Keven Hofeling Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 (edited) 22 hours ago, Pat Speer said: This is just not true. I go through the 11-22-63 statements of the Dealey Plaza witnesses one by one on my website and show how they thought the wound was on the face or right side. And no, none of them were claiming they thought they saw a bullet enter in one place and exit another. They saw an explosion on the skull...on the right side near the face. Quote As far as Bill Newman...please. Bill Newman was on TV claiming the skull exploded by the temple within minutes of the shooting. While he initially pointed to his left temple, he did this because he was holding his kid with his right arm. His wife, moments later, pointed to her right temple. And Bill himself was filmed depicting an explosion from the right temple before he left the studio. The Newmans were looking at the back of JFK's head as he drove past. And yet they saw an explosion on the right side of his head by his ear and failed to see an explosion from the back of his head. And they have repeated this on camera and in person hundreds of times. And that's because no such explosion occurred. Pat Speer wrote: Quote As far as Bill Newman...please. Bill Newman was on TV claiming the skull exploded by the temple within minutes of the shooting. While he initially pointed to his left temple, he did this because he was holding his kid with his right arm. His wife, moments later, pointed to her right temple. And Bill himself was filmed depicting an explosion from the right temple before he left the studio. The Newmans were looking at the back of JFK's head as he drove past. And yet they saw an explosion on the right side of his head by his ear and failed to see an explosion from the back of his head. And they have repeated this on camera and in person hundreds of times. And that's because no such explosion occurred. You are misrepresenting Bill Newman's characterization of the head shot made during that first day television appearance. You are spinning Newman's statement to support your no back of the head wound bias when you characterize it by writing "...Bill himself was filmed depicting an explosion from the right temple before he left the studio...." And Newman did not say, as you claim, that "the skull exploded by the temple." What he said was "...[the] gunshot, apparently from behind us, hit the President in the side of the temple..." The following, in pertinent part, is the segment of the broadcast in question: It is also not true, as you claim, that "...[t]he Newmans were looking at the back of JFK's head as he drove past...." The car was directly in front of them such that they were directly seeing the bullet enter the right temple, and not looking at the back of the President's head. As indicated by his hand gesture during a later interview, Newman was conscious of the occipital-parietal blowout on the right side of the back of JFK's head. DEALEY PLAZA WITNESS BILL NEWMAN: "...I can remember seeing the side of the President's ear and head come off. I remember a flash of white and the red and just bit and pieces of flesh exploding from the President's head..." [Bill Newman interviewed about the JFK assassination -- 0:13-0:27 -- https://youtu.be/EEhlbAwI7Zg?t=14] As Bill Newman demonstrated in the interview above, in addition to the right temple entry wound that he famously pointed out on the day of the assassination, he was also conscious of the biological debris being ejected from the back of JFK's head, thus making him a Dealey Plaza witness who reported two wounds to JFK's head. Pat Speer wrote: Quote This is just not true [that there was an entry wound in JFK's right temple and a large avulsive exit wound in the back of his head]. I go through the 11-22-63 statements of the Dealey Plaza witnesses one by one on my website and show how they thought the wound was on the face or right side. And no, none of them were claiming they thought they saw a bullet enter in one place and exit another. They saw an explosion on the skull...on the right side near the face. Actually, there is good Dealey Plaza witness testimony that is highly probative of JFK's back-of-the head wound. Mostly Secret Service agents... The following meme is disseminated in JFK research groups by Warren Commission apologists as a slightly more sophisticated proof that there was no back-of-the-head wound than the utterly absurd argument that the members of the Parkland Trauma Team did not bother to inspect the back of the President's head and therefore could not possibly know of the existence of the large wound in the occipital-parietal region. The Pat Speer.com version of this tactic throws photos of Gail Newman and Malcolm Kilduff into the mix in support of the baseless claim -- which you repeat in your comment -- that all of the Dealey Plaza witnesses referred only to one large head wound, and that they all located that large head wound at JFK's right temple. Like your claims about the Parkland Hospital and Bethesda Autopsy witnesses, your assertions about the Dealey Plaza witnesses do not withstand scrutiny. Practically the entire Secret Service Detail and multiple lay witnesses describe the same blown out right side of the back of JFK's head that the Parkland doctors and nurses would later report; and contrary to your claims, the accounts of some of these witnesses do indeed demonstrate recognition of a frontal entrance wound AND a large rear exit wound from which blood, brain and skull was rearwardly ejected at high velocity. Pat Speer.com attempts to contend with the historical abundance of back-of-the-head wound evidence and testimony through a combination of hair-splitting, parlor trick sleights of hand, and outright character assassination and demonization -- all tactics that would be unnecessary but for the absence of supporting evidence and common sense for your positions. Take, for example, your treatment of Dealey Plaza witness Charles Brehm: it is implied that by 1966 Brehm was embellishing his memories to include a back-of-the-head wound and rearward flying biological debris; it is presumed that his lack of expertise in ballistics impugns his credibility rather than enhances it; and attempts are made to impute sinister implications to an inconsequential pause in Brehm's speech, and to gaslight readers into believing that Brehm has a finger in the palm of his hand pointing to his right ear when, in fact, his actual fingers are resting upon the occipital-parietal region of the back of his head. Unfortunately, with PatSpeer.com, such tactics are the rule rather than the exception. ABOVE: CHARLES BREHM HIT PIECE EXCERPTED FROM PATSPEER.COM _________ SECRET SERVICE AGENT WILLIAM GREER was asked by Arlen Specter for the Warren Commission to describe the head wound he saw at Bethesda. Greer said, "I would--to the best of my recollection it was in this part of the head right here." Specter immediately asked, "Upper right?" Greer: "Upper right side." Specter: "Upper right side, going toward the rear. and what was the condition of the skull at that point?" Greer: "The skull was completely--this part was completely gone." [Warren Comm-- V2:127] I wish there was a photograph of Greer's hand gesture, but nevertheless, in the context of the aggregate of all of the Dealey Plaza testimony it is clear the Greer is referring to the right side of the back of JFK's head. _________ SECRET SERVICE AGENT ROY KELLERMAN under oath before the Warren Commission explained the head wound he saw to Arlen Specter, "He had a large wound this size." Specter: "Indicating a circle with your finger of the diameter of 5 inches would that be approximately correct?" (sic) Kellerman: "Yes, circular; yes, on this part of the head." Specter: "Indicating the rear portion of the head." Kellerman: "Yes." Specter: "More to the right side of the head." Kellerman: "Right. This was removed." Specter: "When you say, "This was removed", what do you mean by this?" Kellerman: "The skull part was removed." Specter: "All right." Kellerman: "To the left of the (right) ear, sir, and a little high; yes...(I recall that this portion of the rear portion of the skull) was absent when I saw him." [WC-V2:80- 81] Kellerman's 8/24/1977 HSCA sketch of JFK's wounds is somewhat confusing because he has reversed the locations of the wounds (putting the back wound of the right side rather than the left and likewise reversing the large occipital-parietal wound from the right side to the left), but his sketch confirms that he remembered the large avulsive wound was on the back of JFK's head rather than on the top or side of JFK's head. Furthermore, his sketch and corresponding WC testimony tends to confirm the existence of the second gunshot wound to the back of JFK's head: Any doubt about the actual location of the large back-of-the-head wound Kellerman observed is resolved by his testimony about viewing the wound in the morgue: Mr. SPECTER. I would like to develop your understanding and your observations of the four wounds on President Kennedy. Mr. KELLERMAN. OK. This all transpired in the morgue of the Naval Hospital in Bethesda, sir. He had a large wound this size. Mr. SPECTER. Indicating a circle with your finger of the diameter of 5 inches; would that be approximately correct? Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, circular; yes, on this part of the head. Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the rear portion of the head. Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes. Mr. SPECTER. More to the right side of the head? Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. This was removed. Mr. SPECTER. When you say, "This was removed," what do you mean by this? Mr. KELLERMAN. The skull part was removed. [2 H 80-81] Despite the confusion caused by the HSCA sketch, this testimony of Kellerman's observations about the large back-of the-head-wound in the morgue is powerful corroboration that it was located at the "rear portion of the head" on the right (and not on the left as in his HSCA sketch). _________ SECRET SERVICE AGENT SAM KINNEY, who was driving the follow up car: “I saw one shot strike the President in the right side of the head. The President then fell to the seat to the left toward Mrs. Kennedy.” [11/30/1963 Statement: CE1024: 18H731] Kinney is referring to the right side of the back of JFK's head. We can be certain of this due to statements Kinney made when interviewed by Vince Palamara on 3/5/1994, as follows: "...I had brain matter all over my windshield and left arm, that's how close we were to it ... It was the right rear part of his head ... Because that's the part I saw blow out. I saw hair come out, the pieces blow out, then the skin went back in -- an explosion in and out..." [3/5/1994 interview by Vince Palamara] EXCERPT FROM VINCE PALAMARA INTERVIEW OF SAM KINNEY IN WHICH HE CONFIRMS THE BACK-OF-THE-HEAD WOUND: _________ SECRET SERVICE AGENT CLINT HILL: described the wounds he saw at Parkland as, "The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed...There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head." [WC--V2:141] “As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President’s head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lying in the seat.” [Statement: CE1024: 18H742] After seeing the President's skull wound in Dealey Plaza, and after returning with the body to Bethesda Clint Hill was "summoned...down to the morgue to view the body (again) and to witness the damage of the gunshot wounds."--as agent Kellerman put it in his 11-29-63 report. (WC--CE #1024, Kellerman report of 11-29-63. In: WC--V18:26-27) Hill reported, "When I arrived the autopsy had been completed and...I observed another wound (in addition to the throat wound) on the right rear portion of the skull." [WC--CE#1024, V18:744] "...Blood, brain matter, and bone fragments exploded from the back of the President's head. The President's blood, parts of his skull, bits of his brain were splattered all over me -- on my face, my clothes, in my hair..." [in his 2012 book "Mrs. Kennedy and Me: An Intimate Memoir"] SECRET SERVICE AGENT PAUL LANDIS (Secret Service agent, on the right running-board of the follow up car), November 30, 1963: “I glanced towards the President and he still appeared to be fairly upright in his seat, leaning slightly towards Mrs. Kennedy with his head tilted slightly back. I think Mrs. Kennedy had her right arm around the President’s shoulders at this time. I also remember Special Agent Clinton Hill attempting to climb onto the back of the President’s car. It was at this moment that I heard a second report and it appeared that the President’s head split open with a muffled exploding sound. I can best describe the sound as I heard it, as the sound you would get by shooting a high powered bullet into a five gallon can of water or shooting into a mellon [sic]. I saw pieces of flesh and blood flying through the air ….” [Statement: CE1024: 18H755] Landis's statement to the WC was not very revealing as to the location of the head wound. However, in the context of the publicity surrounding the release of his 2023 book, Landis was asked about the location of the large head wound and he demonstrated with his hand that the large wound was in the occipital-parietal region on the right side of the back of JFK's head, as seen in the video below: _________ SECRET SERVICE AGENT GEORGE HICKEY (Secret Service agent, in the follow-up car), November 30, 1963: “It looked to me as if the President was struck in the right upper rear of his head. The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed because the hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn’t seem to be any impact against his head. The last shot seemed to hit his head and cause a noise at the point of impact which made him fall forward and to his left again.” [Statement sent to Special Agent in Charge of White House Detail, Gerald A. Behn: 18H762] “Nothing was observed and I turned and looked at the President’s car. The President was slumped to the left in the car and I observed him come up. I heard what appeared to be two shots and it seemed as if the right side of his head was hit and his hair flew forward.” [Statement: 18H765] Clearly, Hickey is another back-of-the-head witness... _________ SECRET SERVICE AGENT EMORY ROBERTS (Secret Service agent, in the follow-up car), November 29, 1963: “I do not know if it was the next shot or the third shot that hit the President in the head, but I saw what appeared to be a small explosion on the right side of the President’s head ….” [Statement: CE1024: 18H734] Considering that all of the Secret Service Agents above were referring to the right side of the back of JFK's head when referencing "the right side," there is no reason not to assume that Robert's was also referring to the right side of the back of JFK's head, and this Roberts is also a back-of-the-head witness. _________ DALLAS MOTORCYCLE PATROLMAN BOBBY HARGIS: "...When President Kennedy straightened back up in the car the bullet hit him in the head, the one that killed him and it seemed like his head exploded, and I was splattered with blood and brain, and a kind of bloody water..." [4/8/1964 Warren Commission testimony] "... As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned toward him, and