The JFK autopsy doctors revealed a back-of-head missing fragment.

[Pat Speer]

47 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Wrong.

Most of the fragments, like the large "triangular" one, were re-inserted into the skull. We know that because the morticians didn't need to fabricate something to take their place.

As for the 6.5 x 10 cm fragment that was found in the the presidential limo and returned to the autopsy LATE, Sibert and O'Neill wrote:

The portion of the skull measuring 10 x 6.5 centimeters was maintained in the custody of Dr. HUMES who stated that it also could be made available for further examination.

Now, how in heaven's name could that fragment be made available for further examination if was put back into Kennedy's head? It wasn't put back.

The only reason you aren't suffering from cognitive dissonance on this issue, Pat, is because you simply ignore all evidence proving you are wrong. Well, that's probably a tactic that is good for your health... a "what, me worry?" attitude.

 

 

The rubber dam used to cover the remaining hole at the back of the head was the size of a large orange. Yep... large enough to cover a 6.5 x 10 cm hole.

 

1. The FBI left BEFORE the reconstruction was performed. Your claim the fragment arrived too late to be put back in during reconstruction is not supported by the evidence.

2. The Harper fragment was a roughly 2 1/2 in triangle. You agree this was not put back in the head. The triangular fragment was a 10 by 6 1/2 cm triangle, or roughly 4 by 2 1/2 in. You can't have both of these missing from the back of the head and still have a back of the head. (If you think isn't so, please demonstrate.)

3. The doctors said that with the addition of the Harper fragment, the missing skull at the time of the reconstruction was accounted for. This confirms what Van Hoesen and Robinson recalled--that the hole on the back of the head they saw was the size of a "small orange". 

[Tom Gram]

1 hour ago, Gil Jesus said:

The orientation of the F8 photograph is crucial. Some have argued that it shows the right side or the right front of the head. I believe that it shows the back of the head and the chrome "saddle" head rest is visible in the lower right. I believe that it shows the entrance wound at the right front and the massive exit wound at the right rear. This would be consistent with Dr. Clark's opinion that the head wound was "tangential" ( struck the head at an angle ).

I think an interesting point is that the doctors originally described the photo as confirming the accuracy of CE386 and 388. If the conspicuous “hole” in the “bottom” of the photo is the EOP entrance, the beveled notch on the top of the skull is a close match to the exit point in CE388. 

The other explanations for the glaringly obvious oval shaped “hole” in the skull that looks freaking exactly like a bullet hole are seriously lacking, IMO. The official orientation puts the “hole” on the left temple, and I think most people try to pass it off as a spot of blood or perfectly oval piece of leftover scalp, or something like that.

Personally, I think Pat’s orientation is probably correct and the “bullet hole” is indeed the EOP entrance, but like everything else in this case it’s hard to be 100% certain. 

[Sandy Larsen]

7 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

1. The FBI left BEFORE the reconstruction was performed. Your claim the fragment arrived too late to be put back in during reconstruction is not supported by the evidence.

 

It isn't my claim... it is Sibert and O'Neill's claim.

 

7 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

2. The Harper fragment was a roughly 2 1/2 in triangle. You agree this was not put back in the head. The triangular fragment was a 10 by 6 1/2 cm triangle, or roughly 4 by 2 1/2 in. You can't have both of these missing from the back of the head and still have a back of the head. (If you think isn't so, please demonstrate.)

 

After the autopsy, loose pieces of the 6.5 x 10 cm fragment were broken off, leaving a roughly 2 1/2" triangular solid fragment. This was flown back to Dallas and dropped onto the grass in FRONT of where the limo was when the head shot was taken.

The plan was that someone would discover the fragment, and that person would become the star witness to the blowout wound "coming from top of the head as a result of a shot from behind."

The plan backfired on them when medically-connected Billy Harper found it and it was declared to be occipital. Doh!

That is my hypothesis. It explains how both a 6.5 x 10 cm fragment and the Harper fragment could fit on the back of the head. The two fragments were one and the same!

 

7 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

3. The doctors said that with the addition of the Harper fragment, the missing skull at the time of the reconstruction was accounted for. This confirms what Van Hoesen and Robinson recalled--that the hole on the back of the head they saw was the size of a "small orange". 

 

The morticians said that the rubber dam was the size of a large orange. Which would be large enough to cover the 6.5 x 10 cm fragment... which was the same as the Harper fragment but without the loose pieces broken off.

This theory explains all the evidence. Mystery solved!

 

[Pat Speer]

2 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

It isn't my claim... it is Sibert and O'Neill's claim.

