Limo fragment question

[W. Niederhut]

42 minutes ago, Jean Ceulemans 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.

 

Thanks for re-posting my original reference picture here, Jean.

Pat Speer won't answer my question, but what do you see on this photo in the way of possible anterior entry wounds-- i.e., a wound that could have caused the occipital exit wound and knocked JFK's head backward and to the left, as observed?

Pat has, apparently, agreed that there was an occipital exit wound.

So, where's the corresponding anterior entry wound?

Edited August 14 by W. Niederhut

[Jean Ceulemans]

But why leave it visible there, to allegedly cover it up by a piece of bone (?) in this.

Would one be so negligent to show a frontal entry wound that completely destroys the LN/WC\LBJ narrative?

Compare that wound to the X-ray.

 

Edited Monday at 11:31 PM by Jean Ceulemans

[W. Niederhut]

Jean,

   Please answer my question.

   Look at my photo (above) and identify the anterior entry wound.

    Don't change the subject by posting later, manipulated Bethesda photos.

    We have no way of knowing what was done to JFK's scalp and skull after his body was seized.

    

[Johnny Cairns]

7 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

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. 

 

 

Pat, 

Thank you for your answer. To just echo Sandys comment, the doctors were pressured immensely to keep quiet about what they had observed, Dr Perry was badgered by Washington and in particular in Dallas by SS Agent Elmer Moore. Perry was strong armed into changing his testimony regarding the wound in the neck. Dr Crenshaw called it a conspiracy of silence. 
 

Going back to the head wound, here is the statements of some of the nurses who observed the head wound at Parkland. 
 

Nurse Doris May Nelson.

Ben Bradlee Jr. "On page 104 of the House Assassination Committee Report, this rear view of the head. This is a photograph taken of the President's head, during the autopsy. I should say it's not a photograph, it's a tracing, a drawing, which claims to be an exact replica of the rear-"

Nurse Nelson. "After he was shot?"

Bradlee. "After he was shot."

Nurse Nelson. "It's not true"

Bradlee. "It's not true?"

Nelson. …." Not unless they pulled all that skin back down, but some of his head was blown away, and his brains were fallin' out on a stretcher."

Bradlee. "Oh, can you be more specific? Are you saying that this photo- this photograph does not show the wounds that you saw?"

Nelson. "No."

Bradlee. "And how doesn't it exactly?"

Nelson. "Cause there was no hair, there wasn't even hair back there, it was blown away".

Nurse Audrey Bell. "I recall the injury being right along in this area (pointing to occipital parietal area in autopsy photograph). I know they lifted it up for me to see the injury at the back of the head.

Robert Groden. "Ok but you remember there being a large hole there that is not apparent in this photograph?"

Bell. "Oh yes there was a big hole there. There was a large hole back in this area (pointing to occipital parietal area in autopsy photograph)"

Nurse Pat Hutton. "Mr Kennedy was bleeding profusely from a wound on the back of his head. A doctor asked me to place a pressure dressing on the head wound, this was of no use, however, because of the massive opening on the back of his head."

Nurse Diana Bowron. "He was moribund-he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy's knee and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other side of the car, I saw the condition of his head."

Mr Spector. "You saw the condition of his what?"

Nurse Diana Bowron. "The back of his head"

Mr Spector. "And what was that condition?"

Nurse Diana Bowron. "Well, it was very bad-you know."

Mr Spector. "How many holes did you see?"

Nurse Diana Bowron. "I just saw one large hole."

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 14 by Johnny Cairns

[Johnny Cairns]

7 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

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 Johnny Cairns

[Jean Ceulemans]

38 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Jean,

   Please answer my question.

   Look at my photo (above) and identify the anterior entry wound.

    Don't change the subject by posting later, manipulated Bethesda photos.

    We have no way of knowing what was done to JFK's scalp and skull after his body was seized.

    

Before I continue, where was the first picture taken if you say the other is later/Bethesda ?

[W. Niederhut]

Just now, Jean Ceulemans said:

Before I continue, where was the first picture taken if you say the other is later/Bethesda ?

It's irrelevant.

Look at the picture I posted and identify the putative anterior entry wound that caused the occipital exit wound and retrograde displacement of JFK's head.

What do you see?

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

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.