that was when he got hit in the side of his head, spinning it around. I was splattered with blood. Then I felt something hit me. It could have been concrete or something, but I thought at first I might have been hit...." [11/24/1963 article in the New York Daily News] The biological debris that impacted Hargis at such a velocity that he thought he'd been shot is consistent with Secret Service Agent Sam Kinney's description of seeing the biological debris ejected from the back of JFK's head, and thus Hargis is a back-of-the-head witness as well. _________ FIRST LADY JACQUELINE KENNEDY: "I was trying to hold his hair on. From the front there was nothing -- I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on. .... I could see a piece of his skull sort of wedge-shaped, like that, and I remember that it was flesh colored with little ridges at the top." [June 5, 1964 Warren Commission Testimony] Jackie Kennedy's deposition conducted by the Warren Commission with Jackie sworn under pains and penalties of perjury presents the most immediate evidence with the greatest weight about the location of JFK's large avulsive head wound (which the Warren Commission attempted to conceal by classifying it "top secret" and omitting it from the Warren Report, with the testimony being released as the result of litigation in the early 1970's). That sworn testimony was as follows: "I was trying to hold his hair on. From the front there was nothing -- I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on...." There is nothing ambiguous about Jackie Kennedy's Warren Commission testimony. She clearly stated that there was no damage to the front of JFK's head, and that she was trying to hold his hair and skull down on the back of his head. The photographic evidence of Jackie Kennedy's interactions with the head wound is just as decisive as her Warren Commission testimony and corroborates it. In the following slow motion high definition Zapruder film footage we see Jackie Kennedy very deliberately feel the dimensions of the occipital-parietal wound with her white gloved hand (and no, she is not feeling a shadow -- that is the false appearance presented by the surreptitious black patch placed by the CIA over the Zapruder film imagery of the occipital-parietal wound): _________ DEALEY PLAZA WITNESS CHARLES BREHM: Mark Lane: 0:15 Did you see the effects of the bullets upon the President? Charles Brehm: 0:21 When the second bullet hit there was a [Brehm puts his hand on the right side of the back of his head to demonstrate], hair seemed to go flying, uh it was very definite then that he was struck in the head with the second bullet, and uh, yes I very definitely saw the effects of the second bullet. Mark Lane: 0:38 Did you see any particles of the President's skull fly when the bullet struck him in the head? Charles Brehm: 0:46 I saw a piece fly over in the area of the curb where I was standing. Mark Lane: 0:53 In which direction did that fly? Charles Brehm: 0:56 It seemed to have come left and back...." [Charles Brehm interviewed about JFK assassination by Mark Lane for the 1967 documentary "Rush to Judgment": https://youtu.be/RsnHXywKIKs] DEALEY PLAZA WITNESS MARILYN WILLIS: "...The head shot seemed to come from the right front. It seemed to strike him here [gesturing to her upper right forehead, up high at the hairline], and his head went back, and all of the brain matter went out the back of the head. It was like a red halo, a red circle, with bright matter in the middle of it -- It just went like that..." [Marilyn Willis from 24:26-24:58 of TMWKK, Episode 1, at following link cued in advance for you https://youtu.be/BW98fHkbuD8?t=1466] Marilyn Willis appears to be another Dealey Plaza witness who was conscious of both the small entry wound in the front of JFK's head and the large exit wound in the back of his head. _________ DEALEY PLAZA WITNESS JEAN HILL (on the south side of Elm Street, near the Presidential limousine at the time of the shots), March 13, 1964: “Mrs. Hill heard more shots ring out and saw the hair on the back of President Kennedy’s head fly up.” [FBI report: 25H853–4] Jean Hill reported effects of the ejection of biological debris from the back of JFK's head and this is a back-of-the-head witness as well. Edited March 29 by Keven Hofeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 (edited) 54 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said: Pat Speer wrote: You are misrepresenting Bill Newman's characterization of the head shot made during that first day television appearance. You are spinning Newman's statement to support your no back of the head wound bias when you characterize it by writing "...Bill himself was filmed depicting an explosion from the right temple before he left the studio...." And Newman did not say, as you claim, that "the skull exploded by the temple." What he said was "...[the] gunshot, apparently from behind us, hit the President in the side of the temple..." The following, in pertinent part, is the segment of the broadcast in question: It is also not true, as you claim, that "...[t]he Newmans were looking at the back of JFK's head as he drove past...." The car was directly in front of them such that they were directly seeing the bullet enter the right temple, and not looking at the back of the President's head. As indicated by his hand gesture during a later interview, Newman was conscious of the occipital-parietal blowout on the right side of the back of JFK's head. DEALEY PLAZA WITNESS BILL NEWMAN: "...I can remember seeing the side of the President's ear and head come off. I remember a flash of white and the red and just bit and pieces of flesh exploding from the President's head..." [Bill Newman interviewed about the JFK assassination -- 0:13-0:27 -- https://youtu.be/EEhlbAwI7Zg?t=14] As Bill Newman demonstrated in the interview above, in addition to the right temple entry wound that he famously pointed out on the day of the assassination, he was also conscious of the biological debris being ejected from the back of JFK's head, thus making him a Dealey Plaza witness who reported two wounds to JFK's head. Pat Speer wrote: Actually, there is good Dealey Plaza witness testimony that is highly probative of JFK's back-of-the head wound. Mostly Secret Service agents... The following meme is disseminated in JFK research groups by Warren Commission apologists as a slightly more sophisticated proof that there was no back-of-the-head wound than the utterly absurd argument that the members of the Parkland Trauma Team did not bother to inspect the back of the President's head and therefore could not possibly know of the existence of the large wound in the occipital-parietal region. The Pat Speer.com version of this tactic throws photos of Gail Newman and Malcolm Kilduff into the mix in support of the baseless claim -- which you repeat in your comment -- that all of the Dealey Plaza witnesses referred only to one large head wound, and that they all located that large head wound at JFK's right temple. Like your claims about the Parkland Hospital and Bethesda Autopsy witnesses, your assertions about the Dealey Plaza witnesses do not withstand scrutiny. Practically the entire Secret Service Detail and multiple lay witnesses describe the same blown out right side of the back of JFK's head that the Parkland doctors and nurses would later report; and contrary to your claims, the accounts of some of these witnesses do indeed demonstrate recognition of a frontal entrance wound AND a large rear exit wound from which blood, brain and skull was rearwardly ejected at high velocity. Pat Speer.com attempts to contend with the historical abundance of back-of-the-head wound evidence and testimony through a combination of hair-splitting, parlor trick sleights of hand, and outright character assassination and demonization -- all tactics that would be unnecessary but for the absence of supporting evidence and common sense for your positions. Take, for example, your treatment of Dealey Plaza witness Charles Brehm: it is implied that by 1966 Brehm was embellishing his memories to include a back-of-the-head wound and rearward flying biological debris; it is presumed that his lack of expertise in ballistics impugns his credibility rather than enhances it; and attempts are made to impute sinister implications to an inconsequential pause in Brehm's speech, and to gaslight readers into believing that Brehm has a finger in the palm of his hand pointing to his right ear when, in fact, his actual fingers are resting upon the occipital-parietal region of the back of his head. Unfortunately, with PatSpeer.com, such tactics are the rule rather than the exception. ABOVE: CHARLES BREHM HIT PIECE EXCERPTED FROM PATSPEER.COM _________ SECRET SERVICE AGENT WILLIAM GREER was asked by Arlen Specter for the Warren Commission to describe the head wound he saw at Bethesda. Greer said, "I would--to the best of my recollection it was in this part of the head right here." Specter immediately asked, "Upper right?" Greer: "Upper right side." Specter: "Upper right side, going toward the rear. and what was the condition of the skull at that point?" Greer: "The skull was completely--this part was completely gone." [Warren Comm-- V2:127] I wish there was a photograph of Greer's hand gesture, but nevertheless, in the context of the aggregate of all of the Dealey Plaza testimony it is clear the Greer is referring to the right side of the back of JFK's head. _________ SECRET SERVICE AGENT ROY KELLERMAN under oath before the Warren Commission explained the head wound he saw to Arlen Specter, "He had a large wound this size." Specter: "Indicating a circle with your finger of the diameter of 5 inches would that be approximately correct?" (sic) Kellerman: "Yes, circular; yes, on this part of the head." Specter: "Indicating the rear portion of the head." Kellerman: "Yes." Specter: "More to the right side of the head." Kellerman: "Right. This was removed." Specter: "When you say, "This was removed", what do you mean by this?" Kellerman: "The skull part was removed." Specter: "All right." Kellerman: "To the left of the (right) ear, sir, and a little high; yes...(I recall that this portion of the rear portion of the skull) was absent when I saw him." [WC-V2:80- 81] Kellerman's 8/24/1977 HSCA sketch of JFK's wounds is somewhat confusing because he has reversed the locations of the wounds (putting the back wound of the right side rather than the left and likewise reversing the large occipital-parietal wound from the right side to the left), but his sketch confirms that he remembered the large avulsive wound was on the back of JFK's head rather than on the top or side of JFK's head. Furthermore, his sketch and corresponding WC testimony tends to confirm the existence of the second gunshot wound to the back of JFK's head: Any doubt about the actual location of the large back-of-the-head wound Kellerman observed is resolved by his testimony about viewing the wound in the morgue: Mr. SPECTER. I would like to develop your understanding and your observations of the four wounds on President Kennedy. Mr. KELLERMAN. OK. This all transpired in the morgue of the Naval Hospital in Bethesda, sir. He had a large wound this size. Mr. SPECTER. Indicating a circle with your finger of the diameter of 5 inches; would that be approximately correct? Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, circular; yes, on this part of the head. Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the rear portion of the head. Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes. Mr. SPECTER. More to the right side of the head? Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. This was removed. Mr. SPECTER. When you say, "This was removed," what do you mean by this? Mr. KELLERMAN. The skull part was removed. [2 H 80-81] Despite the confusion caused by the HSCA sketch, this testimony of Kellerman's observations about the large back-of the-head-wound in the morgue is powerful corroboration that it was located at the "rear portion of the head" on the right (and not on the left as in his HSCA sketch). _________ SECRET SERVICE AGENT SAM KINNEY, who was driving the follow up car: “I saw one shot strike the President in the right side of the head. The President then fell to the seat to the left toward Mrs. Kennedy.” [11/30/1963 Statement: CE1024: 18H731] Kinney is referring to the right side of the back of JFK's head. We can be certain of this due to statements Kinney made when interviewed by Vince Palamara on 3/5/1994, as follows: "...I had brain matter all over my windshield and left arm, that's how close we were to it ... It was the right rear part of his head ... Because that's the part I saw blow out. I saw hair come out, the pieces blow out, then the skin went back in -- an explosion in and out..." [3/5/1994 interview by Vince Palamara] EXCERPT FROM VINCE PALAMARA INTERVIEW OF SAM KINNEY IN WHICH HE CONFIRMS THE BACK-OF-THE-HEAD WOUND: _________ SECRET SERVICE AGENT CLINT HILL: described the wounds he saw at Parkland as, "The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed...There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head." [WC--V2:141] “As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President’s head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lying in the seat.” [Statement: CE1024: 18H742] After seeing the President's skull wound in Dealey Plaza, and after returning with the body to Bethesda Clint Hill was "summoned...down to the morgue to view the body (again) and to witness the damage of the gunshot wounds."