 

 

After the autopsy, loose pieces of the 6.5 x 10 cm fragment were broken off, leaving a roughly 2 1/2" triangular solid fragment. This was flown back to Dallas and dropped onto the grass in FRONT of where the limo was when the head shot was taken.

The plan was that someone would discover the fragment, and that person would become the star witness to the blowout wound "coming from top of the head as a result of a shot from behind."

The plan backfired on them when medically-connected Billy Harper found it and it was declared to be occipital. Doh!

That is my hypothesis. It explains how both a 6.5 x 10 cm fragment and the Harper fragment could fit on the back of the head. The two fragments were one and the same!

 

 

The morticians said that the rubber dam was the size of a large orange. Which would be large enough to cover the 6.5 x 10 cm fragment... which was the same as the Harper fragment but without the loose pieces broken off.

This theory explains all the evidence. Mystery solved!

 

1. The FBI wasn't there when the skull was reconstructed, so how would they know what happened to the fragments after they left? And why would the morticians fail to avail themselves of fragments the FBI claims were present at the beginning of the reconstruction that could help them complete the skull?

2. I believe you've claimed there was legitimate beveling on the Harper fragment but no beveling on the triangular fragment. If the Harper fragment was broken off the triangular fragment, where did the beveling come from? 

3. And the morticians said small orange. Robinson told this to the HSCA and Van Hoesen told this to the ARRB. 

[Sandy Larsen]

16 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

1. The FBI wasn't there when the skull was reconstructed, so how would they know what happened to the fragments after they left?

 

Apparently the FBI was still there after the autopsy. They said that Humes kept the 6.5 x 10 cm fragment, but would make it available for further study.

Or maybe the FBI learned later of the arrival of the fragment and Humes keeping it, and added that to their report later.

Or maybe the FBI and Humes left the autopsy at about the same time but didn't go home right away, and the fragment arrived then, too late to  have it re-inserted.

 

16 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

2. I believe you've claimed there was legitimate beveling on the Harper fragment but no beveling on the triangular fragment. If the Harper fragment was broken off the triangular fragment, where did the beveling come from? 

 

I've never said the Harper fragment was broken off the "triangular" fragment. I've always said that it was broken off from the 6.5 x 10 cm fragment. The "triangular" fragment and 6.5 x 10 cm fragment are not the same fragment, as I proved earlier.

The "triangular" fragment was inserted back into the skull at the top of the head. The 6.5 x 10 cm fragment would have been inserted into the back of the skull had it arrived in time.

 

16 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

3. And the morticians said small orange. Robinson told this to the HSCA and Van Hoesen told this to the ARRB. 

 

Large orange.

From this ARRB document:

Robinson said that Ed Stroble (now deceased) had cut out a piece of rubber to cover the open wound in the back of the head, so that the embalming fluid would not leak; the piece of rubber was slightly larger than the hole in the back of the head, and Robinson estimated that the rubber sheet was a circular patch about the size of a large orange (demonstrating this with a circular motion joining the index fingers and thumbs of his two hands).

 

[Gil Jesus]

23 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I'm sorry Gil, but I disagree with most of your post.

I believe that your hypothesis is based on two false premises. First, I think that Pat Speer got it right when he noticed a glass specimen jar in the Mystery Photo, which in my opinion (like his) proves that the photographer took that photo at an angle.

This is the mystery photo after adjusting for the angle:

 

 

The left 1/4th of the photo is lightened so that we can see the glass specimen jar on the left side, a little bit hidden by skull and reflected scalp. The top part of this photo is the inside of reflected scalp, which reveals the frontal bone near the forehead.

Your other faulty premise is that you belief that the large "triangular" fragment is parietal bone from the BACK of the head. No, it is parietal bone from the TOP of the head and was removed from the skull (after possibly being made by hitting the head with a hammer) in the pre-autopsy clandestine surgery of the head, as mentioned by Humes and reported by FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill. It and other such man-made fragments were introduced to the autopsy as if they'd been found in Dallas. Sibert and O'Neill makes no mention of those fragments being brought in.

However, Sibert and O'Neill DO mention a 6.5 x 10 cm fragment being brought in late. It was brought in so late that it could not be inserted back into Kennedy's skull. Humes kept it, but made it available for further study.

There is a ton of evidence that backs my contention.

 

 

 

Of course, you're entitled to your opinion.

Two things:

First, I can't see your link. It tells me that I don't have permission to observe the image --- error 403 "forbidden".

Second, if the large fragment with the bevel on the OUTSIDE of the bone is from the top of the head, that means the bullet exited the top of the head.

This exit damage to the top of the head is not mentioned in the autopsy report.

It is not evident in the autopsy photographs or x-rays.

It is not supported by the witnesses in Dealey Plaza who saw " the back of the President's head come off".

