Jump to content
The Education Forum

The bullet hole near the neck lines


Pat Speer
 Share

Recommended Posts

BE7_HI.JPG

Please answer the following questions:

Do you see it?

Do you see something but remain skeptical it's a bullet hole?

Do you have no idea what I'm talking about?

Do you believe this photo is not even of the back of Kennedy's head but is instead a photo of Kennedy's forehead?

Does this photo totally confuse you?

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 120
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Please answer the following questions:

Do you see it?

Do you see something but remain skeptical it's a bullet hole?

Do you have no idea what I'm talking about?

Do you believe this photo is not even of the back of Kennedy's head but is instead a photo of Kennedy's forehead?

Does this photo totally confuse you?

_______________________________

OK, I'm "game."--- "I believe this photo is of the back of Kennedy's head OR his forehead AND this photo totally confuses me." (Probably just part of some much larger, all-encompassing conspiricy. Seriously.)

_______________________________

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BE7_HI.JPG

Please answer the following questions:

Do you see it?

Do you see something but remain skeptical it's a bullet hole?

Do you have no idea what I'm talking about?

Do you believe this photo is not even of the back of Kennedy's head but is instead a photo of Kennedy's forehead?

Does this photo totally confuse you?

No. Take a look.

Jack

Another look.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BE7_HI.JPG

Please answer the following questions:

Do you see it?

Do you see something but remain skeptical it's a bullet hole?

Do you have no idea what I'm talking about?

Do you believe this photo is not even of the back of Kennedy's head but is instead a photo of Kennedy's forehead?

Does this photo totally confuse you?

Pat,

I think that the key to this picture is orientation. In reading your article and doing some independent research on the topic, I believe that it is common practice to reflect the scalp by making an ear-to-ear cut. The anterior scalp is then reflected forward, and the posterior scalp is reflected rearward. If I am reading the picture the right way, the reflection cut runs top to bottom on this picture (slightly right-to left as it runs down the picture).

If this placement of the reflected scalp is true, that would lead to two possible orientations of this picture:

1 -- front of head is left, rear of head is on the right

2 -- rear of head is right, front of head is left.

If orientation #2 is correct, then I'm confused. If the rear portion of the head is on the right hand side of this picture, then we are looking at a LEFT rear wound -- which no evidence seems to support.

If orientation #1 is correct, then I'm confused. If the front of the head is on the right, then there seems to be an indication of massive forehead (and probably facial) damage, another conclusion that does not seem to be supported by witness testimony.

Of course, there is the possibility that we're looking at a very non-standard front-to-back scalp reflection, which would put this massive wound on the right side of the skull.

OR... we could be looking at a flipped image...

I guess I'm still in the somewhat confused category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BE7_HI.JPG

Please answer the following questions:

Do you see it?

Do you see something but remain skeptical it's a bullet hole?

Do you have no idea what I'm talking about?

Do you believe this photo is not even of the back of Kennedy's head but is instead a photo of Kennedy's forehead?

Does this photo totally confuse you?

"I believe"----------------Which by the way is also irrelevant!

That you continue to come closer to the facts and truth than anyone to date!

And, that if you continue along this same line, that it will eventually become quite clear!

And, anyone who searches for the answers, needs to review "BEST EVIDENCE" (omit the body kidnapping portions) as well as your presentation.

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat, I actually agree with you, it is a critically important issue, one I feel is a fundamental benchmark. Important conclusions are drawn from this. While there is doubt on such a basic level so much else remains in question.

I have been trying to develop an opinion for some time now. In the topic BE7 for example. Like you I find that there is not much input. I don't think this is because of lack of interest. Some seem attached to their viewpoints and don't really want to have a serious discussion of it. Others are just 'confused'. A serious joint effort open minded, devoid of pre judice in resolving this is what is needed.

...with regards to the neck marks :

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=51652

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BE7_HI.JPG

Please answer the following questions: Do you see it? Do you see something but remain skeptical it's a bullet hole? Do you have no idea what I'm talking about? Do you believe this photo is not even of the back of Kennedy's head but is instead a photo of Kennedy's forehead? Does this photo totally confuse you?

