Limo fragment question

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

I was expecting a response where Pat Speer advised us to ignore the evidence of our own eyes.

And, voila, there it is...

Nothing to see here, folks.  Move along now.

And pay no attention to Dr. Chesser's analysis of the bullet fragmentation proving that the forehead shot came from the front. 🙄

So...wait... Are you saying that YOUR interpretations of an autopsy photo are more valid than the recollections and observations of the Parkland witnesses?

Aren't you among the many who have claimed we should not trust the photos because they are at odds with the recollections of these witnesses?

Do you see the inconsistency? 

 

[Jean Ceulemans]

Find the "fake" 

Ho, wait a minute.. there is something almost identical in both...

 

 

Edited Monday at 11:37 PM by Jean Ceulemans

[W. Niederhut]

42 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

So...wait... Are you saying that YOUR interpretations of an autopsy photo are more valid than the recollections and observations of the Parkland witnesses?

Aren't you among the many who have claimed we should not trust the photos because they are at odds with the recollections of these witnesses?

Do you see the inconsistency? 

 

Huh?  Says the guy who has been repeatedly busted for misrepresenting what the Parkland physicians actually said about the large exit wound at the back of JFK's head?

That's rich.

Under the circumstances, why should anyone trust your assertions about what Parkland physicians said about entry wounds?

What I said (above) is that I see no evidence in the photo of JFK's corpse of a facial exit wound, but I do see what certainly resembles a right upper forehead entry wound in the photo.

Secondly, we all know, from the Z film, that a frontal head shot knocked JFK's head violently backward and to the left.

Tell us where the bullet which knocked JFK's head violently backward and to the left struck his head.

Don't duck the question.   Your answer goes here:

____________________________________________________________________________

Edited August 12 by W. Niederhut

[Pat Speer]

Just now, W. Niederhut said:

Huh?  Says the guy who has been repeatedly busted for misrepresenting what the Parkland physicians actually said about the large exit wound at the back of JFK's head?

That's rich.

Under the circumstances, why should anyone trust your assertions about what Parkland physicians said about entry wounds?

What I said (above) is that I see no evidence in the photo of JFK's corpse of a facial exit wound, but I do see what certainly resembles a right upper forehead entry wound in the photo.

Secondly, we all know, from the Z film, that a frontal head shot knocked JFK's head violently backward and to the left.

Tell us where the bullet which knocked JFK's head violently backward struck his head.

Don't duck the question.   Your answer goes here:

____________________________________________________________________________

Oh my. I have written and spoken on the medical evidence for 20 years and have broken bread with Wecht, Aguiiar, Thompson, etc. I have stood on the knoll and fielded questions with Groden. And my claims haven't changed for 20 years. Because the basic facts haven't changed for more than 20 years. 

In short, there are witnesses whose initial statements suggested the back of the head was blown out. The majority of these  witnesses agreed with Clark--that the wound appeared to be a wound of both entrance and exit, but they also thought it may have been an exit for a bullet entering the throat. 

Not one said they saw or even thought there was an entrance on the forehead for 30 years or more. And then but two--McClelland and Crenshaw--said they THOUGHT there may have been an entrance on the forehead, but that they did not see such a wound. 

When initially shown the back of the head photo, many of these witnesses said that wasn't what they recalled--that they thought the wound was more rearward. 

When shown ALL the autopsy photos at the archives for NOVA, moreover, ALL those asked, including McClelland, said they thought the photos were legit and reflected what they remembered. NONE of them said the photos showed a hole on the forehead. 

Now... McClelland thought the so-called BOH photo showed intact scalp where he thought there was a hole, and wondered if the hand in the photo was not somehow holding scalp up to cover the hole. 

Well, I was eventually able to prove he was basically correct. In the comparison below, one can see that the hand at left is holding up a flap that has dropped down into the skull in the photo at right. This proves that the wound as observed at Parkland would have been inches rearward of where it is shown in the BOH photo. 

Now why would "they"fake a photo to show a hole at the top of the back of the head? 

 

[W. Niederhut]

53 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Huh?  Says the guy who has been repeatedly busted for misrepresenting what the Parkland physicians actually said about the large exit wound at the back of JFK's head?

That's rich.

Under the circumstances, why should anyone trust your assertions about what Parkland physicians said about entry wounds?

What I said (above) is that I see no evidence in the photo of JFK's corpse of a facial exit wound, but I do see what certainly resembles a right upper forehead entry wound in the photo.

Secondly, we all know, from the Z film, that a frontal head shot knocked JFK's head violently backward and to the left.

Tell us where the bullet which knocked JFK's head violently backward and to the left struck his head.

Don't duck the question.   Your answer goes here:

____________________________________________________________________________

Pat,

   Answer my question.

   Where did the bullet that knocked JFK's head violently backward and to the left strike his head? 

  Show us on the photo I posted of JFK's face (above.)

[Pat Speer]

25 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Pat,

   Answer my question.

   Where did the bullet that knocked JFK's head violently backward and to the left strike his head? 

  Show us on the photo I posted of JFK's face (above.)

I have explained this on numerous posts online, and have demonstrated this in numerous presentations. A bullet impacting at the supposed exit location would slap the head down and the head would then spring back up. This is precisely what is shown in the films. 

[W. Niederhut]

14 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

I have explained this on numerous posts online, and have demonstrated this in numerous presentations. A bullet impacting at the supposed exit location would slap the head down and the head would then spring back up. This is precisely what is shown in the films. 