It is not supported by Clint Hill's description of the wound he saw on the way to Parkland Hospital.

It is not supported by the witnesses at Parkland who saw the gaping wound at the REAR of the head. 

It is not supported by the witness at Bethesda who saw that same gaping wound at the rear of the head.

Like I said, you're entitled to your opinion. But while you claim there is a "ton of evidence" to back your contention, I'm disappointed that you chose not to produce any of it.

I also have a ton of evidence to support my contention that the fatal shot was fired from in front of the limo and it's all here in this 35 minute compilation video I've put together from different sources:

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/evidence of a frontal shot full.mp4

 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

First, I can't see your link. It tells me that I don't have permission to observe the image --- error 403 "forbidden".

 

I think that Pat Speer got it right when he noticed a glass specimen jar in the Mystery Photo, which in my opinion (like his) proves that the photographer took that photo at an angle.

The angle-adjusted photo is on this page:

https://www.patspeer.com/chapter14demystifyingthemysteryphoto

Search for the phrase "let there be light" on the page, without the quotation marks. The photo is right above that.

The left 1/4th of the photo is lightened so that we can see the glass specimen jar on the left side, a little bit hidden by skull and reflected scalp. The top part of this photo is the inside of reflected scalp, which reveals the frontal bone near the forehead.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

If the large fragment with the bevel on the OUTSIDE of the bone is from the top of the head, that means the bullet exited the top of the head.

 

There were two large fragments  that were brought in to the autopsy, the "triangular" one and the 6.5 x 10 cm one that was brought in late. The triangular one fit on the top of the head. (There is an extant x-ray of the "triangular" fragment together with a couple other fragments.)

Since nobody saw a gaping wound on the top of the head, it is my belief that the hole on top of the head, as described in the autopsy report, was made by hitting the top of the head with a hammer and removing fragments after slashing the scalp open in clandestine pre-autopsy surgery. So this "surgery" is what created the large "triangular" fragment. The autopsists pretended it was brought in from Dallas.

The other large fragment was 6.5 x 10 cm one that really was brought in from Dallas. Only this one is mentioned by Sibert and O'Neill in their report. The report states that this fragment was brought in late and was kept by Dr. Humes (i.e. not put back in place by the morticians). The report states that this fragment was available for "further investigation."

 

2 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

This exit damage to the top of the head is not mentioned in the autopsy report.

 

You need to read the autopsy report again. It mentions a 13 cm (5 inch) hole on the top of the head above the right ear (my paraphrase). And it mentions an exit bullet hole, 2.5 to 3 cm in diameter, on the margin of that large hole.

I don't believe any of this is true, but it is there in the autopsy report.

 

2 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

I also have a ton of evidence to support my contention that the fatal shot was fired from in front of the limo and it's all here in this 35 minute compilation video I've put together from different sources:

 

Well I'm in agreement with you.

But two of your premises are wrong IMO, one being that you have misinterpreted the mystery photo, and the other being that the "triangular" fragment came from the back of the head.

The fragment that came from the back of the head was the 6.5 x 10 cm fragment that was never put back in place because it arrived too late. That fragment was kept by Humes, and according to my hypothesis, later became the Harper fragment.

We have corroboration that the fragment from the back of the head wasn't put back in place from the morticians, who said they had to put a rubber dam the size of a large orange in the back of the head to cover the gaping hole, so that embalming fluid wouldn't leak out.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

While you claim there is a "ton of evidence" to back your contention, I'm disappointed that you chose not to produce any of it.

 

Some of the evidence is common knowledge. Other evidence I did produce in this thread, but you seem to have missed it.

 

[Sean Coleman]

On 4/2/2024 at 3:16 PM, Pat Speer said:

1. The FBI wasn't there when the skull was reconstructed, so how would they know what happened to the fragments after they left? And why would the morticians fail to avail themselves of fragments the FBI claims were present at the beginning of the reconstruction that could help them complete the skull?

2. I believe you've claimed there was legitimate beveling on the Harper fragment but no beveling on the triangular fragment. If the Harper fragment was broken off the triangular fragment, where did the beveling come from? 

3. And the morticians said small orange. Robinson told this to the HSCA and Van Hoesen told this to the ARRB. 

Just read your analysis on the link Sandy provides above and you have me convinced. Put to bed as far as I’m concerned. Thanks! I come here for answers.

At the end of the chapter you seek identification of a mystery surgical apparatus, did you solve it? It could be a 50’s/60’s version of something like this……

 

Edited April 10 by Sean Coleman

[Eddy Bainbridge]

On 3/31/2024 at 9:19 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

The topic of this thread is the fragment lost from the back of the head near the EOP, as revealed by two autopsists and implied in the autopsy report.

