Limo fragment question

[Pat Speer]

5 hours ago, Johnny Cairns said:

I am sure Dr Robert Shaw and others examined the harper fragment and believed it came for the occipital region, which of-course implies a frontal shot. Can we see the harper fragment today? To stop all this speculation? No, it’s been “lost” for decades. 

Dr. Shaw never saw the Harper fragment. No one viewing JFK's body outside of Dr. Burkley ever saw the fragment.

As it is, we have extremely good photos of the fragment...which prove it was not occipital bone. 

(This is one of the reasons I am constantly under fire on this forum. Dr. Mantik decided it was occipital bone because he thought it fit into the mystery photo like a puzzle piece. He never studied the bone itself to see if this made any sense. When later called out on this by Dr. Joseph Riley, a neuro-anatomist, he doubled-down and made up all sorts of reasons to believe he was correct, including that the beveling on the fragment is outward beveling even though it marks an entrance. When I finally started writing about this, moreover, and further demonstrated that he was blowing smoke, he began claiming that the Harper fragment was not shaped like occipital bone because the medication JFK was taking for his Addison's disease had deformed his bones. This is disgusting, IMO.) 

[Johnny Cairns]

23 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

IMO, based upon the witnesses and the photographic and film evidence, he had a small entrance wound low on the back of the head AND a large wound (of both entrance and exit) on the right rear quadrant of the head (when viewed from above). The bone fragment at the rear of this latter wound, moreover, was fractured from the skull on the back of the head, and plopped open when JFK was on his back. The brain review and brain photos prove these wounds were not related, moreover. So my conclusion is and has been that there were two head shots, and almost certainly two shooters. 

I am sure JT in Last Seconds in Dallas concluded two head shots also? It’s certainly possible. Of-course these questions should have been reconciled by the Presidents autopsy… 

[Johnny Cairns]

11 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Dr. Shaw never saw the Harper fragment. No one viewing JFK's body outside of Dr. Burkley ever saw the fragment.

As it is, we have extremely good photos of the fragment...which prove it was not occipital bone. 

(This is one of the reasons I am constantly under fire on this forum. Dr. Mantik decided it was occipital bone because he thought it fit into the mystery photo like a puzzle piece. He never studied the bone itself to see if this made any sense. When later called out on this by Dr. Joseph Riley, a neuro-anatomist, he doubled-down and made up all sorts of reasons to believe he was correct, including that the beveling on the fragment is outward beveling even though it marks an entrance. When I finally started writing about this, moreover, and further demonstrated that he was blowing smoke, he began claiming that the Harper fragment was not shaped like occipital bone because the medication JFK was taking for his Addison's disease had deformed his bones. This is disgusting, IMO.) 

Sorry yes, Geroge Burkley, not Shaw. I’ve got 101 names floating around my head. 
 

Do you think the fragment could have been reinterred with the body during the exhumation in the 67? 

[Pat Speer]

32 minutes ago, Johnny Cairns said:

Sorry yes, Geroge Burkley, not Shaw. I’ve got 101 names floating around my head. 
 

Do you think the fragment could have been reinterred with the body during the exhumation in the 67? 

My understanding is that the casket was never re-opened after the funeral. So for me the whereabouts of the fragment remain a mystery along with the brain and the slides. 

It wouldn't surprise me, however, if Burkley disposed of it. 

[W. Niederhut]

15 hours ago, Johnny Cairns said:

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? 

And my question for Pat Speer remains unanswered.

Given that there was a massive exit wound on the back of JFK's head, where was the corresponding entrance wound, from the bullet that knocked his head violently backward and to the left?

The only visible anterior wounds on the JFK facial photo I posted (above) are in the throat and the right upper forehead.

The Bethesda autopsy and x-ray gobbledy gook is largely irrelevant, in a sense, because we have no way of knowing what was done to JFK's skull after his corpse was forcibly confiscated from the coroner at Parkland.