--as agent Kellerman put it in his 11-29-63 report. (WC--CE #1024, Kellerman report of 11-29-63. In: WC--V18:26-27) Hill reported, "When I arrived the autopsy had been completed and...I observed another wound (in addition to the throat wound) on the right rear portion of the skull." [WC--CE#1024, V18:744] "...Blood, brain matter, and bone fragments exploded from the back of the President's head. The President's blood, parts of his skull, bits of his brain were splattered all over me -- on my face, my clothes, in my hair..." [in his 2012 book "Mrs. Kennedy and Me: An Intimate Memoir"] SECRET SERVICE AGENT PAUL LANDIS (Secret Service agent, on the right running-board of the follow up car), November 30, 1963: “I glanced towards the President and he still appeared to be fairly upright in his seat, leaning slightly towards Mrs. Kennedy with his head tilted slightly back. I think Mrs. Kennedy had her right arm around the President’s shoulders at this time. I also remember Special Agent Clinton Hill attempting to climb onto the back of the President’s car. It was at this moment that I heard a second report and it appeared that the President’s head split open with a muffled exploding sound. I can best describe the sound as I heard it, as the sound you would get by shooting a high powered bullet into a five gallon can of water or shooting into a mellon [sic]. I saw pieces of flesh and blood flying through the air ….” [Statement: CE1024: 18H755] Landis's statement to the WC was not very revealing as to the location of the head wound. However, in the context of the publicity surrounding the release of his 2023 book, Landis was asked about the location of the large head wound and he demonstrated with his hand that the large wound was in the occipital-parietal region on the right side of the back of JFK's head, as seen in the video below: _________ SECRET SERVICE AGENT GEORGE HICKEY (Secret Service agent, in the follow-up car), November 30, 1963: “It looked to me as if the President was struck in the right upper rear of his head. The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed because the hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn’t seem to be any impact against his head. The last shot seemed to hit his head and cause a noise at the point of impact which made him fall forward and to his left again.” [Statement sent to Special Agent in Charge of White House Detail, Gerald A. Behn: 18H762] “Nothing was observed and I turned and looked at the President’s car. The President was slumped to the left in the car and I observed him come up. I heard what appeared to be two shots and it seemed as if the right side of his head was hit and his hair flew forward.” [Statement: 18H765] Clearly, Hickey is another back-of-the-head witness... _________ SECRET SERVICE AGENT EMORY ROBERTS (Secret Service agent, in the follow-up car), November 29, 1963: “I do not know if it was the next shot or the third shot that hit the President in the head, but I saw what appeared to be a small explosion on the right side of the President’s head ….” [Statement: CE1024: 18H734] Considering that all of the Secret Service Agents above were referring to the right side of the back of JFK's head when referencing "the right side," there is no reason not to assume that Robert's was also referring to the right side of the back of JFK's head, and this Roberts is also a back-of-the-head witness. _________ DALLAS MOTORCYCLE PATROLMAN BOBBY HARGIS: "...When President Kennedy straightened back up in the car the bullet hit him in the head, the one that killed him and it seemed like his head exploded, and I was splattered with blood and brain, and a kind of bloody water..." [4/8/1964 Warren Commission testimony] "... As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned toward him, and that was when he got hit in the side of his head, spinning it around. I was splattered with blood. Then I felt something hit me. It could have been concrete or something, but I thought at first I might have been hit...." [11/24/1963 article in the New York Daily News] The biological debris that impacted Hargis at such a velocity that he thought he'd been shot is consistent with Secret Service Agent Sam Kinney's description of seeing the biological debris ejected from the back of JFK's head, and thus Hargis is a back-of-the-head witness as well. _________ FIRST LADY JACQUELINE KENNEDY: "I was trying to hold his hair on. From the front there was nothing -- I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on. .... I could see a piece of his skull sort of wedge-shaped, like that, and I remember that it was flesh colored with little ridges at the top." [June 5, 1964 Warren Commission Testimony] Jackie Kennedy's deposition conducted by the Warren Commission with Jackie sworn under pains and penalties of perjury presents the most immediate evidence with the greatest weight about the location of JFK's large avulsive head wound (which the Warren Commission attempted to conceal by classifying it "top secret" and omitting it from the Warren Report, with the testimony being released as the result of litigation in the early 1970's). That sworn testimony was as follows: "I was trying to hold his hair on. From the front there was nothing -- I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on...." There is nothing ambiguous about Jackie Kennedy's Warren Commission testimony. She clearly stated that there was no damage to the front of JFK's head, and that she was trying to hold his hair and skull down on the back of his head. The photographic evidence of Jackie Kennedy's interactions with the head wound is just as decisive as her Warren Commission testimony and corroborates it. In the following slow motion high definition Zapruder film footage we see Jackie Kennedy very deliberately feel the dimensions of the occipital-parietal wound with her white gloved hand (and no, she is not feeling a shadow -- that is the false appearance presented by the surreptitious black patch placed by the CIA over the Zapruder film imagery of the occipital-parietal wound): _________ DEALEY PLAZA WITNESS CHARLES BREHM: Mark Lane: 0:15 Did you see the effects of the bullets upon the President? Charles Brehm: 0:21 When the second bullet hit there was a [Brehm puts his hand on the right side of the back of his head to demonstrate], hair seemed to go flying, uh it was very definite then that he was struck in the head with the second bullet, and uh, yes I very definitely saw the effects of the second bullet. Mark Lane: 0:38 Did you see any particles of the President's skull fly when the bullet struck him in the head? Charles Brehm: 0:46 I saw a piece fly over in the area of the curb where I was standing. Mark Lane: 0:53 In which direction did that fly? Charles Brehm: 0:56 It seemed to have come left and back...." [Charles Brehm interviewed about JFK assassination by Mark Lane for the 1967 documentary "Rush to Judgment": https://youtu.be/RsnHXywKIKs] DEALEY PLAZA WITNESS MARILYN WILLIS: "...The head shot seemed to come from the right front. It seemed to strike him here [gesturing to her upper right forehead, up high at the hairline], and his head went back, and all of the brain matter went out the back of the head. It was like a red halo, a red circle, with bright matter in the middle of it -- It just went like that..." [Marilyn Willis from 24:26-24:58 of TMWKK, Episode 1, at following link cued in advance for you https://youtu.be/BW98fHkbuD8?t=1466] Marilyn Willis appears to be another Dealey Plaza witness who was conscious of both the small entry wound in the front of JFK's head and the large exit wound in the back of his head. _________ DEALEY PLAZA WITNESS JEAN HILL (on the south side of Elm Street, near the Presidential limousine at the time of the shots), March 13, 1964: “Mrs. Hill heard more shots ring out and saw the hair on the back of President Kennedy’s head fly up.” [FBI report: 25H853–4] Jean Hill reported effects of the ejection of biological debris from the back of JFK's head and this is a back-of-the-head witness as well. I'm not the one spinning here. Let us know when you've studied dozens of interviews with Newman and talked to him on numerous occasions. Here he is in the Moorman photo, looking at the back of JFK's head as he p[asses by, at the precise moment of the bullet's impact. And where did he see an explosion, the only explosion he saw? By the ear. Where it is proved to be in the photos you and your fellow obstructors so desperately desperately need to believe are fake. And why? Because in your limited imaginations you think the best proof for a conspiracy is a proof the photographic and medical evidence is fake. Well this is folly, as the photographic and medical evidence has always, always, suggested a conspiracy, and the claims the evidence is fake have proved disastrous for the research community. Edited March 29 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 (edited) 22 hours ago, Pat Speer said: I have been following the Mantik spiral for decades. He correctly concluded there was a bullet defect on the Harper Fragment. In trying to make everything fit his belief the back of the head was blown out, he placed the Harper Fragment on the occipital bone, which put this defect near the EOP entrance described by Humes. So he claims the Harper fragment is occipital bone and the defect is the entrance defect identified by Humes. He pretty much ignores that this placement means the large defect extended well onto the left side of the head, when the Parkland witnesses had indicated it was on the right side only. And he avoids that the beveling at what he calls an entrance is exit beveling, and that pretty much all if not all the doctors studying the medical evidence claim what he calls an entrance, is an exit. I believe he has indicated as well that the bullet entering near the EOP did not exit, and was found and removed at autopsy. Note: this might be one of Horne's claims that is not shared by Mantik. So... bullet #1 enters near the EOP and does not exit. Well, this leaves him without an explanation for what he claims was the blow-out on the occipital bone. So he claims there was an entrance by the temple that blasted out the back of the head. Now, his placement for this entrance puts it right where I long ago pointed out is the location of the bullet defect on the Harper fragment when the fragment is properly oriented, only to have Mantik and his attack dogs engage in a prolonged attack on my character, which only came to an end when the Wecht family intervened and asked Mantik and I to debate at the 2013 Wecht Conference, where Mantik finally admitted I was correct. (But not for long--I recently viewed a 2021 presentation in which he has returned to making his false claim the bullet defect on the Harper fragment is at the top of the head in the Angel orientation--something he admitted wasn't true back in 2013). In any event... bullet #2 enters near the temple and blows out the Harper fragment...which is kind of weird when you think of it. Wouldn't a bullet creating a large defect create a hole near the middle of that defect, or on bone on the margins of that defect? Mantik cites no hole and no such defect. The only bullet defect he claims for the Harper fragment is the entrance by the EOP. Now here's where things get tricky/stinky. For over 20 years Mantik has been claiming there was a bullet entrance on the forehead. When doing so he has misrepresented the statements of Tom Robinson, who said there was a tiny hole that was not a bullet entrance by the temple, and then later on that there were two or three tiny holes on the cheek. In any event, Mantik has routinely claimed Robinson saw a bullet entrance high on the forehead, that was not observed by others. But no, he has now taken to claiming the spot of blood Marion Jenkins thought he saw by the left temple which was presumed to have confused McClelland was actually a bullet hole on the right forehead. And, If I'm not mistaken, that McCelland had in fact observed this as well, even though McClelland had long-claimed he saw no such wound. Well, it should come as no surprise then that Mantik would encourage Chesser to go to the Archives, and that Chesser would come out claiming there was evidence for an entrance wound high on the forehead on the lateral x-rays that had gone unnoticed and unreported by all the radiologists to view the x-rays...that was not visible on the A-P x-ray in which the forehead is featured. Well, okay, so why was this largely unsupported and unsupportable entrance wound necessary? Well, Mantik had long observed that the "trail of fragments" on the skull x-rays ran pretty much straight across the head, and that was inconsistent with trajectories of BOTH the bullet entering by the EOP and the bullet he presumes entered near the temple and exited low on the skull. So a third bullet was required. I mean, why not, the more the merrier. So where did this bullet exit? Well, he has it exit at the beveled bone on the mystery photo, which, he interprets as existing at the LEFT side of the back of the head--due to his placement of the Harper fragment within the photo. So...yeah, Mantik and Horne claim a bullet entered high on the right forehead (where no credible witness noted a wound) and exit from the left side of the head (where no witness of any kind saw a wound). And that's bullet #3. Well, there's still a back wound and throat wound, which Mantik attributes to separate bullets, with the bullet creating the back wound falling out and the throat wound being caused by a shard of glass created when a bullet passed though the windshield. Now, I tend to agree with the former, but the glass shard theory was debunked decades ago when clear copies of Altgens' photos became available which proved the the crack on the windshield appeared at the time of the head shot, and not at the timeJFK reached towards his throat. Pat Speer wrote: Quote For over 20 years Mantik has been claiming there was a bullet entrance on the forehead. When doing so he has misrepresented the statements of Tom Robinson, who said there was a tiny hole that was not a bullet entrance by the temple, and then later on that there were two or three tiny holes on the cheek. In any event, Mantik has routinely claimed Robinson saw a bullet entrance high on the forehead, that was not observed by others. I think it is you, rather than Dr. Mantik, who is misrepresenting mortician Tom Robinson's testimony. The sleight of hand parlor trick you are playing when characterizing Robinson's testimony as meaning "there was a tiny hole that was not a bullet entrance by the temple" misleads by implying that Tom Robinson believed the right temple wound could not have been caused by a bullet, or alternatively, that it could have been caused by a bullet, but was an exit wound rather than an entrance wound. As can be seen by reading Robinson's actual testimony below, Robinson did in fact testify that the right temple wound could have been caused by a piece of a bullet, by shrapnel or by a piece of bone. And as to Robinson's statement that it was an exit wound rather than an entrance, it would become clear in Robinson's Assassination Records Review Board interview that he was relying entirely on what he had overheard the pathologists saying at the Bethesda Morgue which accounts for his opinion that it was an exit wound; and pertinent to that fact is the likelihood that the pathologists were engaged in a cover-up of evidence of frontal bullet entry wounds. Thus, both Robinson's statement that the cause was a piece of a bullet -- rather than an intact bullet -- and that it was an exit wound rather than an entry wound cannot be regarded as a definitive expert opinion, as Robinson was not a pathologist or a ballistics expert, and the opinion was based merely on what he overheard pathologists saying (pathologists who were engaged in a cover-up). THOMAS EVAN ROBINSON INTERVIEW - ARRB MD 63 - Robinson-Purdy HSCA Interviews (1/12/77) https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=327 "...PURDY: Did you notice anything else unusual about the body which may have been artificially caused, that is, caused by something other than the autopsy? ROBINSON: Probably, a little mark at the temple 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 the 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... PAGE 3 PURDY: You say it was in the forehead region up near the hair line? ROBINSON: Yes. PURDY: Would you say it was closer to the hair? ROBINSON: Somewhere around the temples. PURDY: Approximately what size? ROBINSON: Very small, 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 on it. PURDY: Were you the one that was responsible for closing these wounds in the head? ROBINSON: Well, we all worked on it. Once the body was embalmed arterially and they brought a piece of heavy duty rubber, again to fill the area (area in the back of the head) I remember treating the . . . organs, like I said, we all tried to help one another. PURDY: O.K., you had to close the wound