Incision made on JFK's head (Kennedy assassination) Nothing to see here: an incision made on JFK's head...

[Vince Palamara]

 

Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln? Everyone seemed to miss this when it aired in 1988 and for many years afterward. @Pat Speer dedicated to you, Pat.

 

 

[Steven Kossor]

The video provides a selective reporting of the Sibert & O'Neil report.  The actual quote in the Sibert & O'Neil report is "surgery of the head area, namely in the top of the skull."  By editing the presentation to exclude the boldface words, it made it appear that the "surgery of the head area" was not specifically in the top of the skull (where the surgery evidence actually appeared), but rather that the statement was referring to the triangular incision above the right eye.  This is not scholarship; it is shameful propaganda.

[Vince Palamara]

45 minutes ago, Steven Kossor said:

The video provides a selective reporting of the Sibert & O'Neil report.  The actual quote in the Sibert & O'Neil report is "surgery of the head area, namely in the top of the skull."  By editing the presentation to exclude the boldface words, it made it appear that the "surgery of the head area" was not specifically in the top of the skull (where the surgery evidence actually appeared), but rather that the statement was referring to the triangular incision above the right eye.  This is not scholarship; it is shameful propaganda.

Yes- that is NOVA and Walter Cronkite circa 1988.

[Pat Speer]

6 hours ago, Vince Palamara said:

 

Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln? Everyone seemed to miss this when it aired in 1988 and for many years afterward. @Pat Speer dedicated to you, Pat.

 

 

The denuding of skin is symptomatic of tangential wounds, Vince. As the bullet strikes at a shallow angle, a piece of bone pulls forward and tears the skin. 

Edited April 21 by Pat Speer

[Keven Hofeling]

On 4/20/2024 at 11:11 PM, Pat Speer said:

The denuding of skin is symptomatic of tangential wounds, Vince. As the bullet strikes at a shallow angle, a piece of bone pulls forward and tears the skin. 

So, in Dr. Peter Peters professional judgment, this is an "incision" at the hairline on JFK's forehead. An insision that was not present when Peters inspected the body at Parkland Hospital.

What do we see in the same region in the Zapruder film at frame 337 (compared with frame 312, a second and a half earlier, one frame prior to the headshot at Z-313):

 

What is that we are seeing where JFK's forehead should be in Z-337, but Jackie's pink shoulder pad? How can that be?

ZAPRUDER FRAME 337

 

Is that some kind of optical illusion? Well, let's look at Z-335 to see whether it also depicts Jackie's pink shoulder pad where JFK's forehead should be:

ZAPRUDER FRAME 335

 

No, not appearing to be an optical illusion. How about if we look at all of the clear Zapruder frames between Z-314 and Z-337 to see if we can ascertain whether the catastrophic damage we are seeing in Z-337 is present in the other frames as well?

 

What? Why do we see a cantaloupe sized segment of JFK's anterior skull being detached from his head, leaving a huge crater where his forehead should be? That is not consistent with the intact forehead we see in the autopsy photographs, is it? 

Could it be that the damage we are seeing in the Z-frames in question is the damage depicted in the autopsy photographs of the top of JFK's head?

 

But if that is the case, how did that damage move all of that distance from the forward anterior region of JFK's head to the crown of JFK's head between the time of the assassination in Dealey Plaza to the time of the autopsy in the Bethesda morgue?

Could the testimony of mortician Tom Robinson given when shown the top of the head autopsy photographs by the ARRB shed any light on this discrepancy?

MD 180 - ARRB Meeting Report Summarizing 6/21/96 In-Person Interview of Tom Robinson:

"...FOX AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHS:

After completing his four drawings of head wounds and describing those wounds, ARRB staff showed Mr. Robinson a set of what is alleged to be the Fox autopsy photographs to see whether they were consistent with what he remembered seeing in the morgue at Bethesda. His comments follow, related to...

PAGE 5:

https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md180/html/md180_0005a.htm

...various Fox photos:

-Right Superior Profile (corresponding to B & W #s 5 and 6); He does not see the small shrapnel holes he noted in the right cheek, but he assumes this is because of the photo's poor quality.

