of the head is sometimes wrongly called the back of the head)(we have even seen cases where the forehead has been described as being the top of the head).

101.8 The JFK1000 has markings clearly delineating the back of the head & the top of the head & the left ear & the right ear & the direction to the anus.

101.9 If using a single small head rest then sometimes the head rest can disappear into the head & be lost if there is a large cavity in the back of the head (always double check the xrays).

 

 

  

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

7 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

Bethesda Tech Paul O'Connor Disputes Authenticity of BOH Autopsy Photo in KRON Documentary (1988)

 

Bethesda Tech Floyd Riebe on Alteration of BOH Autopsy Photos - KRON's JFK An Unsolved Murder (1988)

 

Bethesda X-Ray Tech Jerrol Custer Says X-Ray is Fraudulent in KRON's JFK: An Unsolved Murder (1988)

 

Bethesda X-Ray Tech Jerrol Custer Showing JFK Head Wound on KRON's JFK: An Unsolved Murder

 

Bethesda Autopsy Tech Paul O'Connor Demonstrates JFK Head Wound in KRON's An Unsolved Murder (1988)

 

Bethesda Autopsy Photographer Floyd Riebe Demonstrates JFK Back of Head Wound

 

Former FBI Francis O'Neil Demonstrates Location of Back of Head Wound and Discusses Remains of Brain

 

Former FBI Agent Francis O'Neil demonstrating Location of the Back of the Head Wound

 

Mortician Tom Robinson Demonstrates JFK Back of the Head Wound Location and Discusses Missing Brain

 

EXCERPT FROM THE 9/11/1997 ARRB DEPOSITION OF JAMES W. SIBERT REGARDING HIS SKULL DIAGRAM OF JFK'S HEAD WOUND:

"...Q: With the wound that you have drawn on this document now marked Exhibit 188. Was that the largest wound that you saw - on the skull?

A: That was the largest wound.

Q: You referred to, a moment ago, that you were shown some things by the HSCA staff. Do you recall what you were shown?

A: I can’t even recall that. I can’t remember whether they were schematic drawings, or what they were. But he said, “Have you ever seen this before?”

And I looked at it. And I said, “No, I

Page 74

haven’t:” And that was my recollection.

Q: Now, were there any other wounds that you could identify as being on the head or skull area from the time before the first incision was made?

A: No.

Q: Did you see any wounds or injuries on the neck?

A: The front of the neck, you’re speaking of?

Q: Any part of the neck.

A: Yes. This tracheotomy incision was very evident.

Q: Okay. Were there any other wounds that you noticed at that time on the body?

A: No.

Q: Later in - during the course of the autopsy, did you ever see any additional wounds? So, maybe you did not see them before the first incision.

A: No…."

ARRB Deposition of James Sibert

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Sibert_9-11-97.pdf

 

HSCA BACK OF HEAD WOUND WITNESSES

 

In formerly suppressed witness interviews that were not available to David Lifton when he wrote Best Evidence, but were to Doug Horne, the HSCA reported the following:

• Bethesda lab technologist James Jenkins told the HSCA that, “he saw a head wound in the ‘…middle temporal region back to the occipital.’”[2]
• In an affidavit prepared for the HSCA, FBI agent James Sibert wrote that, "The head wound was in the upper back of the head … a large head wound in the upper back of the head…”[3]
• The HSCA’s Andy Purdy interviewed Tom Robinson, the mortician who prepared John Kennedy's remains for burial.: "Approximately where was (the skull) wound located?" Purdy asked. "Directly behind the back of his head," Robinson answered. Purdy: "Approximately between the ears or higher up?" Robinson, "No, I would say pretty much between them.”
• Jan Gail Rudnicki, Dr. Boswell's lab assistant on the night of the autopsy, told the HSCA’s Mark Flanagan, the “back-right quadrant of the head was missing.”[4]
• When first asked, John Ebersole, MD, the attending radiologist who took JFK's autopsy X-rays, told the HSCA, “The back of the head was missing,” Hethen waffled after being shown the autopsy photographs.[5]
• Regarding the Commanding officer of the military District of Washington, D. C., Philip C. Wehle, the HSCA reported that, “(Wehle) noted that the wound was in the back of the head so he would not see it because the President was lying face up.”[6] (emphasis added throughout)

__________________________________

 

[2] HSCA interview with Curtis Jenkins, Jim Kelly and Andy Purdy, 8-29-77. JFK Collection, RG 233, Document #002193, p.4. Also reproduced in ARRB Medical Document #65, see p.4 and diagram on p. 16.

[3] HSCA rec # 002191. Also reproduced in ARRB Medical Document #85, see p. 3 and diagram on p. 9.

[4] HSCA rec. # 180-10105-10397, agency file number # 014461, p. 2.)

[5] https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md60/html/Image04.htm

__________________________________

 

'JFK: WHAT THE DOCTORS SAW - AN IMPORTANT ADDITION, AND A MISSED OPPORTUNITY'

Written by Gary Aguilar | Thursday, 04 January 2024 04:08 | https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/jfk-what-the-doctors-saw-an-important-addition-and-a-missed-opportunity

 

"Dr. Gary Aguilar examines and evaluates the evidence in the Paramount Plus special exposing the deceptions surrounding the false claims of the House Select Committee on the exit hole in the rear of Kennedy’s skull." 

 

Gary L. Aguilar, MD, is one of the few physicians outside the government ever permitted to examine the still-restricted photographs and X-rays taken during President Kennedy’s autopsy. He has published widely on the medical evidence in professional journals, books and on-line. He has lectured before academic medical, academic medico-legal, and non-professional public audiences on the subject. He is currently Clinical Professor of Ophthalmology, U.C. San Francisco, and the head of ophthalmology and the Vice Chief of Staff at Saint Francis Memorial Hospital in San Francisco.

 

Keven Keven Keven. I suggest a small experiment.

Lay down on the floor, facing the ceiling.

Rest your head on a say Rubicks Cube.

Now, use your right hand to show me the location of the hole in jfk's skull.

If u want to show me the center of the back of the head then the Rubicks Cube will be in the way of your hand.

But, every one of your examples shows an idiot a doctor with hand/fingers at back of head.

So, at autopsy, the head rest was covering the hole.

Or, at Parkdale Parkland the hole was kissing the gurney.

NOPE.

Edited January 18 by Marjan Rynkiewicz