in the back of the head using the rubber, what other work had to be done on the head? ROBINSON: It had to be all dried out, packed and the rubber placed in the hair and the skin pulled back over it as much as possible and stitched into that piece of rubber. They were afraid again of leaks, once the body is moved or shaken in the casket and carried up the Capitol steps and opened again, we had to be very careful, there would have been blood on the pillow. PURDY: Was there any other work that you had to do on the head? ROBINSON: I did the make up, cosmetic. PURDY: Were there any other wounds on the head other than the little one in the right temple area, and the big one in the back? ROBINSON: THAT'S ALL (emphasis not in original). PAGE 4 PURDY: Did you have to shave the head so you could tell if there were other wounds? ROBINSON: No. In fact, we wanted the hair there to hide as much as possible. Putting the head into the pillow of the head of the casket would have hidden everything. PURDY: Do you think it was possible that there was some other wound under the hair? Did you look for other wounds? ROBINSON: Oh yes, we would have found that. PURDY: So you are satisfied in your professional experience that there were no other significant wound of the head? ROBINSON: I stayed on the left side of the body throughout the whole thing. PURDY: Did you get a good look at that wound on the right temple area? ROBINSON: Oh yes, I worked right over for some time. PURDY: What did you feel caused that wound? ROBINSON: I think either a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet. Or a very small piece of shrapnel...." ABOVE: TOM ROBINSON'S ARRB SKETCH OF THE RIGHT TEMPLE WOUND I believe it is not beyond your understanding -- though it may be for some of your readers -- that Tom Robinson was not a pathologist nor a ballistics expert, so when saying that the right temple wound was an exit wound, and that it was caused either by a piece of bone, a piece of a bullet, or a small piece of shrapnel, he was not giving his own professional opinion, but was relying on what he had heard the pathologists say at the Bethesda morgue (pathologists who were engineering a cover-up to conceal the evidence of gunshots from the front). The following is page 3 of the ARRB Meeting Report Summarizing the 6/21/96 In-Person Interview of Tom Robinson which makes it clear that Robinson was basing his opinions about the nature of the wound upon the conversations of the pathologists that he had overheard: 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 One thing there can be no doubt about, based upon Robinson's HSCA and ARRB testimony, is that he described the large avulsive wound in the back of JFK's head. Should there be any remaining doubt about that, the following is Tom Robinson demonstrating the location of the back of the head wound on film: Mortician Tom Robinson Demonstrates JFK Back of the Head Wound Location and Discusses Missing Brain https://youtu.be/QnoUuvNbgo4?si=wgt1o4UkdZkmbHfM Edited March 29 by Keven Hofeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 (edited) 3 hours ago, Pat Speer said: I'm not the one spinning here. Let us know when you've studied dozens of interviews with Newman and talked to him on numerous occasions. Here he is in the Moorman photo, looking at the back of JFK's head as he p[asses by, at the precise moment of the bullet's impact. And where did he see an explosion, the only explosion he saw? By the ear. Where it is proved to be in the photos you and your fellow obstructors so desperately desperately need to believe are fake. And why? Because in your limited imaginations you think the best proof for a conspiracy is a proof the photographic and medical evidence is fake. Well this is folly, as the photographic and medical evidence has always, always, suggested a conspiracy, and the claims the evidence is fake have proved disastrous for the research community. While your tenacity is laudable, I'm not about to let you get away with pulling the wool over our eyes. It is abundantly clear from the hand gesture Bill Newman is here making -- while saying "I can remember seeing the side of the President's ear and head come off. I remember a flash of white and the red and just bit and pieces of flesh exploding from the President's head" -- that he was conscious of the blood, brain and skull being blown out of the back of the President's head, and that to him this was distinguishable from the entry of the bullet into the right temple as he demonstrated by pointing to his right temple on the day of the assassination. This slow-motion footage of Newman's hand gesture made while saying "I can remember seeing the side of the President's ear and head come off. I remember a flash of white and the red and just bit and pieces of flesh exploding from the President's head" emphasizes, highlights and underscores my point: And the following is the video of Bill Newman giving the description and making the hand gesture demonstrating the wound at regular speed: BILL NEWMAN: "...I can remember seeing the side of the President's ear and head come off. I remember a flash of white and the red and just bit and pieces of flesh exploding from the President's head..." [Bill Newman interviewed about the JFK assassination -- https://youtu.be/REg7PQK2YdQ] With his description of seeing the President's ear blown off, Newman is clearly describing the blood, brain and skull that so many others witnessed being ejected from the back of JFK's head, but the split-second glimpse that he had of it left him with the impression that the ear was blown off when actually it was the back of the head exploding behind the ear that Newman had seen. Newman may not have done the best job articulating it, but the above makes it clear that he is describing the exit wound as being distinct from the entry wound that he described and demonstrated with his finger pointing to his temple on 11/22/1963, as follows: Pat Speer wrote: Quote Where it is proved to be in the photos you and your fellow obstructors so desperately desperately need to believe are fake. And why? Because in your limited imaginations you think the best proof for a conspiracy is a proof the photographic and medical evidence is fake. Well this is folly, as the photographic and medical evidence has always, always, suggested a conspiracy, and the claims the evidence is fake have proved disastrous for the research community. The real takeaway from this portion of your comment is "[w]ell this is folly, as the photographic and medical evidence has always, always, suggested a conspiracy, and the claims the evidence is fake have proved disastrous for the research community." The truth is that your whole project is to protect the fraudulent photographic and X-ray evidence with a limited hangout scenario that merely "suggests" a conspiracy because the alternative you are striving to avoid is widespread knowledge and acceptance of the evidence of photographic fakery because that PROVES a high-level government conspiracy, not just suggests one. What in truth would be damaging to the research community is wide acceptance of the snake oil you are offering which protects the fraudulent evidence and validates the government cover-story of the assassination. And what do I mean by proof, some may ask? With regard to the back of the head autopsy photographs you so endeavor to protect -- so much so that you do rhetorical summersaults attempting to discredit autopsy photographer John Stringers's admissions that he did indeed see and photograph the large avulsive back of the head wound -- we have Dr. David Mantik's stereoscopic testing of the "original" back of the head autopsy photographs at the National Archives which proves that a matte insert is covering the occipital parietal wound in those photographs: Dr. David Mantik on Stereoscopic Testing of JFK Back of the Head Autopsy Photographs at NARA https://youtu.be/A7bgTvZBmcA Dr. David Mantik subjected the "original" back-of-the-head autopsy photographs to stereoscopic testing at the National Archives and found that there is a soft matte insert covering the occipital-parietal wound, thus we are dealing with photographic forgery in these photographs and not body substitution. John Stringer, the autopsy photographer, is on record that he took photographs of the large avulsive occipital-parietal wound in the back of JFK's head, and the ARRB collected many references to those photographs during their depositions of the medical witnesses. Those photographs are among approximately 18 autopsy photographs that have been purged from the extant inventory: "...LIFTON: "When you lifted him out, was the main damage to the skull on the top or in the back?" STRINGER: "In the back." LIFTON: "In the back?...High in the back or lower in the back?" STRINGER: "In the occipital part, in the back there, up above the neck." LIFTON: "In other words, the main part of his head that was blasted away was in the occipital part of the skull?" STRINGER: "Yes. In the back part." LIFTON: "The back portion. Okay. In other words, there was no five-inch hole in the top of the skull?" STRINGER: "Oh, some of it was blown off--yes, I mean, toward, out of the top in the back, yes." LIFTON: "Top in the back. But the top in the front was pretty intact?" STRINGER: "Yes, sure." LIFTON: "The top front was intact?" STRINGER: "Right." Lifton, unsatisfied with precisely what Stringer may have meant by the 'back of the head' asked, as he had asked McHugh, if by "back of the head" Stringer meant the portion of the head that rests on the rear portion of a bathtub during bathing. Stringer replied, "Yes."--as had McHugh (BE, p.516)..." http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm ----------------------------------------------- ASSASSINATION RECORDS REVIEW BOARD MD 84: Transcript (Copyright David S. Lifton 1972 All Rights Reserved) Excerpts of Telephone Interview of John T. Stringer Conducted by David S. Lifton on August 25, 1972 https://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md84.pdf FLOYD RIEBE, BETHESDA ASSISTANT PHOTOGRAPHER, SAYING BACK OF HEAD WOUND MISSING FROM BOH PHTOGRAPHS -- https://youtu.be/ukdU2E8prZ0 Edited March 29 by Keven Hofeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 4 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said: While your tenacity is laudable, I'm not about to let you get away with pulling the wool over our eyes. It is abundantly clear from the hand gesture Bill Newman is here making -- while saying "I can remember seeing the side of the President's ear and head come off. I remember a flash of white and the red and just bit and pieces of flesh exploding from the President's head" -- that he was conscious of the blood, brain and skull being blown out of the back of the President's head, and that to him this was distinguishable from the entry of the bullet into the right temple as he demonstrated by pointing to his right temple on the day of the assassination. This slow-motion footage of Newman's hand gesture made while saying "I can remember seeing the side of the President's ear and head come off. I remember a flash of white and the red and just bit and pieces of flesh exploding from the President's head" emphasizes, highlights and underscores my point: And the following is the video of Bill Newman giving the description and making the hand gesture demonstrating the wound at regular speed: BILL NEWMAN: "...I can remember seeing the side of the President's ear and head come off. I remember a flash of white and the red and just bit and pieces of flesh exploding from the President's head..." [Bill Newman interviewed about the JFK assassination -- https://youtu.be/REg7PQK2YdQ] With his description of seeing the President's ear blown off, Newman is clearly describing the blood, brain and skull that so many others witnessed being ejected from the back of JFK's head, but the split-second glimpse that he had of it left him with the impression that the ear was blown off when actually it was the back of the head exploding behind the ear that Newman had seen. Newman may not have done the best job articulating it, but the above makes it clear that he is describing the exit wound as being distinct from the entry wound that he described and demonstrated with his finger pointing to his temple on 11/22/1963, as follows: Pat Speer wrote: The real takeaway from this portion of your comment is "[w]ell this is folly, as the photographic and medical evidence has always, always, suggested a conspiracy, and the claims the evidence is fake have proved disastrous for the research community." The truth is that your whole project is to protect the fraudulent photographic and X-ray evidence with a limited hangout scenario that merely "suggests" a conspiracy because the alternative you are striving to avoid is widespread knowledge and acceptance of the evidence of photographic fakery because that PROVES a high-level government conspiracy, not just suggests one. What in truth would be damaging to the research community is wide acceptance of the snake oil you are offering which protects the fraudulent evidence and validates the government cover-story of the assassination. And what do I mean by proof, some may ask? With regard to the back of the head autopsy photographs you so endeavor to protect -- so much so that you do rhetorical summersaults attempting to discredit autopsy photographer John Stringers's admissions that he did indeed see and photograph the large avulsive back of the head wound -- we have Dr. David Mantik's stereoscopic testing of the "original" back of the head autopsy photographs at the National Archives which proves that a matte insert is covering the occipital parietal wound in those photographs: Dr. David Mantik on Stereoscopic Testing of JFK Back of the Head Autopsy Photographs at NARA https://youtu.be/A7bgTvZBmcA Dr. David Mantik subjected the "original" back-of-the-head autopsy photographs to stereoscopic testing at the National Archives and found that there is a soft matte insert covering the occipital-parietal wound, thus we are dealing with photographic forgery in these photographs and not body substitution. John Stringer, the autopsy photographer, is on record that he took photographs of the large avulsive occipital-parietal wound in the back of JFK's head, and the ARRB collected many references to those photographs during their depositions of the medical witnesses. Those photographs are among approximately 18 autopsy photographs that have been purged from the extant inventory: "...LIFTON: "When you lifted him out, was the main damage to the skull on the top or in the back?" STRINGER: "In the back." LIFTON: "In the back?...High in the back or lower in the back?" STRINGER: "In the occipital part, in the back there, up above the neck." LIFTON: "In other words, the main part of his head that was blasted away was in the occipital part of the skull?" STRINGER: "Yes. In the back part." LIFTON: "The back portion. Okay. In other words, there was no five-inch hole in the top of the skull?" STRINGER: "Oh, some of it was blown off--yes, I mean, toward, out of the top in the back, yes." LIFTON: "Top in the back. But the top in the front was pretty intact?" STRINGER: "Yes, sure." LIFTON: "The top front was intact?" STRINGER: "Right." Lifton, unsatisfied with precisely what Stringer may have meant by the 'back of the head' asked, as he had asked McHugh, if by "back of the head" Stringer meant the portion of the head that rests on the rear portion of a bathtub during bathing. Stringer replied, "Yes."