1. if you put in the time, you will realize that most of the statements used to suggest an occipital blow-out came courtesy the WC. They published the original statements. They took and published the testimony of the Parkland doctors. McClelland, famously, said nothing about an occipital blow-out prior to describing it to Specter. The WC also asked Humes and Boswell to oversee the creation of drawings which undoubtedly misrepresented the location of the back wound, but presented the head wound where many of the witnesses placed the wound, and most certainly NOT in a location helpful to the single-assassin solution. Well it's clear from this that Lifton was wrong and that the WC did NOTHING to hide the "truth" of the head wound, and instead focused on hiding the "truth" of the back wound. 

2. Now, when you get down in the weeds, it becomes equally clear there was a major cover-up about the head wound location--but not about the large head wound, about the small entrance wound. In 1968, it became clear to the Justice Dept. that the trajectory presented by the autopsy doctors made little sense, and they brought in a secret panel of government-friendly doctors to solve this problem. Well, they solved it alright. After realizing that the brain photos depicted a brain which had not had a bullet pass through from low to high, they determined that the bullet must have entered high and then studied the photos to "find" where the bullet really entered. They spotted a smudge of blood and then convinced themselves or flat-out lied about there being a corresponding entrance in this location on the x-rays. 

3. Chesser is not a forensic scientist. He has no more qualifications to determine a bullet entry on an x-ray than anyone on this forum. I mean, think about it. He claimed there was NO evidence for a bullet entrance on the forehead on the AP x-Ray, which shows the forehead, but that he could make one out on the Lat x-ray, which only shows the forehead from the side. That is bizarre right there. Making matters worse, he "found" a bullet hole entrance on intact bone where Mantik had long claimed his OD-readings proved there was no bone. 

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Johnny Cairns said:

Pat, 

Thank you for your answer. To just echo Sandys comment, the doctors were pressured immensely to keep quiet about what they had observed, Dr Perry was badgered by Washington and in particular in Dallas by SS Agent Elmer Moore. Perry was strong armed into changing his testimony regarding the wound in the neck. Dr Crenshaw called it a conspiracy of silence. 
 

Going back to the head wound, here is the statements of some of the nurses who observed the head wound at Parkland. 
 

Nurse Doris May Nelson.

Ben Bradlee Jr. "On page 104 of the House Assassination Committee Report, this rear view of the head. This is a photograph taken of the President's head, during the autopsy. I should say it's not a photograph, it's a tracing, a drawing, which claims to be an exact replica of the rear-"

Nurse Nelson. "After he was shot?"

Bradlee. "After he was shot."

Nurse Nelson. "It's not true"

Bradlee. "It's not true?"

Nelson. …." Not unless they pulled all that skin back down, but some of his head was blown away, and his brains were fallin' out on a stretcher."

Bradlee. "Oh, can you be more specific? Are you saying that this photo- this photograph does not show the wounds that you saw?"

Nelson. "No."

Bradlee. "And how doesn't it exactly?"

Nelson. "Cause there was no hair, there wasn't even hair back there, it was blown away".

Nurse Audrey Bell. "I recall the injury being right along in this area (pointing to occipital parietal area in autopsy photograph). I know they lifted it up for me to see the injury at the back of the head.

Robert Groden. "Ok but you remember there being a large hole there that is not apparent in this photograph?"

Bell. "Oh yes there was a big hole there. There was a large hole back in this area (pointing to occipital parietal area in autopsy photograph)"

Nurse Pat Hutton. "Mr Kennedy was bleeding profusely from a wound on the back of his head. A doctor asked me to place a pressure dressing on the head wound, this was of no use, however, because of the massive opening on the back of his head."

Nurse Diana Bowron. "He was moribund-he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy's knee and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other side of the car, I saw the condition of his head."

Mr Spector. "You saw the condition of his what?"

Nurse Diana Bowron. "The back of his head"

Mr Spector. "And what was that condition?"

Nurse Diana Bowron. "Well, it was very bad-you know."

Mr Spector. "How many holes did you see?"

Nurse Diana Bowron. "I just saw one large hole."

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, I am well aware of these statements and have been for 20 years. 

There is quite a bit of confusion in the statements relating to the words "back of the head" and occipital. 