 

Sandy I think you have done a great job of drawing out an essential and simple point: The autopsists stated that a fragment from the back of the head came in to them after the body. They are therefore stating the skull had a large hole in the back. 

Isn't there a flaw in your argument about the Z film showing the rear headshot? Isn't the head in the extant film at the wrong angle? I think it is. I think the Newmans saw this shot and it exited through the top/side of the head. Your trajectory doesn't have an exit.

[Sandy Larsen]

15 minutes ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

Sandy I think you have done a great job of drawing out an essential and simple point: The autopsists stated that a fragment from the back of the head came in to them after the body.

 

Thanks Eddy.

 

15 minutes ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

They are therefore stating the skull had a large hole in the back. 

 

That's right! Though I would say that they "inadvertently admitted" there was a large hole in the back, since they didn't come right out and "state" it.

 

15 minutes ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

Isn't there a flaw in your argument about the Z film showing the rear headshot? Isn't the head in the extant film at the wrong angle? I think it is. I think the Newmans saw this shot and it exited through the top/side of the head. Your trajectory doesn't have an exit.

 

I assume you are referring to this prior statement of mine from page 1 of this thread:

"If you carefully observe the Z film around 313, you will see that Kennedy's head was hit twice within a couple frames. The first one forced his head forward, and the second one back and to the left. The first one obviously is what entered near the EOP."

You are right, there is no trajectory that fits the EOP entrance at ~Z312, because the exit would be somewhere on the face. And of course there was no wound on the face.

Pat Speer pointed this out a few days ago and I agreed with him. I could think of only one way to resolve this problem, and I posted it on this thread:

 

According to the hypothesis described there, the bullet actually entered the forehead at the hairline and EXITED through the EOP hole.

 

BTW, I wouldn't place much stock in what the Newmans said they saw. They had no warning that there was about to be a blowout wound, and had no chance to study precisely where it was. The Parkland hospital doctors and nurses are much better witnesses. And they all place the gaping wound on the back of the head.'

 

[Keven Hofeling]

On 4/2/2024 at 5:53 AM, Pat Speer said:

The hole at the back of the skull at the end of reconstruction was roughly the size of the Harper fragment, which even you agree was not added back into the skull. If the large fragment or any other large fragment was not re-inserted at that time the hole at the end of reconstruction would have been much much bigger, and would have encapsulated the entire back of the head. 

You appear to be conceding that Dr. Mantik's placement of the Harper Fragment in the center of the back of JFK's head is correct...

 

[Pat Speer]

11 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

You appear to be conceding that Dr. Mantik's placement of the Harper Fragment in the center of the back of JFK's head is correct...

 

Well, appearances can be deceptive. The hole as first observed was greatly expanded when scalp was peeled aside and skull fell to the table. Few at Bethesda saw it in its original state.

As the purpose of the reconstruction was to make JFK acceptable for a public viewing, moreover, Stroble reconstructed the skull with the missing scalp and skull at the back of the head. 

[Benjamin Cole]

On 4/2/2024 at 8:39 PM, Tom Gram said:

I think an interesting point is that the doctors originally described the photo as confirming the accuracy of CE386 and 388. If the conspicuous “hole” in the “bottom” of the photo is the EOP entrance, the beveled notch on the top of the skull is a close match to the exit point in CE388. 

The other explanations for the glaringly obvious oval shaped “hole” in the skull that looks freaking exactly like a bullet hole are seriously lacking, IMO. The official orientation puts the “hole” on the left temple, and I think most people try to pass it off as a spot of blood or perfectly oval piece of leftover scalp, or something like that.

Personally, I think Pat’s orientation is probably correct and the “bullet hole” is indeed the EOP entrance, but like everything else in this case it’s hard to be 100% certain. 

Amen. 

While I tend to concur with Pat Speer on most items, I think the real key to the JFKA is the timing of the shots that struck JFK and JBC.

With the Z-film, IMHO, we can detect JBC being struck at ~Z-295 and JFK at Z-313. Not enough time for both shots to have been fired by a lone gunman armed with a single-shot bolt-action rifle. 

This conforms with JBC's testimony, and also with the small round hole in the rear of JBC's assassination day shirt, that reveals the bullet that struck JBC was not tumbling--ergo, almost certainly a straight shot. 

IMHO, the shot striking JBC at ~Z-295 also conforms with the "bang.....bang-bang" cadence heard by most ear-witnesses. 

There seems to be reasonably intelligent people on all sides of the "which direction did the shots come from" argument. 

Of course, within the JFKA community everyone is always incontrovertibly correct...but maybe the timing of the shots is a more fruitful inquiry to be made.