--as had McHugh (BE, p.516)..." http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm ----------------------------------------------- ASSASSINATION RECORDS REVIEW BOARD MD 84: Transcript (Copyright David S. Lifton 1972 All Rights Reserved) Excerpts of Telephone Interview of John T. Stringer Conducted by David S. Lifton on August 25, 1972 https://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md84.pdf FLOYD RIEBE, BETHESDA ASSISTANT PHOTOGRAPHER, SAYING BACK OF HEAD WOUND MISSING FROM BOH PHTOGRAPHS -- https://youtu.be/ukdU2E8prZ0 Oh c'mon. You just keep digging and digging a deeper grave for your arguments. Just stop. Newman saw ONE explosion on the skull. ONE. And he said it was by the temple and ear. We didn't realize what happened until we seen the side of his head, when the bullet hit him. we seen him get shot in the side of the head. I was looking directly at him when he was hit in the side of the head. At that time he heard the bullet strike the president and saw flesh fly from the President’s head. (When asked about a drawing in which he depicted the fatal bullet's striking Kennedy by his ear) "That's what I saw. The way he was hit, it looked like he had just been hit with a baseball pitch, just like a block of wood fell over his... (When it was pointed out to him that he was moving his head backwards and to the left, and his drawing had depicted a wound by the ear) "In my opinion the ear went." (When asked again if his impression was that the bullet entered the side of the head) "Right. Right. My thoughts were that the shot entered there and apparently the thoughts of the Warren Commission were that the shot came out that side.” that is when the third shot was fired and it hit him in the side of the head right above the ear and his ear come off… I observed his ear flying off, and he turned just real white and then blood red, just as the President's car got directly in front of me, the President was probably fifteen feet away, Boom, and the side of his ear flew off, and justa, bits and pieces flew off. I can remember seeing just a white flash, and then the red, and the President fell across the car I can remember seeing the side of the President’s ear and head come off. I remember a flash of white and red and just bits and pieces of flesh exploding from the President’s head. he got nearer to us, and, bam, a shot took the right side of his head off. His ear flew off. I remember seeing the side of his head come off. I could see the white and then all of a sudden the red... (When asked if it hit him in the temple) "It appeared yes right in this area here (as he motions to his right temple) on the side of his head" I can remember seeing the side of President Kennedy's head blow off. There was black matter and then grayish It appeared to me that it hit him on the side of the head, as the side of his head came off. I thought the shot came from directly behind us in the grassy knoll area. The only basis I had for that was what I visually saw: the President going across the car and seeing the side of his head come off. I can remember seeing the side of President Kennedy's head come off, and I thought his ear came off. I was kinda dumbfounded to hear these people saying that, when just minutes earlier I'd seen the side of his head come off." It was the visual impact that it had on me more so than the noise--seeing the side of the President's head blow off I knew most definitely that was a gunshot and the side of his head blew off, you could see the white matter and the red and he fell across the seat I can recall seeing the side of President Kennedy's head blow off. I could see a mass of white and then the blood and fragments. I can recall seeing the side of President Kennedy's head fly off, Ten, 12 feet in front of us, the third shot rang out, and that's when the side of his head flew off Seeing the side of the President's head blow off, seeing the president go across the car seat into Mrs. Kennedy's lap, in her direction, it gave me the sensation that the shots were coming from directly behind me the third shot rang out, and the side of President Kennedy's head blew off (as he says this he reaches for his temple). We seen the brain matter and the blood fly off. And there's plenty more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 8 minutes ago, Pat Speer said: Oh c'mon. You just keep digging and digging a deeper grave for your arguments. Just stop. Newman saw ONE explosion on the skull. ONE. And he said it was by the temple and ear. We didn't realize what happened until we seen the side of his head, when the bullet hit him. we seen him get shot in the side of the head. I was looking directly at him when he was hit in the side of the head. At that time he heard the bullet strike the president and saw flesh fly from the President’s head. (When asked about a drawing in which he depicted the fatal bullet's striking Kennedy by his ear) "That's what I saw. The way he was hit, it looked like he had just been hit with a baseball pitch, just like a block of wood fell over his... (When it was pointed out to him that he was moving his head backwards and to the left, and his drawing had depicted a wound by the ear) "In my opinion the ear went." (When asked again if his impression was that the bullet entered the side of the head) "Right. Right. My thoughts were that the shot entered there and apparently the thoughts of the Warren Commission were that the shot came out that side.” that is when the third shot was fired and it hit him in the side of the head right above the ear and his ear come off… I observed his ear flying off, and he turned just real white and then blood red, just as the President's car got directly in front of me, the President was probably fifteen feet away, Boom, and the side of his ear flew off, and justa, bits and pieces flew off. I can remember seeing just a white flash, and then the red, and the President fell across the car I can remember seeing the side of the President’s ear and head come off. I remember a flash of white and red and just bits and pieces of flesh exploding from the President’s head. he got nearer to us, and, bam, a shot took the right side of his head off. His ear flew off. I remember seeing the side of his head come off. I could see the white and then all of a sudden the red... (When asked if it hit him in the temple) "It appeared yes right in this area here (as he motions to his right temple) on the side of his head" I can remember seeing the side of President Kennedy's head blow off. There was black matter and then grayish It appeared to me that it hit him on the side of the head, as the side of his head came off. I thought the shot came from directly behind us in the grassy knoll area. The only basis I had for that was what I visually saw: the President going across the car and seeing the side of his head come off. I can remember seeing the side of President Kennedy's head come off, and I thought his ear came off. I was kinda dumbfounded to hear these people saying that, when just minutes earlier I'd seen the side of his head come off." It was the visual impact that it had on me more so than the noise--seeing the side of the President's head blow off I knew most definitely that was a gunshot and the side of his head blew off, you could see the white matter and the red and he fell across the seat I can recall seeing the side of President Kennedy's head blow off. I could see a mass of white and then the blood and fragments. I can recall seeing the side of President Kennedy's head fly off, Ten, 12 feet in front of us, the third shot rang out, and that's when the side of his head flew off Seeing the side of the President's head blow off, seeing the president go across the car seat into Mrs. Kennedy's lap, in her direction, it gave me the sensation that the shots were coming from directly behind me the third shot rang out, and the side of President Kennedy's head blew off (as he says this he reaches for his temple). We seen the brain matter and the blood fly off. And there's plenty more. Bill Newman is here making it obvious what he means by "the side of his head." This slow-motion footage of Newman's hand gesture made while saying "I can remember seeing the side of the President's ear and head come off. I remember a flash of white and the red and just bit and pieces of flesh exploding from the President's head" emphasizes, highlights and underscores my point: And the following is the video of Bill Newman giving the description and making the hand gesture demonstrating the wound at regular speed: BILL NEWMAN: "...I can remember seeing the side of the President's ear and head come off. I remember a flash of white and the red and just bit and pieces of flesh exploding from the President's head..." [Bill Newman interviewed about the JFK assassination -- https://youtu.be/REg7PQK2YdQ] You've presented nothing that rebuts this: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Schwartz Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 Pat, Dr. Mantik is stressing his forensic analysis of the xrays of JFK's head after the big event for his conclusions. That was the impression I got by listening to him on the radio last week. And, that was the impression I got from listening to his and Dr. Chesser's presentations last year. Lastly, Doug Horne seems to be in agreement with Dr. Mantik's conclusions. I do not have Dr. Mantik's new book, but he stated that his conclusions based on his forensic analysis of JFK's xrays are supported by documentation that are in this new book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 (edited) 4 hours ago, Chuck Schwartz said: Pat, Dr. Mantik is stressing his forensic analysis of the xrays of JFK's head after the big event for his conclusions. That was the impression I got by listening to him on the radio last week. And, that was the impression I got from listening to his and Dr. Chesser's presentations last year. Lastly, Doug Horne seems to be in agreement with Dr. Mantik's conclusions. I do not have Dr. Mantik's new book, but he stated that his conclusions based on his forensic analysis of JFK's xrays are supported by documentation that are in this new book. I'm sorry, Chuck. But I know Mantik and am aware of his claims and methodology. There is little to be learned from him, IMO. And I am not alone. I have spent time with the most prominent writers on the medical evidence, and they almost uniformly claim 1) Mantik is a nice man, and 2) Mantik's conclusions are unreliable or worse. Here are but three examples. Tom Robinson told the HSCA he thought there was a tiny wound by the temple that was not an entrance wound for a bullet, and then told the ARRB that there were two or three of these tiny wounds...on Kennedy's right cheek. Well, this led Dr. Mantik to claim Robinson was probably describing a bullet entrance high on the forehead. NONE of the top researchers, the long-time researchers, believe this, and a number of them have confided that they think his pretending Robinson's description of a tiny cheek wound was a bullet hole on the forehead is an embarrassment. That's one. Here's a second. A number of autopsy witnesses said the largest fragment at autopsy was removed from behind the right eye. Dr. Lattimer, a lone-nutter, then wrote a book claiming he spotted this fragment on the x-rays...in the middle of the forehead. Mantik then began echoing this nonsense, even while noting that the fragment in the middle of the forehead on the x-rays could not be the fragment in the archives. Well, I came along and realized Mantik was right--that the fragment in the middle of the forehead was not the fragment in the archives, that was removed during the autopsy. I then looked for this fragment behind the right eye on the x-rays. And found it right where the doctors said they'd found it. But Mantik couldn't accept this because he'd built his reputation on his claim the largest fragment on the x-rays was on the back of the head, and not behind the right eye. And tried to convince everyone the fragment I'd identified must have been a bone fragment...which just so happened to be exactly where the doctors and others said there had been a missile fragment. Now that wouldn't be so bad if he explained this to his audience. But he doesn't. Instead he routinely tells them the fragment on the middle of the forehead is the fragment behind the right eye removed by Dr. Humes, which he knows to be untrue. Here's a third. He rose to prominence by claiming the white patch on the lateral x-ray covered a hole on the back of the head. As he had also claimed the Harper Fragment was occipital bone, this led them to claim the white patch covered up the hole from which the Harper fragment had been blasted. I then entered the fray and realized his placement of the Harper fragment put it on the very back of the head, rearward of the white patch. He then switched gears and said he'd never claimed the white patch covered missing bone, and that it actually covered missing brain. And eventually took to claiming the area to the rear of the white patch on the x-rays is an illusion, and that the skull in that area is actually missing, and that this was the former home of the Harper fragment. So, yeah he says the back of the head is missing on the lateral x-ray, but that only he can see it, with the help of his optical densitometer. Well, this is classic junk science. Mantik has been pushing this for years, and not a single radiologist has signed off on his conclusions. A more than 2 inch triangle of missing bone would be apparent to the naked eye on a lateral x-ray. Obviously. Edited March 30 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 12 minutes ago, Pat Speer said: I'm sorry, Chuck. But I know Mantik and am aware of his claims and methodology. There is little to be learned from him, IMO. @Chuck Schwartz A word to the wise: Mr. Speer is rather notorious for harboring deep and profound resentments against Dr. David Mantik for his suspected role in authoring "The (JFK) Windmills of Pat Speer," as follows: https://assassinationofjfk.net/jfk-windmills-pat-speer/ The (JFK) Windmills of Pat Speer GREG BURNHAM 21 MIN READ The (JFK) Windmills of Pat Speer: A Sorrowful Knight Errant[1] in the Land of “Education” Pen Name: Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra[2] March 12, 2016 NOTE: This discussion responds to messages posted via the online Education Forum[3] (January 31 through February 22, 2016). Most of these messages relate to our questing knight (ironically named Speer), hereafter known as Don Quixote.