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

And my question for Pat Speer remains unanswered.

Given that there was a massive exit wound on the back of JFK's head, where was the corresponding entrance wound, from the bullet that knocked his head violently backward and to the left?

The only visible anterior wounds on the JFK facial photo I posted (above) are in the throat and the right upper forehead.

The Bethesda autopsy and x-ray gobbledy gook is largely irrelevant, in a sense, because we have no way of knowing what was done to JFK's skull after his corpse was forcibly confiscated from the coroner at Parkland.

No one at Parkland saw a bullet wound on the forehead. No one who worked on the autopsy saw a bullet wound on the forehead. None of the photos or x-rays show a bullet wound on the forehead. None of the reports written by those who viewed the body or studied the autopsy materials ever noted a bullet wound on the forehead. It follows then that...you know...

As far as the exit wound, I've been explaining this to people for roughly 20 years. The Dealey Plaza witnesses placed the wound where it is shown in the films and photos. The Parkland witnesses taken in sum placed it further back. But NOT on the far back of the head. When shown the photos those most closely involved deferred to the accuracy of the photos. 

I subsequently realized that the top of the head in the BOH photo was a flap that almost certainly flapped out at Parkland, giving the wound a more rearward appearance. That this was the cause of the confusion is supported by the fact none of the Parkland witnesses, as I recall,  said the TOH photo was faked. McClelland, in fact, said it was what he remembered. 

Once again, note that there are inches of scalp forward of the crown in the photo at left but none in the photo at right. That's because the skull flap readily visible on the x-rays is held up in the photo at left but allowed to collapse in the photo at right. 

 

 

Now you might be looking for additional proof there was a skull flap. So take a look at this. 

Now note as well that JFK was placed in the Trendelenburg position at Parkland, and that this would rotate the wound at the top of the back of the head into the back of the space occupied by the head.

(In looking at this image I realize now that the A indicating the location of the wound is probably an inch or so too forward...which makes the likelihood this rotation led to some confusion even more likely, IMO.)

Edited August 14 by Pat Speer

[W. Niederhut]

Pat,

   It's truly a waste of time to try to reason with you.

    Look at the facial photo of JFK I posted (above.)

    I clearly see what looks like a bullet entry wound in the right upper forehead.

    Have you ever seen a bullet entry wound in a forehead during your medical career?

    The only other possible anterior entry wound is in the throat.

    Now, tell us which anterior entry wound knocked JFK's head violently back and to the left, as observed.

     Your photos (above) are worthless, because we have no way of knowing what was done to JFK's head after his body was confiscated from the Parkland coroner.

Edited August 14 by W. Niederhut

[Pat Speer]

Just now, W. Niederhut said:

Pat,

   It's truly a waste of time to try to reason with you.

    Look at the facial photo of JFK I posted (above.)

    I clearly see what looks like a bullet entry wound in the right upper forehead.

    Have you ever seen bullet entry wound in a forehead during your medical career?

    The only other possible anterior wound is in the throat.

    Now, tell us which anterior entry wound knocked JFK's head violently back and to the left, as observed.

     Your photos (above) are worthless, because we have no way of knowing what was done to JFK's head after his body was confiscated from the Parkland coroner.

Why make this about me? Not one of the many Parkland and Bethesda witnesses has ever looked at that photo and said that was a bullet hole. 

FWIW, I have no medical career outside of being a cancer patient and having my wife's insurance pay for a new building or two. What I have had is time and the willingness to read. And that led me to access numerous books and articles about gunshot wounds in general and M/C bullet wounds I particular. 

Now, surprise surprise, it turned out that NONE of the experts on the JFK medical evidence had access to this stuff before me, or had found the time to look through it. So for the past several decades I have had numerous exchanges with the top doctors associated with the case, who were always eager to see what I had uncovered. 

But I have mostly shared my info on this website and at conferences. 

