So is David Lifton's Final Charade just going to be lost to history?

[Sandy Larsen]

On 2/10/2024 at 8:13 AM, Greg Doudna said:

According to Dr. Aguilar, ... that does not mean the BOH photograph is not authentic if a flap at the top or right side covered up part of what was visible prior to the flap pulled up in that photograph. 

Dr. Aguilar's e-mail to Pat Speer:

"'Re the 'back of the head blowout' controversy, I think you put your finger on it, Pat: Jack's scalp flaps fell backward as he lay on the gurney, face up, at Parkland. (And at Bethesda, too.) It was likely NOT a blown-out exit wound; the Z film wasn't altered, etc.'"

 

 

Greg,

The short answer to your question is this:

The back-of-head autopsy photos do not show a flap of scalp falling down, thereby covering a back-of-head hole. So it is clear that Dr. Aguilar is wrong about that. Therefore his belief is inconsequential to my calculation.

I wondered how Dr. Aguilar could defend such an obviously wrong position, and so I requested a response from him. It's been two or three days and I haven't heard back from him.

In the meantime, Keven Hofeling pointed me to an open letter written by Doug Horne, and this led to my finding what possibly led Dr. Aguilar into drawing the conclusion he did. It is located in Dr. Aguilar's review of the recent documentary JFK: What the Doctors Saw, published here on the Kennedys & King website.

The following excerpt seems to explain where Dr. Aguilar got his idea of a flap of scalp falling down, thereby covering the hole on the back of the head:

In a similar vein, Kenneth Salyer, MD said he thought that the autopsy photos appeared to have been tampered with, and that they had replaced the scalp over an area that was wide open (1 hr., 20 min. mark).

Near the end of the film Dr. Salyer made a suggestion that some of us skeptics have long believed plausibly explains why the Parkland doctors and autopsy witnesses said JFK’s wound was right-rearward. A flap of JFK’s scalp had fallen backward, Salyer said, and it “bunched up” at the base of Kennedy’s occiput.

Since the autopsy report documented that there were large scalp tears, and since JFK was lying face-up on the Parkland gurney, as well as on the autopsy table, it only makes sense that gravity would have drawn a torn flap downward to reveal what was present, a rearward skull defect described by both Parkland and Bethesda witnesses.

[Emphases mine.]

So there we have it. Aguilar believes there was a scalp flap that fell down, thereby covering the wound, when autopsy photographs were taken of the back of the head. Even though Dr. Salyer thought that the BOH autopsy photos had been tampered with, and only theorized the thing about the scalp flap.

On the other hand, since Dr. Aguilar included the phrase, "that some of us skeptics have long believed plausibly explain...," perhaps it is more likely that Aguilar has long been one of those skeptics, rather than being a recent convert due to Dr. Salyer's theory.

The only reason for a conspiracy theorist to adopt that view is if they are anti-alterationist.

So it appears that Dr. Aguilar is one of those rare back-of-head-wound believing anti-alterationists.

As is common with anti-alterationists, Dr. Aguilar has to adopt strange beliefs to account for inconsistencies that are associated with not accepting photo alteration. Here are three that I've noticed for Dr. Aguilar:

1. Several witnesses described a hole in the scalp, about the size of a fist. If this size of scalp had actually fallen down during the photographing of the back of the head, we certainly would see the left and right edges of the flap. It is inconceivable that the flap would be so neatly tucked in on, not only its left and right sides, but along the bottom as well, that we'd see nothing amiss in the photos.
    
2. We can see in the BOH photos that the scalp is attached to the right ear. We can't see the left ear, but we know the scalp is attached there as well because there was no damage on the left side. So there is no flap in the back, as Dr. Aguilar says. In contrast, Dr. Salyer's theory apparently was that the fully width of the scalp from ear to ear slid down and bunched up below the gaping hole in the back.
   
   Now, if Dr, Salyer's theory is really what Dr. Aguilar believes, he still has a problem. Given that there is no damage to the left side of the scalp, as evidenced by the left-side autopsy photo, there is no way the full width of the scalp could have slid down.
    
3. Dr. Aguilar apparently is unaware that there is an extant photograph of the damage taken from the right side of the head. Even though he is aware of the complementary photo taken from the left side. He wrote the following in his review:
   
   "Among the pictures that may well be missing is an image (or images) of the full extent of Kennedy’s skull wound taken from his injured, right side. (Interestingly, in the official collection there is one of uninjured, left side of JFK’s head.)"
   
   I wonder if it is cognitive dissonance that is causing Dr. Aguilar to mentally dismiss the existence of this photo. The cognitive dissonance having been created by the inconsistencies caused by denying photo alteration.
   