If one separates the head into two--anterior and posterior, front of the head and back of the head--the photos show a wound on the back of the head. As a consequence there are witnesses such as Clint Hill who will say the wound was on the back of the head and then put their hand up on top of their heads behind their ear. 

As far as occipital, I think it was Robert Grossman who first said it on the record, but I have heard this straight from the mouths of doctors, that many medical people will say occipital as a general reference to the rear part of the head--an area which includes parietal bone and temporal bone. 

Statements such as Bowron's are important, however, because they confirm that there was one large wound--which is usually described in a manner consistent with the hole seen on the photos. 

Mantik and Groden, on the other hand, say this is what the wound looked like at Parkland, underneath the scalp. Does that make much sense? 

 

 

Edited August 14 by Pat Speer

[W. Niederhut]

The alleged gaping hole on the top of the Bethesda skull is most likely a surgical artifact -- created post-Parkland in an attempt to sell the CIA's false Lone Nut narrative.

From Parkland, we know that there was a prominent occipital skull exit wound, so there had to be a corresponding anterior skull entry wound.

The only visible, putative anterior entry wound is seen in the right upper forehead.

But the CIA and their WCR sales people have spent years trying to convince the public that JFK wasn't shot from the front, as we can clearly see on the long-suppressed Zapruder film.

The technique of pseudo-scientific gibberish effectively fools people who mistrust their own empirical abilities.

Edited August 14 by W. Niederhut

[Pat Speer]

7 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

The alleged gaping hole on the top of the Bethesda skull is most likely a surgical artifact -- created post-Parkland in an attempt to sell the CIA's false Lone Nut narrative. PAT: Isn't there a paper trail which proves the CIA was anxious to sell that Cuba and/or Russia was behind the assassination? Were the researchers writing about this mistaken? If so, what makes you believe that the CIA was behind the lone-nut conclusion? And how did their conclusion make its way to Johnson, Katzenbach, and Warren? Were they all under the control of the CIA? 

From Parkland, we know that there was a prominent occipital skull exit wound, so there had to be a corresponding anterior skull entry wound. PAT: The only doctor to fully study the wound at Parkland was Dr. Clark. He found no wound on the anterior skull and said from the get-go that the wound looked like a tangential wound of both entrance and exit. I spent years studying the literature on gunshot wounds, in particular the wounds created by rifles like the supposed assassination rifle. They were notorious for creating "gutter" or tangential wounds of entrance and exit. I share my research into this in chapter 16b, Digging in the Dirt. A number of top researchers have said it was among the most important things written on the assassination. But never mind that. Even a casual look at the history of gunshot wounds will tell you that many large wounds are not the exits of a bullet entering elsewhere, and that your assumption there must be a separate entrance on the front of the head is incorrect.

The only visible, putative anterior entry wound is seen in the right upper forehead. PAT: Please. NONE of the Parkland witnesses saw a bullet hole in this location, and none of the Bethesda witnesses saw a hole in this location. And none of the doctors studying the photos at the archives--including Dr.s Chesser and Mantik, who think there was a hole high on the forehead--think any of the photos show such a hole. 

But the CIA and their WCR sales people have spent years trying to convince the public that JFK wasn't shot from the front, as we can clearly see on the long-suppressed Zapruder film. PAT: Wait... Are you admitting here that the Zapruder film fails to support the WC's scenario, and is quite possibly an accurate depiction of the shooting? It shows an explosion from the right top of the head, where the Newmans placed the wound. Was that a coincidence? 

The technique of pseudo-scientific gibberish effectively fools people who mistrust their own empirical abilities. PAT: I hope you're not claiming that books on wound ballistics and radiology are pseudo-science and that people should just look at photos and trust whatever silly notion pops in their head. But you probably are. When I decided to start researching this stuff for myself, I went to a college library, and picked up a magazine on radiology. And within ten minutes or so stumbled upon an image in which half the skull was black, but the skull was intact. Well, this completely destroyed Livngstone's then-prevalent claim the A-P x-ray shows half of JFK's face to be missing. He had presented this argument to people in books that had sold hundreds of thousands of copies if not millions, and it turned out he had no idea what he was talking about. And he did this because he trusted his own empirical abilities, and failed to follow through and actually read a freakin' textbook. So...no. The only way to make sense of this stuff is to distrust your "empirical abilities" and learn as much as you can about forensic science and wound ballistics and cognitive psychology. Then you might stand a chance. 

