The ENTRANCE wound near the EOP was in reality an EXIT wound.

[Sandy Larsen]

The JFK autopsy report notes a small entrance wound on the skull near the EOP (external occipital protuberance), which is the bump down low on the back of peoples' heads.

JFK's autopsists all revealed -- either directly, indirectly, or accidentally -- that there was a bone fragment missing from adjacent to the EOP wound site at the autopsy. That is the topic of the following recent thread of mine:

 

 

In that thread, Pat Speer made the following important and correct observation:

"[Regarding the] EOP entrance as described by the autopsy doctors and confirmed by the lead smear on the Harper fragment near the EOP when the fragment is placed in Mantik's orientation... [Mantik's] theory is in trouble from the get-go. [It has] no known exit for this bullet... not even to mention that the beveling at the site of the lead smear Mantik claims to be an entrance is EXIT beveling and not entrance beveling."

So, even though all indications are that there indeed was a small wound near the EOP, along with a missing fragment adjacent to it, it has yet to be explained where that bullet went. In addition, if the missing fragment is indeed the Harper fragment as is believed by Mantik and others, it has yet to be explained how it is that the beveling and lead smear on the Harper fragment indicates the wound to be one of exit, not entrance.

I'm glad that Pat brought those difficulties up, as they sparked in my mind an idea that might explain all this. Upon studying my idea, I believe that it is indeed correct and does solve these problems!

 

Solution to The Problems

The solution is very simple.

We know that at Bethesda efforts were made to make it appear that all gunshots came from behind. For example, the pre-autopsy clandestine head surgery that resulted in the large opening in the top of Kennedy's head.

One thing that was done, in my opinion, is this: When the small wound was found in the margin of the the occipital bone near the EOP, it was immediately determined to be an EXIT wound due to the beveling being on the outside of the skull. (Keep in mind, I am talking about the tiny hole, not the bone fragment we know as the Harper fragment.) This meant that a bullet had to have entered from the front of Kennedy's head. Which contradicted the goal of the autopsy, to make all gunshots be from the rear!

The autopsists' solution? Simple... just reverse what they saw and report that the beveling of the hole was on the inside, not the outside, thereby indicating the EOP wound was one of entrance!

This resolves both problems that Pat pointed out. Since the EOP wound was one of exit, the bullet exited the head at that location! No missing bullet. And since the EOP wound was one of exit, that explains how it is that the Harper fragment indicates exactly that!

The only remaining thing to confirm is that the trajectory of a bullet entering a forehead hairline wound and exiting the EOP wound could have come from a rifleman stationed at a reasonable location.

Let's look at Z312:

 

 

As can be seen here, a gunman standing on the south knoll or perhaps the south end of the overpass could have shot Kennedy at the forehead hairline and it would have exited at roughly the location of the EOP.

Problem solved!

 

[Sandy Larsen]

 

Harper fragment photos and x-rays.

 

 

Inset shows lead smear.

 

Mantik's placement of the Harper fragment:

 

 

[Denise Hazelwood]

10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

In that thread, Pat Speer made the following important and correct observation:

"[Regarding the] EOP entrance as described by the autopsy doctors and confirmed by the lead smear on the Harper fragment near the EOP when the fragment is placed in Mantik's orientation... [Mantik's] theory is in trouble from the get-go. [It has] no known exit for this bullet... not even to mention that the beveling at the site of the lead smear Mantik claims to be an entrance is EXIT beveling and not entrance beveling."

To clarify, the smear was on the outside of the Harper fragment, which is how the area was determined to be an entrance. I don’t think any determination was made regarding “beveling.” Or where such beveling was located.

As for the bullet exit, I believe it to be the small hole above the right ear that James Jenkins described. This might be the small spot of light visible in the F8 “mystery” autopsy photograph to the right of the large hole. It is small because it was the second head shot, so much of the energy expended by the bullet dissipated out of the head via the weakest area, which was the hole at the back of the head created by the first head shot, the forehead shot witnessed by Alan Smith. Thus the “halo” effect of the second EOP (AR-15) shot as described by witnesses, because blood and fluids had a few seconds to accumulate in the brain cavity after the first shot.

[Sandy Larsen]

18 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

To clarify, the smear was on the outside of the Harper fragment, which is how the area was determined to be an entrance. I don’t think any determination was made regarding “beveling.” Or where such beveling was located.

 

What makes you think the smear was on the outside of the Harper fragment? It can be seen only in the x-ray, and it is impossible to tell from an x-ray which side of a bone (or anything else) an object is.

As for the beveling, looking very closely at the inside and outside photos reveals no apparent beveling. Only shelving. And the shelving is present on both the inside and outside of the fragment.