   Recall that in his review, as quoted above, Dr. Aguilar notes that the autopsy report mentions the existence of large scalp tears. He then conjectures that one (or more?) of these tears could have constituted his supposed flap hanging down over the BOH hole. From looking at the left-side autopsy photograph, and can understand why Dr. Aguilar has to deny the photograph's existence. Because it clearly shows the scalp tears hanging down from the forehead and covering the TOP of Kennedy's head. NO autopsy photo gives any sign of a flap hanging down on the back... which is where Dr. Aguilar wants it to be.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

In the meantime, Keven Hofeling pointed me to an open letter written by Doug Horne, and this led to my finding what possibly led Dr. Aguilar into drawing the conclusion he did. It is located in Dr. Aguilar's review of the recent documentary JFK: What the Doctors Saw, published here on the Kennedys & King website.

The following excerpt seems to explain where Dr. Aguilar got his idea of a flap of scalp falling down, thereby covering the hole on the back of the head: ...

 

I wish to note that Dr. Aguilar's Kennedy & King's article throws researcher Doug Horne under the bus for his pro-photo-alteration beliefs. The following is Horne's public response to what Dr. Aguilar wrote. It points out a couple of Dr. Aguilar's "blind spots," as Horne puts it.

Doug Horne's Response to Dr. Aguilar's Review

 

[Stu Wexler]

Has anyone ever been shot with any of these exotic rounds?  The priors here have to be pretty low.  And I would bet even a low velocity exotic round, while it may dissolve in the body, would penetrate further.  BB gun pellets can go 3 to 4 inches in gelatin. If you want to take it farther back you would lose velocity but then, regardless of the weapon, you would likely lose accuracy. How far away do you have the exotic weapon shooter? What velocity?

Stu

[Jonathan Cohen]

49 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I wish to note that Dr. Aguilar's Kennedy & King's article throws researcher Doug Horne under the bus for his pro-photo-alteration beliefs. The following is Horne's public response to what Dr. Aguilar wrote. It points out a couple of Dr. Aguilar's "blind spots," as Horne puts it.

I trust the the logical, well-reasoned analysis of, you know, an actual doctor such as Gary much more than a civilian who has been pushing outlandish speculation about massive evidence fakery and body alteration for 25 years, such as Horne.

[Tom Gram]

6 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

First point, does there even exist today a EOP/rear hairline bullet hole LN theorist, even though that was the Warren Report’s position? If you can name anyone today who holds to the Warren Report position on that, and also believes the Warren Report conclusion that Oswald was the lone assassin, I would be interested to know the names. Not even Bugliosi or David von Pein defend or hold to the Warren Report on that part of the WR’s conclusions. 

Second, on arguments against a LN/EOP bullet hole attached to the gaping head wound being possible (i.e. against the WC interpretation that no known LNer today holds), here are two more in addition to what you name:

The autopsists’ 5 x 16 mm measurement of the bullet hole in the skull bone is incompatible with a 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano bullet. Bone does not shrink, and that bullet therefore cannot have come from the Mannlicher-Carcano. Given that other evidence does indicate one or more shots came from the Mannlicher-Carcano, therefore, it follows: more than one shooter.

And second, the trajectory of EOP to exit at the gaping head wound just is a great stretch to consider plausible for a JFK sitting upright. Which is why all WR defenders abandoned the WR on this point, became critics or opponents of the WR on this point—decided that a mere item of evidence, the autopsists’ report of a simple fact as to a particular bullet wound’s location, was to be dismissed out of existence and declared nonexistent, presto, just like that.

A mere simple fact reported by the autopsists, accepted by the WC, and without any contrary evidence other than that it does not agree with the LN interpretation, was declared out of existence because it conflicted with the LN interpretation. 

@Stu Wexler answered your question. Sturdivan and Canal are the two main EOP lone assassin theorists that come to mind, but I think there are a few more. Like Stu said, Sturdivan is an actual, albeit heavily biased, expert on wound ballistics, so his arguments require careful consideration to properly refute. 

Pat did that on Sturdivan’s ludicrous blood-leaking explanation for the high fragment trail, but since Sturdivan wrote his JFK Myths book in 2005 there has been new research in wound ballistics that provides an actually plausible mechanism for the trail that is fully compatible with, and possibly even suggestive of Sturdivan’s theory - and that’s just one example.