-Back of Head (corresponds to B & W #s 15 and 16): Robinson said; "You see, this is the flap of skin, the blow-out in the right temple that I told you about, and which I drew in my drawing." WHEN ASKED BY ARRB WHERE THE HOLE IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD WAS IN RELATION TO THE PHOTOGRAPH, ROBINSON RESPONDED BY PLACING HIS FINGERS IN A CIRCLE JUST ABOVE THE WHITE SPOT IN THE HAIRLINE IN THE PHOTOGRAPH AND SAID "THE HOLE WAS RIGHT HERE, WHERE I SAID IT WAS IN MY DRAWING, BUT IT JUST DOESN'T SHOW UP IN THIS PHOTO." (emphasis not in original)

-Top of Head/Superior View of Cranium (corresponds to B & W #'s 7-10): ROBINSON FROWNED, AND SAID WITH APPARENT DISAGREEMENT, "THIS MAKES IT LOOK LIKE THE WOUND WAS IN THE TOP OF THE HEAD." HE EXPLAINED THAT THE DAMAGE IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH WAS "WHAT THE DOCTORS DID," AND EXPLAINED THAT THEY CUT THIS SCALP OPEN AND REFLECTED IT BACK IN ORDER TO REMOVE BULLET FRAGMENTS (THE FRAGMENTS HE HAD OBSERVED IN A GLASS VIAL). ARRB STAFF MEMBERS ASKED ROBINSON WHETHER THERE WAS DAMAGE TO THE TOP OF THE HEAD WHEN HE ARRIVED AT THE MORGUE AND BEFORE THE BRAIN WAS REMOVED; HE REPLIED BY SAYING THAT THIS AREA WAS "ALL BROKEN," BUT THAT IT WAS NOT OPEN LIKE THE WOUND IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD (emphasis not in original)...."

 

So, mortician Tom Robinson protested the top of the head autopsy photographs, complaining that the damage depicted in them represented "WHAT THE DOCTORS DID" when searching for bullet fragments, and emphasized "THAT THIS AREA WAS "ALL BROKEN," BUT THAT IT WAS NOT OPEN LIKE THE WOUND IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD." 

Well how about what Dr. Paul Peters said upon seeing the Zapruder film images above, perhaps that might shed some light on these discrepancies?

PAUL PETERS, MD:

"...When shown enlarged Zapruder film frames depicting a right-anterior wound, Peters wrote, "The wound which you marked...I never saw and I don't think there was such a wound. I think that was simply an artifact of copying Zapruder's movie... The only wound I saw on President Kennedy's head was in the occipitoparietal area on the right side." (Personal letter to Wallace Milam 4-14-80, copy, courtesy of Wallace Milam to author Aguilar; also in Lifton, BE: 557)..."

http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm

 

Something smells rotten in Denmark!

The Zapruder film depicts a cantaloupe sized crater in JFK's forehead which by the time the body is autopsied has moved to the crown of JFK's head. But mortician Tom Robinson tells us that the doctors caused the damage to the top of the head, and that the only large open wound was in the back of the head, and Dr. Paul Peters, who inspected the body immediately after the assassination, tells us that there was no head wound other than the large avulsive wound at the back of the head, and that the incision he identified at the hairline in the right profile autopsy photograph also was not present at Parkland Hospital.

In light of the above, does anybody want to defend the authenticity of these fraudulent film and photographic materials?

 

Edited April 22 by Keven Hofeling

[Michael Crane]

Incision was made to remove the entrance.

 

[Denise Hazelwood]

On 4/21/2024 at 1:11 AM, Pat Speer said:

 

If you look at the JFK autopsy photo you can see a hole above the right ear, where an area of scalp has been pulled back from the head. This would be James Jenkins’ hole, which roughly corresponds to the WC exit (although without the blowout), which is where I place the AR-15 exit. It didn’t create a blowout because there was already a blowout at the back of the head from the first TSBD shot (forehead entry), and all the energy dissipated out through that, creating a “halo” of blood and brain tissue.

