How does a bullet fired from behind cause the scalp to be peeled from front-to-rear ?

[Gil Jesus]

A forensic pathologist testifies to the ARRB that the President's scalp was torn from front-to-rear.

This is corroborated by the Parkland doctors.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/scalp-peeled-from-front-to-back.mp4

[David Andrews]

In the color autopsy photo shown, the frontal right hairline wound looks like it has already been dissected, with angular flaps retracted.  The photo may show a midpoint in the autopsy between dissection of the front wound and any addressing of the rear wound.

We're seeing discrepancies between this set of color photos, the "Stare of Death" wound photo, and the officially released autopsy photos.

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, David Andrews said:

In the color autopsy photo shown, the frontal right hairline wound looks like it has already been dissected, with angular flaps retracted.  The photo may show a midpoint in the autopsy between dissection of the front wound and any addressing of the rear wound.

We're seeing discrepancies between this set of color photos, the "Stare of Death" wound photo, and the officially released autopsy photos.

FWIW, a large skull fragment can be seen exploding downward in the Z-film, and, sure enough, a large skull fragment was found on the floor of the limo. As it exploded forward, while still attached to the scalp, it could very well have torn the scalp in the direction it traveled. Unfortunately, they failed to take photos of this fragment. 

But a number of witnesses viewing a large fragment claimed it had hair on it. 

From chapter 16b:

On 11-30-63, Secret Service Agent Clint Hill, who'd climbed onto the back of Kennedy's limo just after the fatal shot was fired, wrote a report that included an often-overlooked detail. He wrote: "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 lieing in the seat." 

And Hill wasn't the only one to see this hairy fragment. Motorcycle Officer Bobby Joe Dale arrived upon the scene just as the President's body was rushed into the emergency room. He failed to get a look at the President. He did, however, get a look at the back seat of the limo. Here's what he told Larry Sneed, as published in No More Silence (1998): "Blood and matter was everywhere inside the car including a bone fragment which was oblong shaped, probably an inch to an inch and a half long by three-quarters of an inch wide. As I turned it over and looked at it, I determined that it came from some part of the forehead because there was hair on it which appeared to be near the hairline."

And Dale wasn't the only motorcycle officer to make such a statement. When interviewed for the 2008 Discovery Channel program Inside the Target Car, H.B. McClain related: "When I raised her up (he means Mrs. Kennedy)...I could see it on the floor. That's pieces of skull with the hair on it."

So what happened to this hairy fragment, you might ask? Well, it's tough to say. Secret Service Agent Sam Kinney retrieved a large skull fragment from the limousine as it was flown back from Dallas, but never described this fragment as being covered with hair. 

 

Edited February 27 by Pat Speer

[Keven Hofeling]

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

FWIW, a large skull fragment can be seen exploding downward in the Z-film, and, sure enough, a large skull fragment was found on the floor of the limo. As it exploded forward, while still attached to the scalp, it could very well have torn the scalp in the direction it traveled. Unfortunately, they failed to take photos of this fragment. 

But a number of witnesses viewing a large fragment claimed it had hair on it. 

From chapter 16b:

On 11-30-63, Secret Service Agent Clint Hill, who'd climbed onto the back of Kennedy's limo just after the fatal shot was fired, wrote a report that included an often-overlooked detail. He wrote: "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 lieing in the seat." 

And Hill wasn't the only one to see this hairy fragment. Motorcycle Officer Bobby Joe Dale arrived upon the scene just as the President's body was rushed into the emergency room. He failed to get a look at the President. He did, however, get a look at the back seat of the limo. Here's what he told Larry Sneed, as published in No More Silence (1998): "Blood and matter was everywhere inside the car including a bone fragment which was oblong shaped, probably an inch to an inch and a half long by three-quarters of an inch wide. As I turned it over and looked at it, I determined that it came from some part of the forehead because there was hair on it which appeared to be near the hairline."

And Dale wasn't the only motorcycle officer to make such a statement. When interviewed for the 2008 Discovery Channel program Inside the Target Car, H.B. McClain related: "When I raised her up (he means Mrs. Kennedy)...I could see it on the floor. That's pieces of skull with the hair on it."