 

[Denise Hazelwood]

55 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

What makes you think the smear was on the outside of the Harper fragment? It can be seen only in the x-ray, and it is impossible to tell from an x-ray which side of a bone (or anything else) an object is.

True about X-rays not showing which side the smear was on, but I believe that it was noted by the Methodist doctors as being on the outside. At any rate, Dr. Mantik said it was on the outside and told me in email that could only happen if it was an entrance. Given the autopsy doctors insistence on the EOP entry location and Mantik’s skull reconstruction with the HF and the small fragment with the partial entry wound that the autopsy doctors had, that all makes sense.

 

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

As for the beveling, looking very closely at the inside and outside photos reveals no apparent beveling. Only shelving. And the shelving is present on both the inside and outside of the fragment.

I think we’re on the same page regarding “beveling.”

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

True about X-rays not showing which side the smear was on, but I believe that it was noted by the Methodist doctors as being on the outside.

 

My recollection is that the Methodist doctors didn't even notice the metallic smear on the Harper fragment. I believe it wasn't until a researcher noticed it on the x-ray that it became known.

 

2 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

At any rate, Dr. Mantik said it was on the outside and told me in email that could only happen if it was an entrance.

 

Dr. Mantik's view is not uncontested.

 

 

2 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

Given the autopsy doctors insistence on the EOP entry location ...

 

As I said, the autopsists were forced to say the EOP was a wound of entry, whether it was or not. Because otherwise a conspiracy would be indicated.

 

2 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

...and Mantik’s skull reconstruction with the HF and the small fragment with the partial entry wound that the autopsy doctors had, that all makes sense.

 

Mantik's placement of the Harper fragment doesn't necessitate that the wound was one of entrance. Only the beveling/tabling and metallic smear on the fragment determines that.

 

NOTE TO READERS:

If the small EOP wound is indeed one of entrance, that presents the problem of explaining where the bullet went. That is the reason I am being very cautious accepting this belief.

In contrast, forum member Denise Hazelwood is happy to accept this belief because it supports her theory that a secret service agent shot and killed Kennedy with his AR-15. By accident, I believe.

 

[Denise Hazelwood]

11 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

If the small EOP wound is indeed one of entrance, that presents the problem of explaining where the bullet went. That is the reason I am being very cautious accepting this belief.

I believe that the exit was pretty much where the WC puts it—above the right ear, where James Jenkins noted a small hole (which he believed was an entrance)—but without the blowout depicted in their drawing. It was a small hole because there was already a blowout at the back of the head from the first shot, which let the energy dissipate out through that.

[Sandy Larsen]

21 minutes ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

I believe that the exit was pretty much where the WC puts it—above the right ear, where James Jenkins noted a small hole (which he believed was an entrance)—but without the blowout depicted in their drawing. It was a small hole because there was already a blowout at the back of the head from the first shot, which let the energy dissipate out through that.

 

Which is fine if one believe that a secret service agent shot Kennedy in the head with his AR-15, because I guess the trajectory works out. But I don't believe that.

 

[Keyvan Shahrdar]

NO Sandy!

[Keven Hofeling]

On 4/2/2024 at 7:24 PM, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

NO Sandy!

"NO"?

That is the most comprehensive editorial you have to offer?

Given my previous experiences with you, your nondescript comment likely translates to something involving your long historical opposition to the evidence of exit wounds in the back of President Kennedy's head.

How you overcome the massive body of evidence of the existence of the large avulsive wound in the occipital parietal region of the right side of the back of JFK's head, and now the evidence Sandy is presenting of a small exit wound near the external occipital protuberance, is something I have never seen you explain in detail. It is really quite a formidable burden of proof you have taken on to validate the government's intact back of the head scenario, but I'd like to see you try, nevertheless.

 

Edited April 4 by Keven Hofeling

[Tom Gram]

2 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

"NO"?

That is the most comprehensive editorial you have to offer?

Given my previous experiences with you, your nondescript comment likely translates to something involving your long historical opposition to the evidence of exit wounds in the back of President Kennedy's head.

How you overcome the massive body of evidence of the existence of the large avulsive wound in the occipital parietal region of the right side of the back of JFK's head, and now the evidence Sandy is presenting of a small exit wound near the external occipital protuberance, is something I have never seen you explain in detail. It is really quite a formidable burden of proof you have taken on to validate the government's intact back of the head scenario, but I'd like to see you try, nevertheless.

 

The burden of proof is not on Kevin. All the evidence spanning 60+ years indicates there was an entrance wound in the EOP. The Clark Panel even erroneously moved the wound because of how problematic that location was for an entrance. Just deciding out of the blue that the doctors lied about the entrance beveling is not evidence. 6 x 15mm is also very small for a rifle exit wound. 