[Pat Speer]

18 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

Incision was made to remove the entrance.

 

I know that's what Horne wants us to believe...but how do you remove a hole by cutting into it? As detailed in Jim D's last book Stone asked Horne this very question, and was given some rigamarole. The bone Horne claims was cut off the head contained no bullet hole, and was inches away from were they claim the bullet entered. So why was no hole in this location observed by those viewing the body at Parkland? Or Bethesda? Or shown on the photos? Or on the A-P x-ray? 

There was no bullet hole there. This whole hole thing got drummed up when Mantik took Robinson's recollection of a small wound by the temple and started claiming he saw a bullet hole on the forehead. Robinson was asked about this by the ARRB and said it was two or three small wounds on the cheek.And yet here we are 25 years later with Mantik and Horne still claiming Robinson said he saw a hole on the forehead. 

Edited April 24 by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

7 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

Incision was made to remove the entrance.

 

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

I know that's what Horne wants us to believe...but how do you remove a hole by cutting into it?

 

Given Pat's history of slandering both witnesses and researchers, and Doug Horne's history of carefully studying a situation and then providing an analysis that makes a great deal of sense... I think it would be wise for the reader to take Pat's paraphrase of Horne's analysis with a grain of salt and to reserve judgement till after reading Horne's actual analysis.

 

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

As detailed in Jim D's last book Stone asked Horne this very question, and was given some rigamarole. The bone Horne claims was cut off the head contained no bullet hole, and was inches away from were they claim the bullet entered. So why was no hole in this location observed by those viewing the body at Parkland? Or Bethesda? Or shown on the photos? Or on the A-P x-ray? 

There was no bullet hole there. This whole hole thing got drummed up when Mantik took Robinson's recollection of a small wound on the cheek and started claiming he saw a bullet hole on the forehead. Robinson was asked about this by the ARRB and said it was two or three small wounds on the cheek.And yet here we are 25 years later with Mantik and Horne still claiming Robinson said he saw a hole on the forehead. 

 

[Pat Speer]

11 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Given Pat's history of slandering both witnesses and researchers, and Doug Horne's history of carefully studying a situation and then providing an analysis that makes a great deal of sense... I think it would be wise for the reader to take Pat's paraphrase of Horne's analysis with a grain of salt and to reserve judgement till after reading Horne's actual analysis.

 

 

Hilarious. Horne's history is one of taking inconsistencies in the record and spinning them into the wildest tale possible. 

I urge you to do the research.

What did Tom Robinson tell the HSCA? That he recalled a small wound on Kennedy's temple.

What did Tom Robinson tell the ARRB? That there were two or three tiny wounds on Kennedy's cheek. 

What did Doug Horne take from his statements? That there was a bullet hole high on the forehead above the right eye. 

 

What did James Jenkins say? That he recalled seeing a gray smear on the skull above the right ear.

What did he come to claim later? That he saw a bullet hole above the right ear.

What did Horne claim in JFK: What the Doctors saw Jenkins REALLY saw? A bullet hole high on the forehead above the right eye.

 

What did Ed Reed say? He and Custer took the x-rays, developed them, brought them back to the morgue, sat down for twenty minutes, saw Humes start cutting on Kennedy to remove the brain, was asked to leave as his services were no longer required, and never returned to the autopsy. 

What did Horne take from his statements? That he came in to take the x-rays and sat down, saw Humes cutting on Kennedy to remove bones from the top of the head to phony up the x-rays, was asked to leave, and was asked to return after 20 minutes to take the phony x-rays.

 

The statements of Robinson and Reed are the pillars of Horne's theory. And yet he grossly misrepresents their statements to conjure up this theory. 

 

Now, as you know, he has few if any supporters among the upper echelon of researchers within the "community." That doesn't mean he 's wrong. But it's saying something that he has spent dozens if not hundreds of hours with Mantik in which he undoubtedly pushed. a theory holding that the largest recovered bone fragment was removed by Humes at Bethesda, and that Mantik would never embrace this, telling you, a few years back that the fragment was missing at Parkland but the hole was covered by scalp, and telling his audience in 2021, that this is pretty much what Humes saw when he first saw Kennedy's head. 