So what happened to this hairy fragment, you might ask? Well, it's tough to say. Secret Service Agent Sam Kinney retrieved a large skull fragment from the limousine as it was flown back from Dallas, but never described this fragment as being covered with hair. 

 

Pat Speer wrote:

Quote

FWIW, a large skull fragment can be seen exploding downward in the Z-film, and, sure enough, a large skull fragment was found on the floor of the limo. As it exploded forward, while still attached to the scalp, it could very well have torn the scalp in the direction it traveled. Unfortunately, they failed to take photos of this fragment. 

This is Z-314 from the 1997 MPI "Images of an Assassination" release of the Zapruder film struck off of the extant "original" film that is housed at NARA. I assume it to be what you are referring to as "a large skull fragment [that] can be seen exploding downward in the Z-film."

Most Zapruder film anti-alteration apologists claim that what we are seeing in this image is the "flap" that the First Lady supposedly held down during the frantic journey to Parkland Hospital which was dried in to place via coagulated blood, hermetically sealing it in to place so perfectly, that the huge frontal head wound was rendered miraculously invisible to a room full of seasoned metropolitan doctors and nurses accustomed to treating gunshot wounds on a daily basis, which in itself is of course a ridiculous claim, but in the rendition you are here proposing, this supposed saucer plate sized skull fragment detached, hair intact, and fell into the presidential limo.

 

Setting aside the issue presented by the fact that the Parkland doctors and nurses observed no frontal head damage, when we refer to the bootleg autopsy photograph of the region of the President's head which is depicted by Zapruder frame 314 as being dispossessed of a saucer plate sized skull fragment, we see no such thing, nor is it ever made a finding in the autopsy proceedings that there existed a huge retractable frontal head "flap" that had previously been so perfectly hermetically sealed with dried blood that all such frontal head damage was magically concealed from the Parkland Hospital trauma team.

And our dilemma is highlighted and underscored when we refer to the Zapruder film headshot sequence in motion to see that when Z-314 is placed in context, what the extant film is actually depicting is a huge cavernous hole in JFK's forehead the size of a cantaloupe which NONE of the head wound witnesses at Dealey Plaza, Parkland Hospital, the Bethesda autopsy or anywhere else ever reported.

 

The headshot sequence culminates in frames Z-335 and Z-337 in which we find ourselves looking at the First Lady's pink shoulder patch where JFK's face and forehead should be, and asking ourselves "what is wrong with these pictures?"

 

Particularly when considering that the large avulsive head wound was in the BACK of the head, not in the FRONT...

 

[Pat Speer]

I came across this on the website of Paul Seaton approximately 15 years ago. It shows the flight of the two largest bone fragments. Although I am quite convinced JFK was killed by a conspiracy, I have learned much from reading books and articles written by those with opposing viewpoints, such as Seaton. 

 

 

Edited February 28 by Pat Speer

[Keven Hofeling]

56 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

I came across this on the website of Paul Seaton approximately 15 years ago. It shows the flight of the two largest bone fragments. Although I am quite convinced JFK was killed by a conspiracy, I have learned much from reading books and articles written by those with opposing viewpoints, such as Seaton. 

 

 

Interesting, but how does one who recognizes the significance of the testimony of the Parkland Trauma Team (that's right, not you) reconcile it with the abundant and overwhelming testimony that there was no damage to the frontal region of JFK's head at Parkland Hospital, and how can it be reconciled with this autopsy photograph that contradicts the Zapruder film imagery of a saucer sized detachable skull plate being blown forward from JFK's forehead?

Edited February 28 by Keven Hofeling

[Ron Bulman]

Hi Gil.  Not to detract from the medical evidence.  But the related question has been asked, how did a shot from behind result in back and to the left?   I don't buy the neuromuscular contraction theory, nor the melons or the gelatin filled what ever it was. 

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Keven Hofeling said:

Interesting, but how does one who recognizes the significance of the testimony of the Parkland Trauma Team (that's right, not you) reconcile it with the abundant and overwhelming testimony that there was no damage to the frontal region of JFK's head at Parkland Hospital, and how can it be reconciled with this autopsy photograph that contradicts the Zapruder film imagery of a saucer sized detachable skull plate being blown forward from JFK's forehead?