My responses in bold. 

Edited August 15 by Pat Speer

[W. Niederhut]

Pat,

     My responses to your comments are in red (below.)

Pat Speer wrote:

 Isn't there a paper trail which proves the CIA was anxious to sell that Cuba and/or Russia was behind the assassination? Were the researchers writing about this mistaken? If so, what makes you believe that the CIA was behind the lone-nut conclusion? And how did their conclusion make its way to Johnson, Katzenbach, and Warren? Were they all under the control of the CIA? 

Pat, Allen Dulles aggressively pushed the Lone Nut narrative from the very beginning of the Warren Commission hearings.  That was always the CIA's narrative for their assassination op--  Oswald dunnit.

It was coupled to Oswald's phony legend as a Castro supporting Marxist.  So Lone Nut and a Cuban/Russian plot were not mutually exclusive false narratives.

The key is that Lone Nut was the CIA mass media psy op from Day One of the JFK assassination.

Their goal, from Day One was to conform public perceptions of JFK's murder to the Lone Nut in the TSBD narrative, and they acted accordingly.

The only doctor to fully study the wound at Parkland was Dr. Clark. He found no wound on the anterior skull and said from the get-go that the wound looked like a tangential wound of both entrance and exit. I spent years studying the literature on gunshot wounds, in particular the wounds created by rifles like the supposed assassination rifle. They were notorious for creating "gutter" or tangential wounds of entrance and exit. I share my research into this in chapter 16b, Digging in the Dirt. A number of top researchers have said it was among the most important things written on the assassination. But never mind that. Even a casual look at the history of gunshot wounds will tell you that many large wounds are not the exits of a bullet entering elsewhere, and that your assumption there must be one is incorrect.

C'mon, Pat.  Multiple Parkland medical staffers described the occipital exit wound.  Even you have been forced to admit that.

Ergo, there had to be an anterior skull entrance wound.  The bullet didn't originate in Oswald's brain.

Your repetitious dissembling here is truly tiresome.

Please. NONE of the Parkland witnesses saw a bullet hole in this location, and none of the Bethesda witnesses saw a hole in this location. And none of the doctors studying the photos at the archives--including Dr.s Chesser and Mantik, who think there was a hole high on the forehead--think any of the photos show such a hole. 

So, where is the anterior skull entrance wound that caused the posterior exit wound, and the violent backward motion of JFK's head upon impact?

You have repeatedly refused to answer my question on this thread.

The truth is that you have no rational answer.

 Wait... Are you admitting here that the Zapruder film fails to support the WC's scenario, and is quite possibly an accurate depiction of the shooting? It shows an explosion from the right top of the head, where the Newmans placed the wound. Was that a coincidence? 

It's bunk.  The "bloody blob" above the head was painted on a few Zapruder frames, then abruptly vanished.

My hunch is that it was supposed to correlate with the CIA's surgically-altered Bethesda top-of-the-head "wounds."

They tried to claim that he was shot in the top of the head from the TSBD.

But it is, at least, evident on the Z film that JFK's head and upper body were knocked violently backward and to the left by the fatal frontal shot.  Anyone can see that.

 I hope you're not claiming that books on wound ballistics and radiology are pseudo-science and that people should just look at photos and trust whatever silly notion pops in their head. But you probably are. 

Get a clue, Pat.  You wouldn't even qualify for an admission interview where I went to medical school.

My point is that we have no way of knowing what was done to JFK's scalp and skull after the assassination team confiscated his body from the Parkland coroner.  So, the Bethesda "evidence" is of limited forensic value.

Dr. Chesser found that JFK's alleged brain (in storage) was someone else's brain!

So, the alleged skull and scalp wounds photographed at Bethesda may well have been surgical alterations post-Parkland.

Dr. Chesser did find that the bullet fragmentation pattern was consistent with a frontal shot to the anterior skull.

That, alone, is proof that the Lone Nut narrative is fraudulent.

 

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Pat,

     My responses to your comments are in red (below.)

Pat Speer wrote:

 Isn't there a paper trail which proves the CIA was anxious to sell that Cuba and/or Russia was behind the assassination? Were the researchers writing about this mistaken? If so, what makes you believe that the CIA was behind the lone-nut conclusion? And how did their conclusion make its way to Johnson, Katzenbach, and Warren? Were they all under the control of the CIA? 