 

Now, as a refresher, here is what Horne claims Humes saw, prior to his alteration of the body...

Now I'm guessing you're siding with Horne. 

But Horne, in case you haven't noticed, is by far the most slanderous researcher of all. Virtually everyone interviewed by the ARRB, in Horne's eyes, was a coward or a liar.

Heck, he claims Tom Robinson, his star witness, was involved in the clandestine delivery of JFK's body at Parkland an hour and a half before its official arrival. 

 

 

Edited April 24 by Pat Speer

[Michael Crane]

18 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I know that's what Horne wants us to believe...but how do you remove a hole by cutting into it? As detailed in Jim D's last book Stone asked Horne this very question, and was given some rigamarole. The bone Horne claims was cut off the head contained no bullet hole, and was inches away from were they claim the bullet entered. So why was no hole in this location observed by those viewing the body at Parkland? Or Bethesda? Or shown on the photos? Or on the A-P x-ray? 

There was no bullet hole there. This whole hole thing got drummed up when Mantik took Robinson's recollection of a small wound by the temple and started claiming he saw a bullet hole on the forehead. Robinson was asked about this by the ARRB and said it was two or three small wounds on the cheek.And yet here we are 25 years later with Mantik and Horne still claiming Robinson said he saw a hole on the forehead. 

The medical evidence is overwhelming.They probably starting cutting & searching there for a bullet.

Edited April 25 by Michael Crane

[Michael Crane]

13 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Hilarious. Horne's history is one of taking inconsistencies in the record and spinning them into the wildest tale possible. 

I urge you to do the research.

What did Tom Robinson tell the HSCA? That he recalled a small wound on Kennedy's temple.

What did Tom Robinson tell the ARRB? That there were two or three tiny wounds on Kennedy's cheek. 

What did Doug Horne take from his statements? That there was a bullet hole high on the forehead above the right eye. 

 

What did James Jenkins say? That he recalled seeing a gray smear on the skull above the right ear.

What did he come to claim later? That he saw a bullet hole above the right ear.

What did Horne claim in JFK: What the Doctors saw Jenkins REALLY saw? A bullet hole high on the forehead above the right eye.

 

What did Ed Reed say? He and Custer took the x-rays, developed them, brought them back to the morgue, sat down for twenty minutes, saw Humes start cutting on Kennedy to remove the brain, was asked to leave as his services were no longer required, and never returned to the autopsy. 

What did Horne take from his statements? That he came in to take the x-rays and sat down, saw Humes cutting on Kennedy to remove bones from the top of the head to phony up the x-rays, was asked to leave, and was asked to return after 20 minutes to take the phony x-rays.

 

The statements of Robinson and Reed are the pillars of Horne's theory. And yet he grossly misrepresents their statements to conjure up this theory. 

 

Now, as you know, he has few if any supporters among the upper echelon of researchers within the "community." That doesn't mean he 's wrong. But it's saying something that he has spent dozens if not hundreds of hours with Mantik in which he undoubtedly pushed. a theory holding that the largest recovered bone fragment was removed by Humes at Bethesda, and that Mantik would never embrace this, telling you, a few years back that the fragment was missing at Parkland but the hole was covered by scalp, and telling his audience in 2021, that this is pretty much what Humes saw when he first saw Kennedy's head. 

 

Now, as a refresher, here is what Horne claims Humes saw, prior to his alteration of the body...

Now I'm guessing you're siding with Horne. 

But Horne, in case you haven't noticed, is by far the most slanderous researcher of all. Virtually everyone interviewed by the ARRB, in Horne's eyes, was a coward or a liar.

Heck, he claims Tom Robinson, his star witness, was involved in the clandestine delivery of JFK's body at Parkland an hour and a half before its official arrival. 

 

 

I know that you seen the series "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" now who was that guy that seen the bullet hole in the temple? Was it O'Donnell or someone that knew a name close to O'Donnell?He was an older gentleman.