Now the dark shape you see on the right lateral photo is denuded bone. This is what happens when a skull fragment tears forward or backwards from the head--it tears skin away from the skull. I have found an image that depicts a similar tearing of the skin, and present it below. 

[W. Niederhut]

Geez...

Hopefully, Pat Speer will eventually tell us which anterior entry wound on the JFK facial photo I posted (above) knocked JFK's head violently back and to the left.

Pat keeps changing the subject by posting Bethesda photos that were taken after JFK's body was forcibly confiscated from the Parkland coroner.

They could have done whatever they wanted to JFK's scalp and skull after confiscating his body.

 

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Geez...

Hopefully, Pat Speer will eventually tell us which anterior entry wound on the JFK facial photo I posted (above) knocked JFK's head violently back and to the left.

Pat keeps changing the subject by posting Bethesda photos that were taken after JFK's body was forcibly confiscated from the Parkland coroner.

They could have done whatever they wanted to JFK's scalp and skull after confiscating his body.

 

What? 

If you wanna know what was seen at Parkland you need to go by the words of those who saw the President before his body left Parkland. This includes those who saw his body in the plaza and in the limo. 

As no notes were taken by the Dallas doctors, or photos, the only photos and films of the body before it reached Bethesda are the films and photos taken in the plaza. These are consistent with what is shown in the photos and x-rays taken at the autopsy. 

I have been discussing this stuff for decades with pretty much everyone to write about this stuff--most tellingly Lifton and Fetzer. When I have pointed out that the statements of the Dealey Plaza witnesses, the photos and films taken in the plaza, the statements of the Bethesda doctors, and the photos taken during the autopsy are relatively consistent, and that the only real outlier is the statements of the Parkland witnesses--many of whom would later claim they were mistaken, and say they believed the films and photos were legit--they would assure me that: 

1.) The Dealey Plaza witnesses were all mistaken.

2.) The films and photos taken in the plaza were faked to hide a hole on the back of .the head. 

3.) The films and photos taken at the autopsy were similarly all faked. 

4.) The Parkland witnesses who later corrected their statements and said they supported the authenticity of the autopsy photos and x-rays were all cowards and liars.

 

And this even though the films, photos and x-rays, when taken as legit, PROVE conspiracy. 

 

Edited August 14 by Pat Speer

[Johnny Cairns]

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

No one at Parkland saw a bullet wound on the forehead. No one who worked on the autopsy saw a bullet wound on the forehead. None of the photos or x-rays show a bullet wound on the forehead. None of the reports written by those who viewed the body or studied the autopsy materials ever noted a bullet wound on the forehead. It follows then that...you know...

As far as the exit wound, I've been explaining this to people for roughly 20 years. The Dealey Plaza witnesses placed the wound where it is shown in the films and photos. The Parkland witnesses taken in sum placed it further back. But NOT on the far back of the head. When shown the photos those most closely involved deferred to the accuracy of the photos. 

I subsequently realized that the top of the head in the BOH photo was a flap that almost certainly flapped out at Parkland, giving the wound a more rearward appearance. That this was the cause of the confusion is supported by the fact none of the Parkland witnesses, as I recall,  said the TOH photo was faked. McClelland, in fact, said it was what he remembered. 

Once again, note that there are inches of scalp forward of the crown in the photo at left but none in the photo at right. That's because the skull flap readily visible on the x-rays is held up in the photo at left but allowed to collapse in the photo at right. 

 

 

Now you might be looking for additional proof there was a skull flap. So take a look at this. 

Now note as well that JFK was placed in the Trendelenburg position at Parkland, and that this would rotate the wound at the top of the back of the head into the back of the space occupied by the head.

(In looking at this image I realize now that the A indicating the location of the wound is probably an inch or so too forward...which makes the likelihood this rotation led to some confusion even more likely, IMO.)

Pat, 

The wound you describe, would this wound have caused the immense damage to the cerebellum as described by the Parkland doctors? 