[4] The rather disjointed sequence seen here merely follows the trail laid down on the Forum. Questions in red are tilting items provided for our knight (to attempt) to attack. Aldonza: “All right, you’re a squire. How does a squire squire?” Sancho Panza: “Well first, I ride behind him. Then he fights. And then I pick him up off the ground.” —— Panza: “Many a man has gone to bed feeling well, only to wake up the next morning and find himself dead.” Quixote: “That’s a proverb.” Panza: “Yes, Your Grace.” Quixote: “I don’t approve of them.” —— Cervantes: “Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.” QUIXOTE: Dr. Mantik has long held that the Harper Fragment (HF) sprang from the middle of the back of the head. CERVANTES: HF did arise from the upper occipital bone, but the large visible defect (in the occiput) was centered to the right of midline. (See the first and second figures below.) The entire posterior defect consisted not only of HF, but also of missing bone superior to HF, and also the hinged bone fragment immediately to the right of HF—particularly when it swung outward.[5] Therefore it is misleading to equate HF to the entire occipital defect. Unfortunately, nearly everyone makes this mistake. QUIXOTE: These measurements and descriptions (of the large skull defect) are almost certainly for the wound as observed after the scalp was peeled back. CERVANTES: Quixote offers no supporting data for this argument. On the other hand, if Humes had performed an illicit examination before the official autopsy (as now seems highly likely), Quixote’s comments might even be deemed to support such a scenario, although that is probably not what he intended. PANZA: I’m starting to become Mantik-depressive.[6] CERVANTES: You’re just playing with Mantik-semantics. QUIXOTE: No large scalp lacerations in the occipital region were noted at the autopsy. CERVANTES: The wound, however, did extend into the occiput. The official autopsy report, after all, explicitly states that, and so does Finck’s report (to Gen. Blumberg), and Boswell’s sketch actually demonstrates it. Ebersole also cited the occipital defect to both the HSCA and to others, including a recorded conversation with Mantik. PANZA: I don’t know how it’s possible to prove any conclusion about JFK’s wounds. CERVANTES: Well, how about looking at the X-rays, as discussed and described in Mantik’s e-book?[7] Do you trust the X-rays to show where bone was missing? If so, there is no need to be so pessimistic. PANZA: If a genie gave me one wish as to the assassination, I would wish to see complete photographs of JFK’s head and upper body taken at Parkland. CERVANTES: Well, we do have X-rays taken at Bethesda. Do you not trust those, especially to demonstrate where bone was missing? QUIXOTE: The wound was centered on the top right side of the head, and not far back on the head. CERVANTES: Based on the X-rays, as well as several observant witnesses, that is correct. However, the most visible part of the wound (at Parkland) lay in the upper occiput, where so many witnesses describe it. Some observers merely failed to observe the full extent of the hole, which actually extended (according to the X-rays) all the way to the hairline at the forehead. This final skull defect was the composite result of three headshots,[8] including an oblique shot that entered near the right ear, and then exited in the right upper occiput. This oblique shot caused the obvious posterior hole seen by so many. Although the Parkland doctors did not pretend to fully explore the head wound, they often described it as extensive, including the top right, side, and back of the head, nearly to the external occipital protuberance (EOP). Boswell’s sketch is consistent with this. On the other hand, when Quixote claims that the wound was right temporal (but not occipital), he has chosen to disagree directly with the autopsy report, and with many, many witnesses, and even with the X-rays. And does Quixote acknowledge that the wound even extended into the frontal bone, all the way to the hairline—as both Mantik and Fitzpatrick have reported?[9] Even neurosurgeon Dr. Clark clearly stated that the wound extended posteriorly to just above the EOP—where he saw cerebellum, as did a total of nine Parkland physicians.[10] Does Quixote truly doubt all nine of these physicians? CERVANTES: Then there is the curious case of Kenneth Salyer,[11] who Quixote likes to cite. Has Quixote actually read Salyer’s autobiography,[12] in which he offers these recollections? The whole right side [emphasis added] of Kennedy’s cranium had been blown away by a gunshot blast. Much of the right side [emphasis added] of his brain had been destroyed as well, and the remainder was exposed by a gaping hole in his skull. Does that sound like the wound abruptly stopped short of the right occiput and spared the entire occipital lobe and cerebellum? Of course, Salyer has admitted that he was standing on the wrong side of the table—and did not get an optimal view of the right-sided wound. See Ms. Cranor’s pointed comments on the Forum about this embarrassing admission. PANZA: The only way I could get to the bottom of it was to start from scratch, that is, by reading every bit of testimony…and by reading forensic journals. CERVANTES: Although that is laudable, why not also review the X-rays carefully? There are, after all, fairly good copies in the public domain. You might even read Dr. Fitzpatrick’s report.[13] PANZA: I appreciate Michael Walton’s GIF published above and I’m pleased to see that many researchers are starting to come around to the scenario as outlined by both Ms. Cranor and Quixote. The (JFK) Windmills of Pat Speer CERVANTES: Ms. Cranor has outlined various possibilities to show interesting, albeit conflicting, patterns—but she does not endorse any of them. As for the pattern she described in “The Third Wound,”[14] she has said that such a scenario would result in damage very different from that seen in the extant X-rays. And, regarding the beveled wound in the GIF, it should be emphasized that the autopsy report does not mention it—and when Humes was asked (by the ARRB) to identify the entry site he again ignored the beveled site.[15] The major problem with the GIF is its orientation of the mystery photo (F8). That photo has now been properly oriented—via the stereo viewing of Mantik, Chesser, and Robert Kirschner, the forensic pathologist for the ARRB (Assassination Records Review Board).[16] That GIF has the wrong orientation. The correct orientation is shown here:[17] QUIXOTE: I believe the autopsy photos are authentic. CERVANTES: The brain photos show nearly intact frontal brain on both left and right sides. The lateral X-rays show nearly zero frontal brain on both sides—confirmed repeatedly by optical density data. Where have you addressed this deep paradox? And what do you really make of Stringer’s statements about not taking the brain photos? Why do you ignore this profoundly troubling matter? And who actually took those brain photos? QUIXOTE: Most Parkland witnesses ended up saying they thought the autopsy photos were legit. CERVANTES: Actually what they said was something like this: If the scalp had been pulled down to cover the hole then, sure, the photos were legitimate. Short of that assumption though, why did so many Parkland MDs initially fail to recognize the autopsy photos?[18] QUIXOTE: As for myself, I am 99.99% convinced the autopsy photos and x-rays prove there was more than one shooter. As a consequence, I strongly doubt they’re fake. CERVANTES: How then do you explain that 6.5 mm fragment?[19] In Mantik’s critique of your work,[20] he pointed out that your explanation of the 6.5 mm object leads to a profound paradox: If the Outer Table Fragment (which lies on the posterior skull on the lateral X-ray) does not correlate (in 3D) to the 6.5 mm object (on the AP X-ray), then where do we see the correlate of the Outer Table Fragment on the AP X-ray? This is the most dumbfounding—and straightforward—question that Quixote has evaded. After all this time, when will he finally confront that paradox? And, what does he really think about optical density data (in general)?[21] QUIXOTE: I question the memory of all witnesses. CERVANTES: This is unnecessary bravado. It is well established that most witnesses are reliable if three conditions are met: 1) recollection is prompt, 2) the items recalled are significant, and 3) the items are not too complex. Why are you needlessly confounding this issue? PANZA: Without their testimony [i.e., the Parkland doctors], there is no massive hole in the back of JFK’s head. CERVANTES: You seem not to have looked at JFK’s X-rays, or even heard of the corroborating reports (for such a massive hole) of eight physicians at Bethesda.[22] Then there are the vanishing lambdoid suture lines at the back of the skull—on both sides. Both Mantik and Dr. Chesser have noted that missing sutures at these sites strongly support missing bone in the upper occiput—on both left and right sides.[23] See the Appendix here by Chesser. QUIXOTE: Mantik claims that HF came from low on the back of the head. CERVANTES: Actually his work denies that. Groden and others initially thought so, but Mantik disagrees. He places HF into the upper occiput. (See the figure below, where H represents HF in the upper occiput.)[24] QUIXOTE: Well, Mantik really blundered by not closely comparing the inner surface of HF to the inner surface of upper occipital bone. CERVANTES: Amazingly, your argument depends not on an actual photo of the inner surface of the skull, but rather on an artist’s drawing, as shown here (on the right): How can a generic drawing possibly be definitive—particularly when a unique patient is under discussion?[25] On the other hand, Mantik has offered an actual photo of the inner surface of an authentic skull: This is the interior of the occipital bone for the skull that Mantik purchased. Several occipital foramina are outlined with rectangles here. A faint vascular groove (red arrow) in parietal bone extends nearly to the lambdoid suture (yellow arrows), but does not quite reach occipital bone. In Mantik’s reconstruction, the Harper fragment lies entirely superior to the internal occipital protuberance (violet arrow). The sulcus for the superior sagittal sinus is identified by the blue arrow. This sulcus may also be visible on the inner surface of HF. The sulcus for the transverse sinus is identified by the cyan arrow. On Mantik’s actual skull that sulcus is actually quite deep but that 3D impression is lost in this 2D photograph. The superior sagittal sinus on HF may also have suffered from that loss of 3D depth. Of course, the three Dallas pathologists (Cairns, Harper, and Noteboom) did not have to rely on 2D photographs, so their observations might well be more trustworthy. Furthermore, and quite convincingly, a pathologist (Cairns–who actually held this bone in his hand) noted “inner markings that run around the base of the skull” on the inside of HF. This can only mean vascular grooves (in occipital bone), or else the sulcus for the superior sagittal sinus, which by definition would mean occipital bone. How do you explain Cairns’s comments—and why would all three pathologists agree on occipital bone? Was it because they had not seen that artist’s drawing? There is one more tantalizing issue here: JFK had Addison’s disease—for many years.[26] Take a look at this online site:[27] Chronic use of steroids (e.g., JFK) is often associated with osteoporosis. Not only can bones become thinner, but actual bone remodeling can occur. Although the professional literature strongly suggests that osteoporosis is not likely to occur in the skull, the critical question seems unanswered: Can bone remodeling, even without overt osteoporosis, occur in the skull? To be more specific: Could this mechanism have decreased the prominence of JFK’s sulci in the upper occipital bone? QUIXOTE: You [presumably meaning Mantik—even though he was not on the forum!] reach out to your longtime co-horts (sic), such as Greg Burnham and “Mili” Cranor, and ask their help in discrediting this wise-ass (sic). That’s my latest conspiracy theory, anyhow. CERVANTES: Mantik assures me that he did not even know about this specific discussion until a few days ago. Again, you are tilting at windmills—this time at windmills of your own mind.[28] CERVANTES: By the way, after all of these years, where have you provided your own reconstruction of the skull? That should, after all, have been one of the first steps in your argument. QUIXOTE: The witnesses to the shooting (Newmans, Zapruder, Hudson) overwhelmingly described the head wound as being by the temple, or right top of the head. CERVANTES: I notice that your list includes only witnesses who were located ahead of JFK. Do you think that is fair? In any case, your three witnesses are accepted—but they are only part of the story. Recall that old Indian tale of the Blind Men and the Elephant. PANZA: Does Quixote cherry pick witness testimony? Well, who doesn’t? CERVANTES: That’s an embarrassing retort. What do you make of Gary Aguilar’s list of occipital witnesses?[29] Note that they do not exclude a parietal wound, but they are astoundingly consistent about an occipital wound. That completely agrees with what we now know about witness reliability. They promptly recalled an event that was simple—and salient.[30] PANZA: I am really excited about Quixote’s excellent analysis of the mystery photo. The (JFK) Windmills of Pat Speer CERVANTES: Let’s see now: Did Quixote take a stereo viewer to NARA and examine multiple versions of the autopsy photos in 3D? Is his explanation to be trusted over three individuals (Mantik, Chesser, and Groden) who actually did this? Did he even discuss this with Mantik, Chesser, or Groden? And what about Groden’s observation with a stereo viewer—that the patch on the back of the head is 2D? Mantik also noticed this. Why is this occipital site the only anatomic location—in all of the autopsy photos—that appears 2D?[31] Surely that requires some explanation. PANZA: The research community is divided into two camps: (1) the back of the head blowout which relies heavily on witness testimony and believes the Z-film and autopsy photos and X-rays are faked, and (2) the group which believes the head wound damage was primarily above and in front of JFK’s right ear. CERVANTES: That is very curious indeed, as Mantik belongs exclusively to neither one of these groups. In fact, he can almost be squeezed into both groups! What does that mean? PANZA: Is the 10 x 6.5 cm fragment an accepted fact? CERVANTES: Hmm, perhaps Panza neglected reading Mantik’s detailed discussion (with multiple diagrams) of this bone fragment?[32] PANZA: Most researchers feel that beveling in a skull hole is evidence of an exit wound. CERVANTES: Then they are not very current with the forensic literature. (Again, see Fiester’s work.) PANZA: Quixote argues that the back of the head photo is authentic. CERVANTES: Has Quixote discussed the results of stereo viewing at NARA with anyone who has done this? Furthermore, what does he make of Humes’s comment that the red spot does not represent anything about a wound?[33] PANZA: I believe the fragments going down through the neck broke off a piece of bone and this bone fragment exited the throat. CERVANTES: Have you actually demonstrated this anatomically, i.e., how does this fragment pass through the skull, and then pass through an entire vertebral body, in order to exit at the midline of the throat? And why is there no evidence of bone fragments or bullet fragments on the neck X-rays?