Pat, Allen Dulles aggressively pushed the Lone Nut narrative from the very beginning of the Warren Commission hearings.  That was always the CIA's narrative for their assassination op--  Oswald dunnit.

It was coupled to Oswald's phony legend as a Castro supporting Marxist.  So Lone Nut and a Cuban/Russian plot were not mutually exclusive false narratives.

The key is that Lone Nut was the CIA mass media psy op from Day One of the JFK assassination.

Their goal, from Day One was to conform public perceptions of JFK's murder to the Lone Nut in the TSBD narrative, and they acted accordingly.

The only doctor to fully study the wound at Parkland was Dr. Clark. He found no wound on the anterior skull and said from the get-go that the wound looked like a tangential wound of both entrance and exit. I spent years studying the literature on gunshot wounds, in particular the wounds created by rifles like the supposed assassination rifle. They were notorious for creating "gutter" or tangential wounds of entrance and exit. I share my research into this in chapter 16b, Digging in the Dirt. A number of top researchers have said it was among the most important things written on the assassination. But never mind that. Even a casual look at the history of gunshot wounds will tell you that many large wounds are not the exits of a bullet entering elsewhere, and that your assumption there must be one is incorrect.

C'mon, Pat.  Multiple Parkland medical staffers described the occipital exit wound.  Even you have been forced to admit that.

Ergo, there had to be an anterior skull entrance wound.  The bullet didn't originate in Oswald's brain.

Your repetitious dissembling here is truly tiresome.

Please. NONE of the Parkland witnesses saw a bullet hole in this location, and none of the Bethesda witnesses saw a hole in this location. And none of the doctors studying the photos at the archives--including Dr.s Chesser and Mantik, who think there was a hole high on the forehead--think any of the photos show such a hole. 

So, where is the anterior skull entrance wound that caused the posterior exit wound, and the violent backward motion of JFK's head upon impact?

You have repeatedly refused to answer my question on this thread.

The truth is that you have no rational answer.

 Wait... Are you admitting here that the Zapruder film fails to support the WC's scenario, and is quite possibly an accurate depiction of the shooting? It shows an explosion from the right top of the head, where the Newmans placed the wound. Was that a coincidence? 

It's bunk.  The "bloody blob" above the head was painted on a few Zapruder frames, then abruptly vanished.

My hunch is that it was supposed to correlate with the CIA's surgically-altered Bethesda top-of-the-head "wounds."

They tried to claim that he was shot in the top of the head from the TSBD.

But it is, at least, evident on the Z film that JFK's head and upper body were knocked violently backward and to the left by the fatal frontal shot.  Anyone can see that.

 I hope you're not claiming that books on wound ballistics and radiology are pseudo-science and that people should just look at photos and trust whatever silly notion pops in their head. But you probably are. 

Get a clue, Pat.  You wouldn't even qualify for an admission interview where I went to medical school.

My point is that we have no way of knowing what was done to JFK's scalp and skull after the assassination team confiscated his body from the Parkland coroner.  So, the Bethesda "evidence" is of limited forensic value.

Dr. Chesser found that JFK's alleged brain (in storage) was someone else's brain!

So, the alleged skull and scalp wounds photographed at Bethesda may well have been surgical alterations post-Parkland.

Dr. Chesser did find that the bullet fragmentation pattern was consistent with a frontal shot to the anterior skull.

That, alone, is proof that the Lone Nut narrative is fraudulent.

 

I can only suggest you take some time and actually learn about this stuff. 

I don't say that to be rude. But proclamations like "The CIA tried to claim that JFK was shot in the top of the head" are just nonsense. 

(For one, the military--which is many times the size of the CIA, and far more powerful both in fire power and political connections-- was responsible for the autopsy. For two, the autopsy report concluded that the bullet entered low on the back of the head and exploded from the top of the head. This makes no sense if there was no explosion from the top of the head. The very explosion of skull at the top of the head is the smoking gun, so to speak, which proves conspiracy.)

Here is an image provided in the first ballistics study of M/C ammunition. This shows the damage expected when a bullet passes through brain and calvarium from a range similar to what was presumed in Dealey Plaza. 