[Pat Speer]

49 minutes ago, Johnny Cairns said:

Pat, 

The wound you describe, would this wound have caused the immense damage to the cerebellum as described by the Parkland doctors? 

When asked to point out the wound's location, most of those initially claiming they saw cerebellum pointed to a location at odds with their seeing cerebellum. When confronted with this, Jenkins and Carrico said they had been mistaken with Carrico making the point that macerated cerebrum gives the appearance of cerebellum and that he had in fact never lifted the head to see if the wound overlay the cerebellum. For his part, Perry flat-out denied ever seeing cerebellum. Peters, on the other hand, said he saw THE cerebellum from a hole well above the cerebellum. As a number of doctors said over the days following the assassination that they thought the bullet entered the throat and was deflected upwards in the neck and then exploded from the back of the head, this wasn't really that far-fetched. (As the cerebellum would have been en route and exposed by the explosion of tissue.)

The only expert on brain tissue to say he saw cerebellum was of course Clark. While he never publicly admitted he was wrong, he did sign off on the shot being fired from behind in his testimony, denounce conspiracy theorists in the press, and ultimately team up with John Lattimer on tests suggesting the shots came from behind. Although people wish to believe he was a CT, I think we should suspect the opposite. 

I do suspect he had some reservations, however, possibly related to his thinking he saw cerebellum but more likely, IMO, to his never hearing anything that would refute that the large wound was a tangential wound of entrance and exit. He was TOLD by Specter that the bullet had passed through the brain from behind, but there was nothing to actually support this. Beyond wishful thinking. When the Clark Panel inspected the brain photos, they realized that there was no sign of a bullet passing through the brain from low to high and so began looking for an entrance high on the back of the head. They settled, of course, upon a red splotch on the photos that Dr. Humes dismissed as a speck of blood in a location where ALL the witnesses at the autopsy said there was not a bullet hole. Painfully aware of this, but under pressure to make the evidence "fit", HSCA counsel Gary Cornwell decided to attack Humes as a hostile witness, but avoided doing so at the last minute after Petty and Baden et al prevailed upon Humes to pretend the bullet entered at the red splotch. 

P.S. In going back to your original question, I suppose I should clarify that ER doctors are not used to seeing shredded brain tissue. People suffering such wounds usually die before they reach a doctor. As cerebellum has a slightly different color than cerebrum, it is a lot easier to tell the tissues apart in a jar, than when soaked in blood. So I suspect Carrico is correct--that the doctors may very well have been mistaken. Clark is the main problem with this, IMO, and if he stuck by his claims he saw cerebellum and insisted the wound was low on the back of the head, that would make it a lot harder for me and others to conclude they were mistaken about the cerebellum. But he didn't. Instead he buddied up with Lattimer and denounced CTs (I assume he meant Lifton) in the press. 

There's also this to consider. The bulk of the evidence led me to conclude the bullet entering near the EOP descended within the neck. Such a bullet would almost definitely graze the underside of the cerebellum. Now, here's a surprise. Among the tissue samples taken at autopsy was a slice from the underside of the cerebellum. And it's right there in the report. Humes concluded it showed signs of being struck by a bullet. Now these slides of course disappeared and I can't help but wonder if there was more to it than these slides containing flesh from the President. IF the sample indeed showed signs of a bullet striking the underside of the cerebellum, well this proves the bullet did not pass upwards across the top of the cerebellum--which means this bullet did not explode the top of the head. And that there were two shots to head. 

So, my theory, if you will, is not actually at odds with the sighting of some cerebellum. It seems possible, IMO, that a small amount of cerebellum leaked out the EOP entrance. 

But the big clump of brain McClelland saw fall to the cart? I think that was most likely macerated cerebrum. 

 

 

Edited August 14 by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

Nearly every doctor said early on that the gaping wound was on the back of he head. Several said it was so low that they could see cerebellar tissue oozing out the wound.

And yet the autopsy photos show no such  wound on the back of the head.