One picture it was there & one picture it wasn't there.

You have to know who I'm taking about?

Was it a Joe?

Pictures came from a Knudsen set?

 

Edited April 25 by Michael Crane

[Sandy Larsen]

14 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

What did Tom Robinson tell the HSCA? That he recalled a small wound on Kennedy's temple.

What did Tom Robinson tell the ARRB? That there were two or three tiny wounds on Kennedy's cheek. 

What did Doug Horne take from his statements? That there was a bullet hole high on the forehead above the right eye.

 

This is a perfect example of Pat Speer slandering a researcher. First he misrepresents the researcher's evidence. Then he states the researcher's conclusion based on that evidence... which of course makes no sense due to Pat's misrepresentation. And so, he concludes, there is something wrong with the researcher's thinking.

 

[Pat Speer]

18 minutes ago, Michael Crane said:

I know that you seen the series "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" now who was that guy that seen the bullet hole in the temple? Was it O'Donnell or someone that knew a name close to O'Donnell?He was an older gentleman.

One picture it was there & one picture it wasn't there.

You have to know who I'm taking about?

Was it a Joe?

Pictures came from a Knudsen set?

 

 it was Joe O'Donnell. 13 years ago or so, I was reading the New York Times and came across an article about a former U.S. Information Agency photographer who had recently passed,  whose passing had ignited a scandal. 

Because his obituary had listed a number of famous photos he'd taken, when he had in fact not taken these photos. It turned out that, although he had taken some famous photos in the aftermath of the A bomb in Japan, he had been signing and selling photographic prints for decades of photos that he had not taken==all of which were Kennedy-related. An investigation followed and led to his family admitting he'd been suffering from dementia and had developed an unhealthy obsession with the Kennedys. This was, of course Joe O'Donnell, one of the few people in history whose obituary led to a retraction. 

In any event, I read a number of articles on this situation, and saw that Cecil Stoughton, the White House photographer who'd accompanied Kennedy to Dallas, and had taken the Johnson swearing-in photos, had said he'd never heard of O'Donnell, and that, if I recall, U.S. Information Agency photographers did not interact much with White House photographers or the first family. 

Well, hell, I thought, and went back and read the notes of the interviews of the Knudsen family, and found they said they'd never heard of O'Donnell. And then re-read the notes on Horne's interview with O'Donnell, in which he reported that O'Donnell had claimed he'd performed a private showing of the Zapruder film for Jacqueline Kennedy, and that the two of them had edited the film together. 

Well, that was it, I thought, the man was obviously suffering from dementia when he claimed Knudsen had shown him some photos. But, wait, how would he have known Knudsen had claimed he'd taken some photos? I then remembered that Knudsen had written an article in which he claimed he'd taken photos...and that the HSCA had then called him in to testify and that he'd told them he'd developed photos taken by others.

In any event, I shared this info with the research community in the hopes people would stop citing O'Donnell as an important witness. And have instead witnessed men like Mantik and Horne continue to cite O'Donnell as credible, when they know full well he is not. 

Now, recently, after re-reading all of this stuff, I feel a little more charitable towards O'Donnell. We Know Knudsen developed photos. So the possibility exists Knudsen DID show O'Donnell some photos, and that O'Donnell had simply mis-remembered the nature of these photos

[Sandy Larsen]

14 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Heck, [Horne] claims Tom Robinson, his star witness, was involved in the clandestine delivery of JFK's body at Parkland an hour and a half before its official arrival.

 

Unlike Horne, Pat Speer routinely kicks inconvenient facts under the rug. In contrast, Doug Horne studies all the facts he can find and comes up with a cogent hypothesis that explains it all.

What Pat scoffs at here is too much for his thought process to handle. But for most intelligent people it makes perfect sense given what evidence we have. JFK's body was indeed delivered to Bethesda Hospital well before it's official arrival time. Most likely it was flown in by helicopter from the airport. It arrived in a plain shipping casket, not the ornate bronze one that it was put in at Parkland.