[Keven Hofeling]

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

The burden of proof is not on Kevin. All the evidence spanning 60+ years indicates there was an entrance wound in the EOP. The Clark Panel even erroneously moved the wound because of how problematic that location was for an entrance. Just deciding out of the blue that the doctors lied about the entrance beveling is not evidence. 6 x 15mm is also very small for a rifle exit wound. 

I think Sandy has made a pretty good case for it. Read the thread Keyvan.

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

35 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

Just deciding out of the blue that the doctors lied about the entrance beveling is not evidence.

 

I think I made it clear that it was a hypothesis. One that solves the EOP entrance-wound trajectory problem.

 

35 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

Just deciding out of the blue that the doctors lied about the entrance beveling is not evidence. 6 x 15mm is also very small for a rifle exit wound.

 

I'm glad you brought up the supposed 6 x 15 mm EOP entry wound through the scalp (not bone), noted in the autopsy report. I have an answer for that.

Recall that nearly all the witnesses said that the gaping wound was on the back of the head. As I showed in this thread, even the autopsy doctors INDIRECTLY admitted to a large hole on the back of the head, when they spoke of a missing fragment near the EOP. The missing fragment resulted in a large hole in the skull, and the fact that it escaped means there was a large hole in the scalp as well.

The autopsy doctors also said that half the small EOP bullet wound was located on the missing fragment, whereas the other half was on the intact portion of the skull.

What this all tells me is this: There was a large hole near the EOP in both the scalp and the skull, and on the margin (edge) of the skull hole was the hole made by a bullet. There was no 6 x 15 wound through the scalp... the bullet merely traveled through the large scalp hole.

So, what the autopsy doctors saw was a large hole through both the scalp and the skull, and half of a bullet hole through the margin of the large skull hole.

My hypothesis is that, the autopsists saw beveling on the outside of the half-bullet-hole, and immediately recognized the totality of the wound as being one of exit. This would not do, as they were charged with making it appear as though all shots came from behind. They solved this problem by simply reversing the side on which they saw the beveling, from the outside to the inside. In addition, they denied there being a large wound on the back of the head... either through the scalp or the skull.

This solution required one more lie. Since they removed the large hole through which the bullet (and the fragment) had traveled, they had to fabricate a tiny scalp hole through which the bullet entered. And so they did... the 6 x 15 mm hole noted in the autopsy report.

 

 

[Keyvan Shahrdar]

There is only one way to interpret the X-ray of JFK's skull.  No other way, period.  You guys are making up alternative facts to fit your narrative.  Fact is fact!

When a bullet enter a skull, the bullet will create concentric radial lines on the skull from the point of entry.  That is why JFK's skull x-ray looks the way it looks.  He was shot in the back of his head, you can see the entry in the circle, generating the concentric radial lines toward the front of the skull. [1] "...Although multiple gunshot wounds of the skull are much more difficult to analyze than wounds from blunt-force wounds, the pattern of radial fracture lines sometimes allows the determination of the sequence of the shots. If a fracture related to an entrance hole passes another entrance hole and is not terminated, the entrance hole causing that fracture must have been inflicted first."  Then a couple of seconds later, he was hit by a bullet from the right side causing a tangential injury from right to left entering above his ear and exiting the top of the head [2].  There is no other way to interpret this x-ray.  You may want to make it fit your narrative, but as I always say, fact is fact and narrative is narrative and you guys are full of narratives without any basis of fact.  People can testify all they want,  they can say a bullet entered the front of JFK's head all they want, but facts don't change no matter what anyone says, wrote 60 years ago, or testified to.  Facts are facts!

Reference:
[1] U.S. Department of Justine: Justice Program -  Determination of the Sequence of Gunshot Wounds of the Skull
[2] Anglin D, et al. Intracranial hemorrhage associated with tangential gunshot wounds to the head -  Tangential Gun-Shot Wound to the Head: A Serious Injury

Pat Speer image from his website:

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

40 minutes ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

There is only one way to interpret the X-ray of JFK's skull.  No other way, period.  You guys are making up alternative facts to fit your narrative.  Fact is fact!

 

The premise of your argument suffers from two problems. First, you assume that the autposists were being honest when they said the small EOP wound was one of entrance. As I've argued, the evidence shows that it was actually a wound of exit. Furthermore, the autopsists had a motive to lie about that, because that would have indicated a shooter from the front.

Second, you assume that the skull x-ray is legitimate.

I think I'll stick with Mantik's interpretation of the small EOP wound, and the x-ray authenticity... or rather, lack thereof.