So how does one explain the discrepancy between the autopsy photos and the eyewitness's testimony? It naturally comes to mind that the witnesses were mistaken. People, after all, do make mistakes.

However in this instance it is different. In this case there are so many corroborating witnesses that it is virtually impossible for them all to be wrong.

So what does that leave us?

The only other possibility is that the autopsy photos have been altered in a way to make the back-of-head wound disappear.

This hypothesized alteration actually makes a lot of sense, given that a gaping wound on the back of the head would cause serious problems for the lone-gunman narrative being pushed by the U.S, government. Remember, a back-of-head gaping wound indicates a gunshot from JFK's front.

And so we accept autopsy photo alteration as the explanation for the photos not reflecting what the witnesses saw. As I said, it is really our only choice.

Now, as Pat said in the prior post, a number of the doctors revised their statements when it was pointed out to them that the autopsy photos showed no gaping wound on the back of the head. This should come as no surprise as not doing so would put a doctor in a very difficult position... possibly causing them to lose credibility in their profession.

What this action does for us is to remind us that the best witnesses are the early ones who haven't had time for their positions to be tainted. That is the reason that many of us consider only early statements and testimonies when determining the facts of this case. This is in stark contrast to Pat's practice of jumping around in time, cherry-picking when best to choose a witness's position to serve his purpose.

 

[W. Niederhut]

32 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Nearly every doctor said early on that the gaping wound was on the back of he head. Several said it was so low that they could see cerebellar tissue oozing out the wound.

And yet the autopsy photos show no such  wound on the back of the head.

So how does one explain the discrepancy between the autopsy photos and the eyewitness's testimony? It naturally comes to mind that the witnesses were mistaken. People, after all, do make mistakes.

However in this instance it is different. In this case there are so many corroborating witnesses that it is virtually impossible for them all to be wrong.

So what does that leave us?

The only other possibility is that the autopsy photos have been altered in a way to make the back-of-head wound disappear.

This hypothesized alteration actually makes a lot of sense, given that a gaping wound on the back of the head would cause serious problems for the lone-gunman narrative being pushed by the U.S, government. Remember, a back-of-head gaping wound indicates a gunshot from JFK's front.

And so we accept autopsy photo alteration as the explanation for the photos not reflecting what the witnesses saw. As I said, it is really our only choice.

Now, as Pat said in the prior post, a number of the doctors revised their statements when it was pointed out to them that the autopsy photos showed no gaping wound on the back of the head. This should come as no surprise as not doing so would put a doctor in a very difficult position... possibly causing them to lose credibility in their profession.

What this action does for us is to remind us that the best witnesses are the early ones who haven't had time for their positions to be tainted. That is the reason that many of us consider only early statements and testimonies when determining the facts of this case. This is in stark contrast to Pat's practice of jumping around in time, cherry-picking when best to choose a witness's position to serve his purpose.

 

Well said, Sandy.

It's obvious that the perpetrators were focused on altering evidence to conform to their official Allen Dulles/WCR/ "Lone Nut" narrative about the assassination-- trying to create the impression that the shots came from the TBSD.

So, the Bethesda autopsy photos, and sham Humes report, are of very limited value forensically.

If I recall correctly, Dr. Michael Chesser even demonstrated that JFK's alleged brain, in storage, is not JFK's brain.

Dr. Chesser did prove, by analysis of bullet fragments in the x-rays, that the frontal head shot was moving front-to-back.

[Jean Ceulemans]

On 8/14/2024 at 3:14 PM, W. Niederhut said:

 

So autopsy pictures faked,  Pat cherry picking testimonies, etc

But what about this one?

As you said it clearly showed a frontal shot? Not? You referred to your medical experience, etc. 

Did they forget about this one?

Or cherry picking the one that fit the narrative?

I previously showed the other one next to it, but got no reply.

And hey, only trying to make some sense here.

 

 

Edited Monday at 11:32 PM by Jean Ceulemans