Ask Dr. Mantik, who believes the large triangular fragment is frontal bone. For the life of me I don't remember how he explains how such an enormous hole on the top of the head went unnoticed at Parkland. So if he gives you an answer, maybe you can share it with us. 

[Benjamin Cole]

You can disagree with Gil Jesus, and that is fine. We all have points of view.

But Gil Jesus is doing what a defense counsel (embedded with the WC) should have done in 1963-4: Examine evidence with a gimlet, skeptical eye. 

Sometimes I disagree with Jesus (rarely). So what? He is doing the right thing, a review of the evidence. 

[Nick Bartetzko]

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I came across this on the website of Paul Seaton approximately 15 years ago. It shows the flight of the two largest bone fragments. Although I am quite convinced JFK was killed by a conspiracy, I have learned much from reading books and articles written by those with opposing viewpoints, such as Seaton. 

 

 

If Seaton is correct, this coincides with what Dino Brugnioni claims he saw. 

[Pat Speer]

7 hours ago, Nick Bartetzko said:

If Seaton is correct, this coincides with what Dino Brugnioni claims he saw. 

It's not a matter of Seaton being correct. It's in the film, and always has been. A shape explodes forward from the skull that could very well be the large fragment found in the limo. None of the doctors frequently cited on this forum as support for the "back of the head blow-out" dispute that the large triangular fragment was frontal bone. And none that I'm aware of dispute that this fragment was found in the limo. To my understanding, they all agree it was.

So how do they explain no one's seeing a giant hole on the front of the top of the head at Parkland? Well, they guess that the same people they claim could not be wrong about the head wound location failed to notice the gaping hole because well, maybe it wasn't gaping. And that's ludicrous. The triangular fragment is a large fragment, far bigger than the Harper fragment. There's no way it could be missing from the skull and no one notice. 

From Chapter 19A:

In Killing Kennedy (1995), Harrison Livingstone acknowledged that the "large 10 cm piece of parietal bone" found in the limo accounted for a large percentage of the missing bone described in the autopsy report, but then sought to make this fit the recollections of the Parkland witnesses by claiming "this area of missing bone was covered with scalp or hair and not seen."

Oh, really? A 10 cm long piece of bone, comprising roughly 65 sq cm, is missing from the high forehead of a man's skull, and NONE of the dozen or so doctors claiming to have gotten a look at the wound on his head--which they recalled as being on the back of his head even though he was lying on his back--noticed it was missing? Seriously? The top of the forehead looked normal even though there was no underlying skull, or brain, for that matter, to support it? Livingstone must have been kidding, right?

Sadly, no. He wasn't kidding. Nor was Dr. Gary Aguilar kidding five years later when he wrote "It is not hard to imagine the possibility that during the time it took the Presidential limousine to get to Parkland Hospital, clot had formed gluing a portion of disrupted scalp down making JFK's skull defect appear smaller to treating surgeons than it later would to autopsy surgeons” (Murder in Dealey Plaza, 2000).

And nor was Doug Horne kidding when he suggested something similar in the documentary film A Coup in Camelot (2016). (Although the words to follow were actually spoken by narrator Peter Coyote, they were spoken in a section on Horne's findings, and undoubtedly represent Horne's views, which tend to mirror Dr. Mantik's.) Here, then, are the words: "In the Zapruder film, a flap of skull can be seen opening up after the head strike. During the frantic ride to Parkland Hospital, the flap had been folded back into place where the blood acted like glue and sealed the wound. That wound was not spotted at Parkland, as it was obscured within the hairline."

 Eegads! Will someone please tell me why it's less logical to believe a number of medical professionals incorrectly recalled the exact location of a large gaping head wound in the middle of bloody hair than that they completely failed to notice a similar-sized hole on the skull at the top of the head, due to the overlying scalp's being folded back into place, and the blood along the edges of this scalp's acting like glue? I mean, from a medical perspective, it's far better for them to have incorrectly recalled the location of a fatal wound, than to have missed one altogether. So why has my defense of their competence become so controversial?

Because I'd really like to know...

Edited February 28 by Pat Speer