Pat,

    You get an "F" in both Physics and Human Anatomy.

    Einstein used to say, "If you can't explain it straightforwardly, you probably don't understand it."

    So, let me help you out.  This isn't rocket science.

    According to Newton's Law of Conservation of Momentum, the fatal bullet was traveling on a trajectory that was roughly similar to the trajectory of JFK's head after the violent collision-- i.e. backward and to the left.

    So, it was fired from the front and right of the limo, and had to strike the anterior surface of JFK's head.  The motion was instantaneous, not de-cerebrate.

    But the only anterior wounds visible on the cadaver photo are JFK's throat wound and what appears to be a bullet entry wound in the right upper forehead (based on my observations of entry wounds in medical ERs.)

     If you see another wound on his anterior head, please let us know.

    

Edited August 13 by W. Niederhut

[Jean Ceulemans]

W. you did not react to the above, according to what I see in each photo we have the same thing in each one (triangular shaped). 

So, what is it (or what are these) according your expertise in the field?

If the first is an entry, what is the second?

 

 

Edited Monday at 11:39 PM by Jean Ceulemans

[Ron Bulman]

From At The Cold Shoulder of History by USN Bethesda Corpsman William C. Jenkins with William Matson Law, page 16.

Dr. Pierre A Fink and Dr. Humes started examining the head wounds.  They found a small wound on the right side of the head in the temporal area just forward and slightly above the right ear.  the small hole (wound) was rounded and about the size ot the tip of one's little finger.  There appeared to be graying around the margins of the wound, but it was difficult to see because the wound was in the hair line.  Dr. Fink speculated that the grey material might have come from a bullet.  During the examination of the temple wound, Dr. Humes was called to the gallery to talk to one of the people who had come into the morgue with him and who seemed to be directing the autopsy.  I was later told this was Dr. George G. Burkley (Admiral), the president's personal physician.  Dr. Humes returned to the table and immediately directed Dr. Fink away from the small wound in the temple to the large posterior head wound. The temple wound was abandoned and never returned to that night.

[Nick Bartetzko]

2 hours ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

Find the "fake" 

Ho, wait a minute.. there is something almost identical in both...

The color photo appears to have a piece of bloody gauge covering what is probably a bullet hole in the temple. The piece of gauze also appears to be positioned in such a way so the "pointy" portion is facing downward.

[Johnny Cairns]

9 hours ago, Kevin Balch said:

How does this explain the location of the Harper fragment being in front of the limo which no one who believes the rear of the skull exit theory wants to talk about?

Kevin, 

Are you trying to tell me that over 30 witnesses which range from Doctors, Nurses, SS Agents, Funeral home employees, morticians etc were all grossly in error in their reports and testimony regarding the massive exit wound in the back of the Presidents head? 

[Johnny Cairns]

7 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Oh my. I have written and spoken on the medical evidence for 20 years and have broken bread with Wecht, Aguiiar, Thompson, etc. I have stood on the knoll and fielded questions with Groden. And my claims haven't changed for 20 years. Because the basic facts haven't changed for more than 20 years. 

In short, there are witnesses whose initial statements suggested the back of the head was blown out. The majority of these  witnesses agreed with Clark--that the wound appeared to be a wound of both entrance and exit, but they also thought it may have been an exit for a bullet entering the throat. 

Not one said they saw or even thought there was an entrance on the forehead for 30 years or more. And then but two--McClelland and Crenshaw--said they THOUGHT there may have been an entrance on the forehead, but that they did not see such a wound. 

When initially shown the back of the head photo, many of these witnesses said that wasn't what they recalled--that they thought the wound was more rearward. 

When shown ALL the autopsy photos at the archives for NOVA, moreover, ALL those asked, including McClelland, said they thought the photos were legit and reflected what they remembered. NONE of them said the photos showed a hole on the forehead. 

Now... McClelland thought the so-called BOH photo showed intact scalp where he thought there was a hole, and wondered if the hand in the photo was not somehow holding scalp up to cover the hole. 

Well, I was eventually able to prove he was basically correct. In the comparison below, one can see that the hand at left is holding up a flap that has dropped down into the skull in the photo at right. This proves that the wound as observed at Parkland would have been inches rearward of where it is shown in the BOH photo. 

Now why would "they"fake a photo to show a hole at the top of the back of the head? 

 

Pat, 

You know what has always troubled me about this picture? Why is either Humes, Boswell or Fincks hand look like it is pulling the Presidents scalp forward? That surly cannot be standard procedure? 

[Benjamin Cole]

https://www.academia.edu/27497520/Zeroing_in_on_JFKs_fatal_head_shot?email_work_card=view-paper

The history of Harper fragment...ooof. Who knows?

This author concludes that JFK was struck by a storm-drain shot.

[Jean Ceulemans]

1 hour ago, Johnny Cairns said:

Pat, 

You know what has always troubled me about this picture? Why is either Humes, Boswell or Fincks hand look like it is pulling the Presidents scalp forward? That surly cannot be standard procedure? 

I think that was in part 1) to show the skin below the hairline (it was mentioned there was some bruising there, caused by?), 2) to show that the scalp there was rather complete (however, under the scalp the bones were fractured etc). But Pat will correct me on this.

[Paul Cummings]

The crime scene on Elm St. allowed cars and people to travel through DP after the JFKA and you wonder where the Harper fragment was located?