[34] Moreover, how do you explain the bruise at the top of the lung? It is really not kosher to simply state a conclusion such as this (especially not such an extraordinary one) without a shred of supporting evidence. PANZA: The temple wound is the one that caused the head snap. CERVANTES: No one in Dealey Plaza reported such a head snap—unless, of course, they happened first to see an altered Z-film.[35] And what about Rather[36] and DeLoach,[37] who both reported that JFK actually went forward (on that early version of the Z-film)? You might also check out Finck’s comments on viewing the Z-film.[38] And did you read Altgens’s similar comments about this?[39] QUIXOTE: Some have claimed (as cited on this Forum) that the White Patch covered the large hole (created by the absence of HF). Mantik eventually admitted this was nonsense—but only after I forced the issue. CERVANTES: Mantik has discussed this matter many times over the years–he has never said otherwise. Perhaps Quixote missed these lectures.[40] QUIXOTE: Mantik’s 2009 lecture at JFK Lancer “aggressively” attacked Quixote’s theory about the White Patch (as explained by overlapping bone). Mantik also neglected to tell the audience that Fitzpatrick had endorsed “Quixote’s Theory.” CERVANTES: Mantik merely provided optical density (OD) data that clearly showed that overlapping bone could not explain the White Patch. Furthermore, the overlapping bone was in the wrong location to explain the White Patch.[41] If providing quantitative data is “aggressive” then Webster’s Dictionary should be revised. Finally, anyone who reads Fitzpatrick for him (or her) self can readily see that Fitzpatrick was not trying to explain the White Patch via overlapping bone. Here is what Fitzpatrick actually said: “Overlapping bone is clearly present in the lateral skull X-Rays.”[42] Of course, that is obvious—no one can disagree with that. But that is not an explanation for the White Patch. It is not even an attempt to explain the White Patch. Quixote just made this up. QUIXOTE: But Mantik did place the (apparent lead) smudge on HF incorrectly at that 2009 Lancer conference. CERVANTES: Ah yes, he did, as he discussed and illustrated in detail in his e-book.[43] But this mistake had no significant consequences for the 2009 lecture. Furthermore, he did offer kudos to Quixote for identifying this mistake. On the other hand, when has Quixote ever offered similar kudos to others for mistakes that they have discovered in Quixote’s work? After all, many, many such mistakes have been pinpointed—even on this very Forum, e.g., see the potent critiques by Ms. Cranor (about Quixote’s disinformation skills).[44] CERVANTES: Let us be specific about this: Mantik’s critique of Quixote’s work (at the CTKA website)[45] listed 20 points, most of which identified mistakes in Quixote’s work. Amazingly enough, Quixote has never, after all of this time, dared to reply to these issues in any coherent fashion. When will this occur? And now Mantik has listed 15 self-consistent and corroborating reasons for placing HF into the upper occiput.[46] To date, Quixote has not risked a reply to these in any consistent or comprehensive fashion. When can this reply be expected? The (JFK) Windmills of Pat Speer Furthermore, can Quixote assemble an equivalent number of counter arguments for his own placement of HF? To date, such a list has appeared nowhere. On the contrary, Quixote has relied on several outlying comments by Parkland dissenters (who were typically not well located) and also on his inimitable and dubious interpretations of ambiguous images from the autopsy photographs. Furthermore, these interpretations have typically been unique to his personal conceptual framework. Based on remarkably detailed X-ray observations at NARA, Dr. Chesser has recently reported minute metal fragments embedded in the anterior skull.[47] These can only be explained by a frontal bullet. How does Quixote explain this in his scenario of four posterior bullets—and no frontal bullet? Does he deny that these minute fragments are authentic? Chesser has also journeyed to the JFK library in Boston and taken OD data from the actual JFK pre-mortem, lateral X-ray. At the most recent JFK Lancer conference (November 2015), Mantik and Chesser compared OD measurements in the area of the White Patch,[48] i.e., between the pre-mortem, lateral X-ray and the post-mortem, lateral X-ray. These ODs are radically different (from one another), which points clearly to X-ray alteration of the post-mortem X-ray. Now think about this: Why does Quixote not verify these (Boston) data for himself? Has he even applied for permission to view that lateral X-ray? Or would he rather just speculate? And what about those motorcycle men, who describe lots of activity on Elm Street—activity that is not seen in the Z-film?[49] Were they all just making up these stories? And where has Quixote addressed these puzzling stories? After all, they do bear quite centrally on the authenticity of the Z-film. It would also be very interesting to hear how a White Patch can appear on both lateral X-rays, but totally vanish on the AP X-ray.[50] After all, this is not typical of the world that we all know: if something is very dense when viewed from the side, then it is also very dense when viewed from the front. And, finally, Quixote should address this central question: Did the HSCA really authenticate JFK’s autopsy photographs?[51] We await Quixote’s explanations—for all of these red highlights. Panza: “I thought your name was Alonso Quijano.” Quixote: “I know who I am, and I know that I am perfectly capable of being whom I choose to be.” —— Panza: “They say that one madman makes a hundred and love makes a thousand.” Aldonza: “What does that mean?” Panza: “I’m not sure.” —— Cervantes: “When life itself seems lunatic, who knows where madness lies?” Cervantes (adapted): It is one thing to write as an artist and another to write as a physician/scientist: The artist can recount or chant about things not as they were, but as he would like to see them, while the physician/scientist must write about them not as they should have been, but as they were, without adding or subtracting anything from the truth. ADDENDUM: Michael Chesser, MD[52] March 8, 2016 My review of the x-rays and the scalp retraction photograph leads me to the following conclusions: There is a dark area on the AP x-ray, inferior to the left lambdoid suture, with sharp demarcation, which can only be explained by missing occipital bone. This skull defect extends to the left of midline in the upper portion of the occipital bone, and has an outline which is consistent with the Harper fragment. I could not see the right lambdoid suture on the AP x-ray, and this indicates bone loss at least involving the right occipital-parietal junction. The AP x-ray also reveals a dark area inferior and lateral to the orbit on the right side, compared with the left, indicating loss of bone/brain substance in the temporal and occipital region. On the lateral x-ray the lower occipital skull appears disrupted, with jagged fragments. Dr. Mantik’s OD data confirm missing bone in various regions of the occipital bone. I agree with Dr. Mantik’s placement of the Harper fragment. If the three Dallas pathologists were living I would ask them about the features which were visible on the bone fragment which led them to this conclusion. They were looking at a portion of the skull of the President, and I don’t believe that they came to a hasty conclusion, and they must have seen clear features which localized to the occipital bone. The central occipital skull defect seen on the scalp retraction photograph, and the outline of the dark area on the AP x-ray both point toward the Harper fragment’s localization to this area. I believe that the central (extending to the left) occipital skull defect is separate from the exit wound identified by the Parkland and Bethesda personnel. The right occipital wound was described as missing overlying scalp and meninges. I think that the area of the Harper fragment was most likely an area in which there was an overlying flap of scalp. It is also possible that these defects were partially contiguous, with the region of the Harper fragment covered by the scalp. “Your ‘Sorrowful Knight’ article is outstanding. A marvelous satire of forensic scientific/medical investigation.”– Cyril H. Wecht, M.D., J.D. Notes: [1] “He sees what we see, yet he sees something else also.”—Harold Bloom [2] “What is the true object of Don Quixote’s quest? I find that unanswerable.”—Harold Bloom [3] http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22668&hl=%2Bmilicent+%2Bcranor [4] W. H. Auden recognized a Christian saint in Don Quixote, but some have questioned Auden’s sanity. [5] Murder in Dealey Plaza, edited by James Fetzer, p. 227. Cf. http://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/Murder_In_Dealey_Plaza.pdf [6] In this discussion, Panza represents multiple Education Forum commentators (other than Quixote). [7] Although this Forum discussion extended over three weeks, there are zero references to Mantik’s e-book, even though it contains 36 very useful (mostly color) figures and one detailed table, many of which apply to this Forum discussion. The book is titled, JFK’s Head Wounds. It may be purchased at Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/John-Kennedys-Head-Wounds-Synthesis-ebook/dp/B012HAOK2E/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8 [8] See illustrations in Mantik’s e-book, Figure 36. [9] http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=145280&relPageId=225 [10] Mantik’s e-book, Indicator 15. [11] Salyer’s Warren Commission testimony is here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/salyer.htm. Also see JFK: From Parkland to Bethesda: The Ultimate Kennedy Assassination Compendium (2015), by Vince Palamara, p. 29. [12] A Life that Matters (2013), Kenneth Salyer, p. 29. [13] http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=145280&relPageId=225 [14] http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/C%20Disk/Cranor%20Millicent/Item%2001.pdf [15] http://www.assassinationscience.com/JFK_Skull_X-rays.htm, slide 22. This is also presented in Mantik’s e-book. Sherry Fiester has convincingly argued (from the professional literature) that beveling is no longer such a big deal. Cf. Enemy of the Truth. [16] http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=145280#relPageId=230&tab=page [17] The colored area represents HF, located here in the upper occiput. The straight black line divides the left and right sides of the skull, with the anterior skull at the top of the image. [18] “Ben Bradlee and the Boston Globe interviewed 14 Parkland witnesses in 1981. Of those 14, eight questioned or rejected the accuracy of the autopsy photo showing the back of Kennedy’s head, and six supported or failed to question the accuracy of the photo.” http://www.patspeer.com/chapter18b%3Areasontobelieve It would, of course, have been most enlightening to ask these 14 what the skull looked like under the scalp. [19] See Mantik’s peer reviewed article on the 6.5 mm fragment, which contains many data points obtained at NARA: http://www.journals.ke-i.org/index.php/mra/article/view/177 [20] http://www.ctka.net/reviews/Mantik_speer.html [21] http://www.ctka.net/reviews/McAdams_Mantik.html, Appendix 10. [22] Mantik’s e-book, footnote 32. [23] See Figure 10 in Mantik’s e-book. [24] Cf. http://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/Murder_In_Dealey_Plaza.pdf, p. 227. [25] Quixote’s image is actually very similar to Figure 18 in Mantik’s e-book. Also note that McClelland’s hinged bone fragment (already cited above) is identified here by the horizontal arrow on the right side of Mantik’s reconstructed skull. When this bone fragment swung open (on a hinge), it constituted part of the large occipital defect. [26] Endocrine and Autoimmune Aspects of the Health History of John F. Kennedy [27] https://www.addisons.org.uk/info/manual/commonconcerns.pdf Osteoporosis is commonly accepted as one of the most prominent complications of prolonged glucocorticoid use (as in JFK). This is well documented in the professional literature. This occurs via at least two mechanisms: a relative decrease in bone formation and an increase in bone resorption. These mechanisms may well have contributed to JFK’s chronic back problems. Comparison of bone density studies from 1945 versus 1963 might have been stunning. A similar pair of CT scans might even have given us information about his occipital sulci. JFK was probably diagnosed with Addison’s disease in the 1940s: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/05/science/sci-jfk-addisons5 [28] Dusty Panzaringfield: Round like a circle in a spiral, like a wheel within a wheel Never ending or beginning on an ever spinning reel Like a snowball down a mountain, or a carnival balloon Like a carousel that’s turning running rings around the moon Like a clock whose hands are sweeping past the minutes of its face And the world is like an apple whirling silently in space Like the circles that you find in the windmills of your mind! [29] http://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/Murder_In_Dealey_Plaza.pdf, p. 199. [30] E Loftus, JM Doyle. Eyewitness Testimony: Civil and Criminal, Second Edition. Charlottesville: The Michie Company (1992). Cf. http://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/Murder_In_Dealey_Plaza.pdf, p. 339. [31] Mantik’s e-book, footnote 13. [32] Mantik’s e-book: Figure 3. [33] HSCA interview with James H. Humes and J. Thornton Boswell, September 16, 1977. HSCA vol. 7:254. [34] That was thoroughly discussed in the HSCA report. There is no real evidence of bone or bullet fragments on the neck X-ray: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0115a.htm [35] Assassination Science (1998), edited by James Fetzer. See Mantik’s essay on the Zapruder film, which includes a long collection of Dealey Plaza witness testimony. [36] Mantik’s e-book, footnote 75. [37] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/5rSgJe0K7EY [38] http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md28/html/Image17.htm [39] Mantik’s e-book, footnote 222. [40] During Mantik’s 2009 lecture at JFK Lancer, Quixote was notably absent (except perhaps for the final several minutes), even though a significant portion of Mantik’s lecture addressed Quixote’s work. Furthermore, Quixote has attended several public venues with Mantik, but has failed to offer useful critiques of Mantik at public forums. [41] http://www.assassinationscience.com/JFK_Skull_X-rays.htm [42] http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=145280&relPageId=225 [43] Mantik’s e-book, Appendix B. [44] In Mantik’s online critique of Quixote he noted that Quixote had identified over 30 individuals (many of them MDs) who had made serious mistakes in their JFK work. Interestingly, Quixote’s name was missing from Quixote’s own list. This is like a personal grant of eternal infallibility. [45] http://www.ctka.net/reviews/Mantik_speer.html [46] Mantik’s e-book, Section 6. [47] https://assassinationofjfk.net/category/by-dr-michael-chesser/ [48] There is no White Patch on the pre-mortem, lateral X-ray. That is the normal state of affairs for patients, as Mantik has demonstrated. See https://assassinationofjfk.net/jfk-autopsy-x-rays-proved-fraudulent/ [49] See the Preface to Mantik’s e-book. These motorcycle men have