On the 6mm dimension, I do not think that’s a very strong argument. As far as I know, the only measurement instrument the autopsy doctors were using was a ruler. Humes et al. get blasted for a massive laundry list of errors during the autopsy, but they were somehow immune to missing a quarter millimeter on either side of an irregular oval while holding up a crappy ruler to JFK’s skull? 

To your other point, that’s why I asked my original question about the specific entrance angle. JFK was not leaning far enough forward for a straight-line trajectory, as originally and powerfully illustrated by Josiah Thompson, but he was not sitting upright either. He was leaning left and forward, so the specific angle of deflection from the EOP to the top of the head from the SN is not a trivial matter. Sturdivan is correct that bullets can deflect and curve in the body, and quite sharply if they lose stability on impact - such as an impact with occipital bone. This is another point that has gained more, not less, support through modern wound ballistics research.

Basically you, and Pat, are 100% correct that the EOP entrance was declared out of existence because it was deemed incompatible with the lone assassin conclusion, but that was several decades ago. If a new “Clark Panel” was formed with modern experts in wound ballistics and forensic pathology, I would take it to Vegas that they would write a report arguing for a single shot to the EOP.

That is why I am interested in those arguments. If the EOP single-shot theory is even remotely possible, someone will inevitably declare that theory an unassailable fact and use it to support that Oswald did it. It’s an important angle to research, IMO. 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Stu Wexler said:

Has anyone ever been shot with any of these exotic rounds?  The priors here have to be pretty low.  And I would bet even a low velocity exotic round, while it may dissolve in the body, would penetrate further.  BB gun pellets can go 3 to 4 inches in gelatin. If you want to take it farther back you would lose velocity but then, regardless of the weapon, you would likely lose accuracy. How far away do you have the exotic weapon shooter? What velocity?

Stu

According to Charles Senseney weapons were designed for special operations for both Special Forces and the CIA under Army cover.  The CIA mostly used the dart gun.  Most importantly, the FBI was put on alert for hostile operatives from outside the country using blood soluble rounds.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Stu Wexler said:

Has anyone ever been shot with any of these exotic rounds?  The priors here have to be pretty low.  And I would bet even a low velocity exotic round, while it may dissolve in the body, would penetrate further.  BB gun pellets can go 3 to 4 inches in gelatin. If you want to take it farther back you would lose velocity but then, regardless of the weapon, you would likely lose accuracy. How far away do you have the exotic weapon shooter? What velocity?

Stu

 

Stu,

I don't understand your reluctance to accept the possibility that the round in Kennedy's back was exotic.

How can you possibly have any idea whatsoever how deep an exotic round would penetrate? Is this documented somewhere?

And why do you think the shooter has to be far away to reduce velocity? Cannot a gun be built that will shoot low-velocity exotic bullets/darts?

What about the possibility that the shooter had to be somewhat far away in order not to be seen, and whose exotic weapon could shoot that far but with less precision. So what if the precision isn't great at that distance? You aim at the head knowing that the bullet/dart will hit a very large target... that being a man's back. (Though, granted, the height of the target would be less than ideal due to the back of his seat blocking the lower part of the back.)

 

[Pat Speer]

8 hours ago, Stu Wexler said:

Greg:  Larry Sturdivan, who is not only an LNer but probably the most qualified LNer on the subject (wound ballistics specialist) believes in an EOP entrance. I believe he brought a few LNers along for the ride. I think John Canal was  pro-EOP even before Larry S but they interacted quite a bit. John was a weird variation of an LNer (he believed Oswald was a lone, deranged shooter but that Ruby killed LHO as part of a mob conspiracy.

Larry Sturdivan (with whom I have had sharp disagreements on other matters) and Canal both argued that the low entering bullet somehow ricocheted or changed directions upwards within the skull. Tough to believe, but again, Sturdivan requires some additional level of refutation, imo, as he is a wound ballistics expert. A biased one, mind you.

I do think there a few key issues here that require shoring up from Pat's side.  One has been brought up:  my problem with the EOP to throat damage, which dates back to Tink Thompson's argument of a bone fragment-caused throat wound, is that JFK appears to be in a quasi-choking position from Z230+.  It also requires that some rear entering bullet only penetrates a few inches.  I know Pat and others try and addess this but even a BB pellet travels farther than this purported Dealey Plaza back shot when it is fired into ballistics gelatin.  Is exotic bullet + brachial plexus reaction really that less far fetched than the SBT? I would strongly at least encourage Pat (and he has indicated he would pursue it) and others to get independent experts to support this scenario.