Note that this wound is nowhere near the size of the explosion on Kennedy's head. 

And there's a reason for that.

In Chapter 16b, I run through the history of wound ballistics and show how Kennedy's large wound was almost certainly a tangential wound of both entrance and exit...exactly as first proposed by Dr. Clark on 11-22-63. I would suggest you read it but it seems like you have no interest in such things. 

 

 

Edited August 15 by Pat Speer

[W. Niederhut]

Pat,

    Now you have misquoted me.  I suppose that's one approach to pretending to win a debate.

    To be honest, I stopped reading your posts here a few years ago, after you falsely claimed that JFK's head wasn't knocked violently backward by the fatal head shot.

     Others on the forum have confronted you for dissembling about the Parkland medical testimony regarding the occipital exit wound.   

     As for this thread, you have adamantly refused to answer my question about the location of the anterior cranial entry wound that caused the occipital exit wound and retrograde head trajectory.

     So, rather than listening to more of your redundant, evasive pettifoggery, I'm going to take a break from this tiresome non-dialogue.

[Tom Gram]

12 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I can only suggest you take some time and actually learn about this stuff. 

I don't say that to be rude. But proclamations like "The CIA tried to claim that JFK was shot in the top of the head" are just nonsense. 

(For one, the military--which is many times the size of the CIA, and far more powerful both in fire power and political connections-- was responsible for the autopsy. For two, the autopsy report concluded that the bullet entered low on the back of the head and exploded from the top of the head. This makes no sense if there was no explosion from the top of the head. The very explosion of skull at the top of the head is the smoking gun, so to speak, which proves conspiracy.)

Here is an image provided in the first ballistics study of M/C ammunition. This shows the damage expected when a bullet passes through brain and calvarium from a range similar to what was presumed in Dealey Plaza. 

Note that this wound is nowhere near the size of the explosion on Kennedy's head. 

And there's a reason for that.

In Chapter 16b, I run through the history of wound ballistics and show how Kennedy's large wound was almost certainly a tangential wound of both entrance and exit...exactly as first proposed by Dr. Clark on 11-22-63. I would suggest you read it but it seems like you have no interest in such things. 

 

 

As I suspected, this thread inevitably turned into a head wound location debate, but this photo is relevant. I think I’ve asked this before, but what are your thoughts on the Edgewood tests that blew the face off and (allegedly) caused large, explosive wounds? I know they didn’t share all of their data, and there are other problems with those tests, but I think they demonstrated that atypical wounding scenarios are at least possible for 6.5mm ammo striking occipital bone. 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62296#relPageId=33

That doesn’t explain the EOP to top-of-head to window frame trajectory, but as a proof of concept I think DVP has a point on this. However, as I think you point out on your website, it’s not exactly a slam dunk. The outer gelatin layer on the skulls was removed before taking the photos, so it’s possible the skulls were heavily fragmented - without a large, explosive exit - and the bone fragments came off with the gelatin layer. 

The gelatin block showing the wound profile of an unstable bullet is also interesting (Figure A8). That bullet passed through 13.5 cm of goat meat, lost stability, then created a large temp cavity and curved upward in the subsequent 38cm gelatin block. Presumably, the same type of behavior could occur in a skull with a bullet striking occipital bone.

The tests also showed that 6.5mm FMJ bullets can fragment on impact. The skull photo you provided is clearly of a through-and-through, stable shot to the frontal bone, whereas the JFK shot supposedly entered the thicker occipital bone, and likely broke up on impact. 

I guess my point is that wounding characteristics are highly dependent on bullet stability and fragmentation, and we have reason to suspect that the JFK bullet lost stability and fragmented on impact.

I agree that JFK’s wounds are not typical for that ammunition, but that alone doesn’t really prove the wound was a tangential wound. Edge cases are possible.

This is basically why I asked about the fragment - windshield trajectory. If it could be demonstrated that the required exit trajectory is inconsistent with JFK’s wounds and a shot to the EOP, or even just unlikely, that would be more evidence in support of a tangential strike. The trajectory of a bullet impacting the top of JFK’s head and continuing on to the windshield seems a lot easier to reconcile than an EOP/temp cavity - based scenario, but it’s hard to tell without calculating all the angles, etc.