largely been ignored—by one and all. [50] Assassination Science (1998), pp. 153-158. [51] . See Section V, under this title: “Did the HSCA Really Authenticate JFK’s Autopsy Photographs?” [52] Cf. https://assassinationofjfk.net/category/by-dr-michael-chesser/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 4 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: Bill Newman is here making it obvious what he means by "the side of his head." This slow-motion footage of Newman's hand gesture made while saying "I can remember seeing the side of the President's ear and head come off. I remember a flash of white and the red and just bit and pieces of flesh exploding from the President's head" emphasizes, highlights and underscores my point: And the following is the video of Bill Newman giving the description and making the hand gesture demonstrating the wound at regular speed: BILL NEWMAN: "...I can remember seeing the side of the President's ear and head come off. I remember a flash of white and the red and just bit and pieces of flesh exploding from the President's head..." [Bill Newman interviewed about the JFK assassination -- https://youtu.be/REg7PQK2YdQ] You've presented nothing that rebuts this: His hand gesture is to the side, showing that brain and blood blew outwards. He does not say here nor has he ever said that brain blood and bone blew out the back of JFK's head. As Doug Horne holds that no parietal bone was blown off JFK's head during the shooting, and that the only large defect prior to Humes' expansion of the wound was one low on the back of the head, it's clear Newman's recollections are a problem for Horne's pet theory, correct? Can we at least agree on that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 (edited) 5 hours ago, Pat Speer said: His hand gesture is to the side, showing that brain and blood blew outwards. He does not say here nor has he ever said that brain blood and bone blew out the back of JFK's head. As Doug Horne holds that no parietal bone was blown off JFK's head during the shooting, and that the only large defect prior to Humes' expansion of the wound was one low on the back of the head, it's clear Newman's recollections are a problem for Horne's pet theory, correct? Can we at least agree on that? Bill Newman had a split second look at the bullet which struck JFK in the temple (which is exactly what he said during his 11/22/1963 television interview) blowing blood, brain and skull out of the back of JFK's head (the ejected backwards flying biological debris that were attested to by so many witnesses) which Newman's brain interpreted as JFK's ear being blown off (but we know that the ear and nothing forward of the ear was in fact blown off, so the debris had to be coming out from behind the ear). Newman's hand gestures, here shown in slow motion, denote his consciousness of the involvement of the occipital-parietal region of the right side of the back of the President's head in the action that he witnessed): The reason why your assertion that Newman was indicating that biological debris were blown out of the side of JFK's head is an unworkable hypothesis is that we know that JFK's ear and the area in front of the ear was intact at the time of autopsy (per the autopsy photographs): Your claim that Doug Horne holds that the avulsive posterior skull wound did not extend into parietal bone is in error. Horne accepts the occipital-parietal location of the wound as indicated by the witness sketches. Doug Horne also accepts the reality of the right temple wound as denoted by Bill Newman during his first day television interview, so there is no conflict between Newman's observations and Doug Horne's conclusions about the locations of the head wounds. The disagreement that exists is between you and virtually all other non-lone nutter researchers. The large avulsive occipital-parietal wound is pretty much universally accepted among conspiracy researchers (with some variation, such as that indicated by Dr. Robert McClelland's drawing from TMWKK showing the wound extending higher on the back of the head, as follows): It is your position -- that there was one large top of the head wound -- that conflicts with virtually all other researchers, other than lone nutters, that is falsified by the evidence, particularly when taking into consideration the most germane evidence that has the greatest evidentiary weight: The testimony and medical reports of the Parkland Hospital expert witnesses. Comparatively speaking, your one top of the head wound hypothesis is the functional equivalent of the lone flat earth advocate among a convention of astronomers. It simply does not fly... Edited March 30 by Keven Hofeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denise Hazelwood Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 (edited) On 3/29/2024 at 1:48 PM, Keven Hofeling said: You are misrepresenting Bill Newman's characterization of the head shot made during that first day television appearance. You are spinning Newman's statement to support your no back of the head wound bias when you characterize it by writing "...Bill himself was filmed depicting an explosion from the right temple before he left the studio...." And Newman did not say, as you claim, that "the skull exploded by the temple." What he said was "...[the] gunshot, apparently from behind us, hit the President in the side of the temple..." The following, in pertinent part, is the segment of the broadcast in question: It is also not true, as you claim, that "...[t]he Newmans were looking at the back of JFK's head as he drove past...." The image of Bill Newman pointing to the right side of his head is reversed, as evidenced by the watch (which he wore on his left wrist during other videos), making it appear as if he was pointing to the right side of the head, when in fact he was pointing to the left side of his head, which was the side away from him, making it clear that he was speculating rather than describing what he actually saw.. Shortly thereafter when Gayle Newman puts both of her hands up to her right ear, it was in her description of blood coming from the ear and her belief that Kennedy was reaching for his ear—a misinterpretation of the movement into the decorticate posture “chest grab.” The blood coming from the ear was a sign of severe head trauma. Hill Newman’s years later indication of the top front right side of the head was probably a corruption of memory caused by seeing the Zapruder film. I’ve noticed a lot of malleability in his memory in his accounts over the years, like how far away the limo was, so I think his memory was corrupted by the Z film and what others may have told him over the years. Really, the only contemporaneous person who described a front of the head blow-out was Zapruder, who was looking through the view finder at the time and may have been fooled by a rapid head turn or something (maybe a scalp flap?) Almost everyone else described a BACK of the head blowout, although one Parkland doctor did describe a scalp laceration that extended more forward than the back of the head blowout witnesses. Edited April 1 by Denise Hazelwood Add a bit of clarification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 (edited) 13 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said: The image of Bill Newman pointing to the right side of his head is reversed, as evidenced by the watch (which he wore on his left wrist during other videos), making it appear as if he was pointing to the right side of the head, when in fact he was pointing to the left side of his head, which was the side away from him, making it clear that he was speculating rather than describing what he actually saw.. Shortly thereafter when Gayle Newman puts both of her hands up to her right ear, it was in her description of blood coming from the ear and her belief that Kennedy was reaching for his ear—a misinterpretation of the movement into the decorticate posture “chest grab.” The blood coming from the ear was a sign of severe head trauma. Hill Newman’s years later indication of the top front right side of the head was probably a corruption of memory caused by seeing the Zapruder film. I’ve noticed a lot of malleability in his memory in his accounts over the years, like how far away the limo was, so I think his memory was corrupted by the Z film and what others may have told him over the years. Really, the only contemporaneous person who described a front of the head blow-out was Zapruder, who was looking through the view finder at the time and may have been fooled by a rapid head turn or something (maybe a scalp flap?) Almost everyone else described a BACK of the head blowout, although one Parkland doctor did describe a scalp laceration that extended more forward than the back of the head blowout witnesses. There were a number of witnesses describing an explosion of blood and brain from the front or side of the head, and there were a number of witnesses viewing the left and back of JFK's head who said the explosion occurred on the other side, or that from where they were standing they just saw his hair fly up. There are, on the other had, no credible close-up witnesses claiming they were looking at the back of JFK's head and saw the back of it blown clear from his skull. I run through the closest witnesses in chapter 18c. This list of witnesses is so convincing that back of the head blow out aficionados like Lifton and Fetzer claimed those witnessing the shooting were not competent to describe the wound. Now, I know some like to pretend that those claiming JFK was shot from the front or that it hit him in the temple were claiming they saw an entrance there and just so happened to forget adding that this bullet blew out the back JFK's head. This is quite embarrassing, IMO. I mean, really, there was an explosion of blood from the front of the head that was readily visible to witnesses dozens of yards away, but the hole from which this blood exploded was not apparent to the doctors studying Kennedy's body--the doctors who immediately noticed blood spurting from his neck and the back of his head? I mean, seriously, did Jackie wipe away the blood from this hole, and fill it with chewing gum? As far as Newman...the quotes below all come from Newman, or are quotes on FBI reports on Newman... He saw an explosion from the right side of the head...obviously. We didn't realize what happened until we seen the side of his head, when the bullet hit him. we seen him get shot in the side of the head. I was looking directly at him when he was hit in the side of the head. At that time he heard the bullet strike the president and saw flesh fly from the President’s head. (When asked about a drawing in which he depicted the fatal bullet's striking Kennedy by his ear) "That's what I saw. The way he was hit, it looked like he had just been hit with a baseball pitch, just like a block of wood fell over his... (When it was pointed out to him that he was moving his head backwards and to the left, and his drawing had depicted a wound by the ear) "In my opinion the ear went." (When asked again if his impression was that the bullet entered the side of the head) "Right. Right. My thoughts were that the shot entered there and apparently the thoughts of the Warren Commission were that the shot came out that side.” that is when the third shot was fired and it hit him in the side of the head right above the ear and his ear come off… I observed his ear flying off, and he turned just real white and then blood red, just as the President's car got directly in front of me, the President was probably fifteen feet away, Boom, and the side of his ear flew off, and justa, bits and pieces flew off. I can remember seeing just a white flash, and then the red, and the President fell across the car I can remember seeing the side of the President’s ear and head come off. I remember a flash of white and red and just bits and pieces of flesh exploding from the President’s head. he got nearer to us, and, bam, a shot took the right side of his head off. His ear flew off. I remember seeing the side of his head come off. I could see the white and then all of a sudden the red... (When asked if it hit him in the temple) "It appeared yes right in this area here (as he motions to his right temple) on the side of his head" I can remember seeing the side of President Kennedy's head blow off. There was black matter and then grayish It appeared to me that it hit him on the side of the head, as the side of his head came off. I thought the shot came from directly behind us in the grassy knoll area. The only basis I had for that was what I visually saw: the President going across the car and seeing the side of his head come off. I can remember seeing the side of President Kennedy's head come off, and I thought his ear came off. I was kinda dumbfounded to hear these people saying that, when just minutes earlier I'd seen the side of his head come off." It was the visual impact that it had on me more so than the noise--seeing the side of the President's head blow off I knew most definitely that was a gunshot and the side of his head blew off, you could see the white matter and the red and he fell across the seat I can recall seeing the side of President Kennedy's head blow off. I could see a mass of white and then the blood and fragments. I can recall seeing the side of President Kennedy's head fly off, Ten, 12 feet in front of us, the third shot rang out, and that's when the side of his head flew off Seeing the side of the President's head blow off, seeing the president go across the car seat into Mrs. Kennedy's lap, in her direction, it gave me the sensation that the shots were coming from directly behind me the third shot rang out, and the side of President Kennedy's head blew off (as he says this he reaches for his temple). We seen the brain matter and the blood fly off. P.S. He was wearing his watch on his left wrist on 11-22-63, and he pointed out the wound with his left hand when he was holding his kid, and right arm when he was not holding his kid. He also claimed he thought the shots came from directly behind him, and he was standing to the right of Kennedy. So it's incredibly obvious the side of the head he saw explode was the right side, and not the left side. . Edited April 1 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Willis Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 Early response by Brehm, from the Dallas Times Herald 11/22/63: "The first shot must not have been too solid, because he just slumped. Then on the second shot he seemed to fall back." "Drehm [sic] seemed to think the shots came from the front of or beside the President. He explained the President did not slump forward as he would have after being shot from the rear." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Willis Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 Early response by Brehm, from the Dallas Times Herald 11/22/63: "The first shot must not have been too solid, because he just slumped. Then on the second shot he seemed to fall back." "Drehm [sic] seemed to think the shots came from the front of or beside the President. He explained the President did not slump forward as he would have after being shot from the rear." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now