I also think we have to think critically about why so many experts placed a wound at the cowlick. My understanding it is because of radiating fracture lines being located where we find the controversial 6.5ish milimeter roundish metal fragment.  Now Larry Sturdivan I believe argues that (a) radiating fracture lines don't always signify a point of entrance and (b) the fragment is some sort of coincidental unrelated artifact from the Xray plate.  To which most would say (a) it usually is and (b) what a coincidence in terms of size and shape and (c) wow, what an even bigger coincidence that a and b are both consistent with a gunshot.  I do not recall how Pat deals with (a) but he argues (b) has been widely misinterpreted as a rear situated fragment but one that is really located near the front.  This is even more in need of expert verification, perhaps, than the assertion re the back wound issue.  Multiple different individuals from widely different perspectives, areas of specialization, etc. have looked at those X-rays. I know of none who claim what Pat claims re: the 6.5mmish fragment. They literally all were fooled, at independent times. Again LN and CT alike. Mike Griffith has pointed out some of the practical problems even from a lay-person in asserting this kind of mistake. I very much hope Pat gets expert support from *someone* for that assertion re the fragment.

Now this "fragment" is highly problematic from a wound ballistics standpoint. I got Larry Sturdivan to admit that even before he became an EOP enthusiast. Multiple other ballistics experts argue that a fragment like that, from a direct bullet strike and even possibly from a ricochet, is borderline impossible. It implies some kind of tampering, given its location and coincidental size. And Mantik and Chesser have verified each other's density work that also points to some kind of tampering.  I go back and forth on it.

Anyway, this shows an even greater imperative of Pat's work getting outside verification. That is not an insult to Pat. Quite the opposite. He has some of the most thorough and innovative thinking on this case and presents one of the best counter proposals. But it needs expert support, imo.

Stu

Well, thanks Stu. I think.

A couple of points. 

1. Yes, Sturdivan and a few others were swayed by Canal, who was indeed an interesting hybrid of a researcher. Not only did he think Oswald was killed as part of a conspiracy. But he also had come to conclude that the Clark Panel was a deliberate cover-up. 

2. While I have recently come under fire for not believing witnesses who'd claimed the back of the head was blown out--which is something contradicted by other witnesses--I am similarly treated as an outlier and pariah for claiming the large fragment found at autopsy was found behind the right eye--on which I am in agreement with ALL the witnesses, AND for which there is confirmation on the x-rays. So, really, I don't feel the slightest need for "expert" verification on this issue. I have pointed out something that is logical, and obviously factual. Every witness at the autopsy noting the removal of a large fragment said it was removed from behind the right eye. And there is a fragment on the x-rays behind the right eye. Now, some have mused that this fragment is not a metal fragment, but a bone fragment. But NONE of the HSCA or ARRB's experts" to view the x-rays were sufficiently familiar with the case to know that a metal fragment was found behind the right eye, and none were asked if there was yes indeed a fragment behind the right eye. But if they had been you can bet the farm they'd have said yeah there it is right where the doctors said they'd found it, and right where they depicted it in the Rydberg drawings. As far as Mantik et al, they maintain that the fragment everyone said was found behind the right eye was actually found in the middle of the forehead, even though they acknowledge there is a fragment of some sort behind the right eye, and even though they acknowledge the fragment in the archives bears no resemblance to the fragment in the middle of the forehead (the fragment first noted by Lattimer). So, no, no expert opinion is necessary. That the fragment was behind the right eye is a fact. 

Let's make an analogy. A grounds crew at a stadium say they found a fluffy toy poodle sleeping on the fifty-yard line and took it to the pound. But then someone else comes along and says I have looked at photos of the stadium and what they said was a fluffy toy poodle was really a big fluffy cat. And says further that the grounds crew must have been thinking of a tiny chihuahua seen running through the end zone in one of the photos. And then admits the dog in the pound is not a chihuahua, but doubts it is the poodle described by the grounds crew, because the dog in the pound is not fluffy. And then it turns out that with the slightest bit of research he'd have discovered that the poodle was shaved upon arrival at the pound. 

But will this guy admit he was wrong? No, of course not. 

[Greg Doudna]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Greg,

The short answer to your question is this:

The back-of-head autopsy photos do not show a flap of scalp falling down, thereby covering a back-of-head hole. So it is clear that Dr. Aguilar is wrong about that. Therefore his belief is inconsequential to my calculation.

I wondered how Dr. Aguilar could defend such an obviously wrong position, and so I requested a response from him. It's been two or three days and I haven't heard back from him.

In the meantime, Keven Hofeling pointed me to an open letter written by Doug Horne, and this led to my finding what possibly led Dr. Aguilar into drawing the conclusion he did. It is located in Dr. Aguilar's review of the recent documentary JFK: What the Doctors Saw, published here on the Kennedys & King website.

The following excerpt seems to explain where Dr. Aguilar got his idea of a flap of scalp falling down, thereby covering the hole on the back of the head:

In a similar vein, Kenneth Salyer, MD said he thought that the autopsy photos appeared to have been tampered with, and that they had replaced the scalp over an area that was wide open (1 hr., 20 min. mark).

Near the end of the film Dr. Salyer made a suggestion that some of us skeptics have long believed plausibly explains why the Parkland doctors and autopsy witnesses said JFK’s wound was right-rearward. A flap of JFK’s scalp had fallen backward, Salyer said, and it “bunched up” at the base of Kennedy’s occiput.

Since the autopsy report documented that there were large scalp tears, and since JFK was lying face-up on the Parkland gurney, as well as on the autopsy table, it only makes sense that gravity would have drawn a torn flap downward to reveal what was present, a rearward skull defect described by both Parkland and Bethesda witnesses.

[Emphases mine.]

So there we have it. Aguilar believes there was a large scalp flap that fell down in Parkland, thus exposing a skull wound in the back, but was pulled back up when the autopsy photo was taken. Even though Dr. Salyer thought that the BOH autopsy photos had been tampered with, he theorized the thing about the scalp sliding down.

Since Dr. Aguilar included the phrase, "that some of us skeptics have long believed plausibly explain...," perhaps it is more likely that Dr. Aguilar has long been one of those skeptics, rather than being a recent convert due to Dr. Salyer's theory.

The only reason for a conspiracy theorist to adopt that view is if they are anti-alterationist.

So it appears that Dr. Aguilar is one of those rare back-of-head-wound believing anti-alterationists.

As is common with anti-alterationists, Dr. Aguilar has to adopt strange beliefs to account for inconsistencies that are associated with not accepting photo alteration. Here are three that I've noticed for Dr. Aguilar:

1. Several witnesses described a hole in the scalp, about the size of a fist. If this size of scalp had actually fallen down during the photographing of the back of the head, we certainly would see the left and right edges of the flap. It is inconceivable that the flap would be so neatly tucked in on, not only its left and right sides, but along the bottom as well, that we'd see nothing amiss in the photos.
    
2. We can see in the BOH photos that the scalp is attached to the right ear. We can't see the left ear, but we know the scalp is attached there as well because there was no damage on the left side. So there is no flap in the back, as Dr. Aguilar says. In contrast, Dr. Salyer's theory was that the fully width of the scalp from ear to ear slid down and bunched up below the gaping hole in the back.
   
   Now, if Dr, Salyer's theory is really what Dr. Aguilar believes, he still has a problem. Given that there is no damage to the left side of the scalp, as evidenced by the left-side autopsy photo, there is no way the full width of the scalp could have slid down.
    
3. Dr. Aguilar apparently is unaware that there is an extant photograph of the damage taken from the right side of the head. Even though he is aware of the complementary photo taken from the left side. He wrote the following in his review:
   
   "Among the pictures that may well be missing is an image (or images) of the full extent of Kennedy’s skull wound taken from his injured, right side. (Interestingly, in the official collection there is one of uninjured, left side of JFK’s head.)"
   
   I wonder if it is cognitive dissonance that is causing Dr. Aguilar to mentally dismiss the existence of this photo. The cognitive dissonance having been created by the inconsistencies caused by denying photo alteration.
   
   Recall that in his review, as quoted above, Dr. Aguilar notes that the autopsy report mentions the existence of large scalp tears. He then conjectures that one (or more?) of these tears could have constituted his supposed flap hanging down over the BOH hole. From looking at the left-side autopsy photograph, and can understand why Dr. Aguilar has to deny the photograph's existence. Because it clearly shows the scalp tears hanging down from the forehead and covering the TOP of Kennedy's head. NO autopsy photo gives any sign of a flap hanging down on the back... which is where Dr. Aguilar wants it to be.

Sandy, your reply responds to something different than what I said, and what I understand Dr. Aguilar to have meant. 

I was not referring to a flap covering up the entire back of the head or any blown-out exit hole in the middle of the back of the head. I was referring to a limited flap coverup of only a small part of the total back of the head, to the top or top-right, in the BOH photos, but not most of the visible back of the head in the BOH photos. That is what I thought I made clear in the way I worded it; that is what Pat Speer has been saying in these discussions recently though I am not sure you have been aware of that; and that is what I assumed Dr. Aguilar meant, though I do not presume to speak for Dr. Aguilar and hope I do not have him wrong on that. 

But you rebut entirely a claim that is not, in this discussion, being made by anyone at issue--you cite someone else's notion of an entire gaping hole in the back of the head covered up by a flap. You then attribute that to Dr. Aguilar, then argue for that being implausible and/or impossible (with which I agree with you on that point--but that is not what was at issue in the question I asked you). 

Dr. Aguilar said in his quoted words to Pat Speer:

"'Re the 'back of the head blowout' controversy, I think you put your finger on it, Pat: Jack's scalp flaps fell backward as he lay on the gurney, face up, at Parkland. (And at Bethesda, too.) It was likely NOT a blown-out exit wound; the Z film wasn't altered, etc.'"

Yet you set up a straw man, claiming that Dr. Aguilar is saying what he explicitly said is "likely NOT" the case: a blown-out exit wound in the back of the head. You wrote (bold is my added):

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

So there we have it. Aguilar believes there was a large scalp flap that fell down in Parkland, thus exposing a skull wound in the back, but was pulled back up when the autopsy photo was taken.

Except the problem there was you don't quote Aguilar.

You quote someone else that you thought may have inspired Dr. Aguilar in his views, then stuck those words (from someone else) on to Dr. Aguilar as if that was an accurate representation of what Dr. Aguilar believes. But you did not show that from any direct quotation from Dr. Aguilar. And in the quotation from Dr. Aguilar that is under discussion, Aguilar explicitly said he does "NOT" think a blown-out exit wound in the back likely existed, the opposite of what you attribute to Dr. Aguilar on the basis of quoting somebody else.

Then you attribute to Dr. Aguilar what you term three "strange beliefs". 

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

So it appears that Dr. Aguilar is one of those rare back-of-head-wound believing anti-alterationists.

As is common with anti-alterationists, Dr. Aguilar has to adopt strange beliefs to account for inconsistencies that are associated with not accepting photo alteration. Here are three that I've noticed for Dr. Aguilar (. . .)

But Dr. Aguilar said he does "NOT" think a blowout back of the head is likely, of your first line above (your bold).

Of the three "strange beliefs" you claim Dr. Aguilar holds, the first two you list do not even make a claim as to what Dr. Aguilar believes, let alone establishing that he believes such, if your wording is read carefully. Those first two points are in the form of "if-then" propositions, "if" Dr. Aguilar believes what you quote someone else saying, "then" <that is implausible/impossible>". You make those "if-then" logical arguments without quoting Aguilar, without establishing that Aguilar believes the "if" premise. That is faulty logic, as stated, to conclude that Aguilar holds a "strange" belief (the "then" conclusion of your "if-then") based on what logically follows from what someone else said if Dr. Aguilar also holds that, without establishing that he does. 

On your third point of the three, yes and no. I understand your point there, that the BOH photo shows the right side, whereas Dr. Aguilar speaks of a missing right-side autopsy photo (without acknowledging that the BOH photo shows the right side). However I believe Dr. Aguilar, who has spoken elsewhere in favor of the idea that some photographs taken at the autopsy are missing in the extant autopsy photos, clearly meant a missing specific photo taken full-on from the right side. That was Dr. Aguilar's actual point, I believe. 

But back to the main point (bold below is my added). 

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Recall that in his review, as quoted above, Dr. Aguilar notes that the autopsy report mentions the existence of large scalp tears. He then conjectures that one (or more?) of these tears could have constituted his supposed flap hanging down over the BOH hole. From looking at the left-side autopsy photograph, and can understand why Dr. Aguilar has to deny the photograph's existence. Because it clearly shows the scalp tears hanging down from the forehead and covering the TOP of Kennedy's head. NO autopsy photo gives any sign of a flap hanging down on the back... which is where Dr. Aguilar wants it to be.

But Dr. Aguilar said the opposite: "It was likely NOT a blown-out exit wound".

The flap referred to by Pat Speer, I believe Dr. Aguilar, and what I was asking you about, is not a supposed "flap hanging down over the BOH hole" but rather a reduced-size flap hanging down covering a part of the gaping wound that extended into the top-right or upper right of the back of the head--not a massive full flap covering the entire back of the head or rather covering a huge gaping blowout exit wound in the middle of the back of the head. And I was asking you to run a recount of your odds-probabilities based on whether witnesses' claims of what they saw was either consistent or inconsistent with that small-covering by a flap, not what you misunderstood as being a question about a total flap covering a major blow-out hole in the back of the head.

I very clearly in asking my question to you, said that Parkland witnesses who said they saw a gaping wound in the middle or lower part of the back of the head would be inconsistent with the flap interpretation I meant, and which I understood (I hope correctly) Dr. Aguilar also to have meant, and Pat Speer as well.

I was not disputing all of your witnesses, just asking for a recalibration of your odds based on reshuffling your categorizations, since the way you set up your odds seemed straw mannish in its starting assumptions. You did not allow in your starting categorizations for witnesses who said they saw wound in the upper or right back that would be consistent with what Dr. Aguilar appears actually to have meant, which Pat Speer clearly means, and which I meant, in my question. 

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

@Stu Wexler answered your question. Sturdivan and Canal are the two main EOP lone assassin theorists that come to mind, but I think there are a few more. Like Stu said, Sturdivan is an actual, albeit heavily biased, expert on wound ballistics, so his arguments require careful consideration to properly refute. 

Pat did that on Sturdivan’s ludicrous blood-leaking explanation for the high fragment trail, but since Sturdivan wrote his JFK Myths book in 2005 there has been new research in wound ballistics that provides an actually plausible mechanism for the trail that is fully compatible with, and possibly even suggestive of Sturdivan’s theory - and that’s just one example.

On the 6mm dimension, I do not think that’s a very strong argument. As far as I know, the only measurement instrument the autopsy doctors were using was a ruler. Humes et al. get blasted for a massive laundry list of errors during the autopsy, but they were somehow immune to missing a quarter millimeter on either side of an irregular oval while holding up a crappy ruler to JFK’s skull? 

To your other point, that’s why I asked my original question about the specific entrance angle. JFK was not leaning far enough forward for a straight-line trajectory, as originally and powerfully illustrated by Josiah Thompson, but he was not sitting upright either. He was leaning left and forward, so the specific angle of deflection from the EOP to the top of the head from the SN is not a trivial matter. Sturdivan is correct that bullets can deflect and curve in the body, and quite sharply if they lose stability on impact - such as an impact with occipital bone. This is another point that has gained more, not less, support through modern wound ballistics research.

Basically you, and Pat, are 100% correct that the EOP entrance was declared out of existence because it was deemed incompatible with the lone assassin conclusion, but that was several decades ago. If a new “Clark Panel” was formed with modern experts in wound ballistics and forensic pathology, I would take it to Vegas that they would write a report arguing for a single shot to the EOP.

That is why I am interested in those arguments. If the EOP single-shot theory is even remotely possible, someone will inevitably declare that theory an unassailable fact and use it to support that Oswald did it. It’s an important angle to research, IMO. 

You're forgetting about the brain, Tom. One of the rarely discussed aspects of the case is that the Clark Panel moved the wound to the top of the head to get around the incredibly inconvenient fact that the brain showed no signs of transit of a bullet on a low to high trajectory. The photos should have showed something like the wound on the left. Note that the brain remained intact above the well-defined entrance of the bullet on the left.

 

But instead the photos showed a groove along the top of the head starting inches above the EOP entrance. As a consequence I don't see any chance for a new panel's signing off on the EOP entrance absent that panel's simultaneously claiming there was more than one head shot. 

Edited February 11 by Pat Speer

[Gerry Down]

12 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

You're forgetting about the brain, Tom. One of the rarely discussed aspects of the case is that the Clark Panel moved the wound to the top of the head to get around the incredibly inconvenient fact that the brain showed no signs of transit of a bullet on a low to high trajectory. The photos should have showed something like the wound on the left. Note that the brain remained intact above the well-defined bullet track on the left.

 

But instead the photos showed a groove along the top of the head starting inches above the EOP entrance. As a consequence I don't see any chance for a new panel's signing off on the EOP entrance absent that panel's simultaneously claiming there was more than one head shot. 

These are most likely brains from a cadaver being shot. Living brains are more elastic and the temporary cavity would collapse shortly after being created unlike in the above cadaver brains which would retain the cavity shape.

[Greg Doudna]

10 hours ago, Stu Wexler said:

Greg:  Larry Sturdivan, who is not only an LNer but probably the most qualified LNer on the subject (wound ballistics specialist) believes in an EOP entrance. I believe he brought a few LNers along for the ride. I think John Canal was  pro-EOP even before Larry S but they interacted quite a bit. John was a weird variation of an LNer (he believed Oswald was a lone, deranged shooter but that Ruby killed LHO as part of a mob conspiracy.

Larry Sturdivan (with whom I have had sharp disagreements on other matters) and Canal both argued that the low entering bullet somehow ricocheted or changed directions upwards within the skull. Tough to believe, but again, Sturdivan requires some additional level of refutation, imo, as he is a wound ballistics expert.

Thanks Stu on noting there does exist current advocacy of the EOP/hairline bullet hole and LN interpretation, as well as the rest of your sound comments.

4 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

 

On the 6mm dimension, I do not think that’s a very strong argument. As far as I know, the only measurement instrument the autopsy doctors were using was a ruler. Humes et al. get blasted for a massive laundry list of errors during the autopsy, but they were somehow immune to missing a quarter millimeter on either side of an irregular oval while holding up a crappy ruler to JFK’s skull? 

All of your comments make good sense, and on this one, I have it corrected now but in mine originally I had somehow mistaken in memory the (correct) 6 x 15 mm autopsists' measurement for (I called it mistakenly) 5 x 16 mm.  A difference only between 6.0 and 6.5 mm, not 5 and 6.5, so yes, I accept that a half a millimeter sounds within margin of human measuring error, and withdraw any claim that that is an argument that can be pressed, thanks.

[Pat Speer]

38 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

These are most likely brains from a cadaver being shot. Living brains are more elastic and the temporary cavity would collapse shortly after being created unlike in the above cadaver brains which would retain the cavity shape.

That just isn't true, Gerry. An intact bullet through the brain will leave both a permanent cavity (a tunnel) and a temporary cavity (a temporary expansion of the tunnel, which manifests itself as black tissue upon subsequent examination). This is what you will find in the wound ballistics literature, over and over again. Nobody is shooting cadaver brains. These are the brains of actual murder victims. Now, a shotgun wound to the head or such would create a disgusting mess, where no bullet could be tracked. But an M/C bullet at almost 90 yards would not be so explosive, and would leave an identifiable track through the brain, should it have traveled from low to high.

Edited February 11 by Pat Speer

[Greg Doudna]

12 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Agreed. There are two facts about the head wound that upset me to my core. The first is that they moved the location of the head wound to fit the single-assassin scenario, and the media failed to notice. And the second is that they changed the interpretation of the mystery photo from its depicting an entrance on the back of the head to its depicting an exit on the front of the head. This is absolute bs of the highest order. And yet the media has never explained this to the pubic. Maybe they think it's too complicated. Maybe they think it's too gory. But my suspicion has long been that the AMA is every bit as powerful as the CIA when it comes to domestic matters, and that no major media outlet wants to call the competence and integrity of the nation's doctors into question. 

Pat, your argument on the blow-by-blow of how the autopsists' EOP/rear-hairline bullet hole was disappeared and the new bullet hole was found at the cowlick--and how that came about without for the first three years anyone reporting that--was stunning to read. My M.A. thesis adviser at Cornell, Martin Bernal, devoted attention to not only the substance of contested scholarly interpretations but also to what he called the "sociology of scholarship", how changes in ideas get accepted and changed in scholarly disciplines.

It is like a retired US federal marshal who was my father's closest friend in his final years told me, speaking from long experience: "Greg, in every town and city there are a few families who run everything."  

In academic disciplines there are usually some major figures with positions and lots of graduate students. Any new idea in a field put forth by, say, some bright graduate student, will take traction if one of the major names in the field endorses it and tells the rest of the field, "look at this". Whether that happens, so far as I have seen, is largely accident, it depends on some major name deciding they like something and deciding to make that public endorsement. If no major figure proactively does that, the work gets published and a few will read it, but--news flash--most scholars do not read most of what is published in their field, they read only what is being done on their specific research question or niche, and may read some of what a few major names of their field publish generally, but not unrecognized names. They don't have time or energy to read unrecognized names. Once a theory attached to a new name is brought to wider attention by one of the major names, then the past publications of that new name may be looked up and read. I honestly think there is a significant percentage of peer-reviewed journal articles with a lot of work and expense going into their publishing that are hardly read by anyone. Of course everyone scans abstracts or may take a 3/4 second glance but that's it for some articles indefinitely.  

[Gerry Down]

54 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

That just isn't true, Gerry. An intact bullet through the brain will leave both a permanent cavity (a tunnel) and a temporary cavity (a temporary expansion of the tunnel, which manifests itself as black tissue upon subsequent examination). This is what you will find in the wound ballistics literature, over and over again. Nobody is shooting cadaver brains. These are the brains of actual murder victims. Now, a shotgun wound to the head or such would create a disgusting mess, where no bullet could be tracked. But an M/C bullet at almost 90 yards would not be so explosive, and would leave an identifiable track through the brain, should it have traveled from low to high.

I think what could have happened is that most of the black tissue you describe was liquefied by the passage of the bullet and just poured out as watery brain matter onto the seat. This could explain why the brain photos do now show the black brain tissue you describe.