I see what I've understood to be the back of the head, which shows a notch that appears to lead toward a lower entrance wound, and a rear exit wound just to the lower right, corresponding to what is commonly thought to be a rear evulsion. The lower of the two rear head entrance wounds is shown in the following photo:

Humes' actual testimony to the HSCA is in David Lifton's Best Evidence, pgs. 536-538:

The disagreement began when Dr. Petty showed the doctors the lateral X-ray and asked: "Is this the point of entrance that I'm pointing to?"

"No," replied Humes.

"This is not?" said Petty.

"No," replied Humes and Boswell simultaneously.

Petty asked: "Where is the point of entrance?"

Humes responded that it was "below the external occipital protuberance."

The transcript continued:

Petty: It's below it?

Humes: Right.

Petty: Not above it?

Boswell: No. It's to the right and inferior to the external occipital protruberance.

Humes: Precisely coincides with that wound on the scalp.

By "that wound on the scalp," Humes designated a spot at the bottom of the back of the head that the others felt was merely brain tissue, or some other artifact. But Humes believed otherwise. "I'm quite confident," said Humes....

With that statement, there began a subdued but - if the transcript is any indication - somewhat tense argument. It went on for many pages.... Petty began what was tantamount to a cross-examination. He noted the ruler in the picture seemed positioned to measure the upper location. But Humes denied that.

Petty: Then this ruler that is held in the photograph is simply to establish a scale and no more?

Humes: Exactly.

When Dr. Davis, looking at the photograph, stated his opinion the entry was at the top, Humes said: "No, no, that's no wound."

Referring to what the others were calling a bullet entrance wound, he said: "I don't know what that is. It could be clotted blood.... I just don't know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of entrance."

A bit later, Dr. Loquvam spoke up: "I don't think this discussion belongs in the record.... We have no business recording this. This is for us to decide between ourselves." When Dr. Coe pointed out to Humes that other pathologists disagreed with him on the wound location, Loquvam interrupted again: "You guys are nuts. You guys are nuts writing this stuff. It doesn't belong in that damn record.... Why not turn off the record and explain to him and then go back and talk again."

Incredibly, the lower hairline spot was considered the entrance of the head wound in the early days of the WC investigation (after the autopsy):

If they couldn't get it straight among themselves back then, including the autopsy doctor, how are we to solve this now? Very frustrating! Anyone who thinks this is all simple, obvious and straightforward, while producing x-rays that show a blown out eye socket, should think again.

T.C.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that it? This is perhaps the single-most important piece of evidence regarding the assassination, certainly in the league of the Zapruder film and the rifle, and yet hardly anybody has an opinion on it?

Pat.

I have just finished discussing at length the "orientation" of the fox F8 PHOTO with John Dolva, in the BE7 thread. !

As for the SPOT at the back of the neck, i beleive it may be the ENTRY OR EXIT POINT for the throat wound.

7407.jpg

7408.jpg

Edited by Robin Unger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat,

I think that the key to this picture is orientation. In reading your article and doing some independent research on the topic, I believe that it is common practice to reflect the scalp by making an ear-to-ear cut. The anterior scalp is then reflected forward, and the posterior scalp is reflected rearward. If I am reading the picture the right way, the reflection cut runs top to bottom on this picture (slightly right-to left as it runs down the picture).

If this placement of the reflected scalp is true, that would lead to two possible orientations of this picture:

1 -- front of head is left, rear of head is on the right

2 -- rear of head is right, front of head is left.

If orientation #2 is correct, then I'm confused. If the rear portion of the head is on the right hand side of this picture, then we are looking at a LEFT rear wound -- which no evidence seems to support.

If orientation #1 is correct, then I'm confused. If the front of the head is on the right, then there seems to be an indication of massive forehead (and probably facial) damage, another conclusion that does not seem to be supported by witness testimony.

Of course, there is the possibility that we're looking at a very non-standard front-to-back scalp reflection, which would put this massive wound on the right side of the skull.

OR... we could be looking at a flipped image...

I guess I'm still in the somewhat confused category.

Thanks, Frank, for, well, your Frankness.

I tried to deal with the issue of reflection in my presentation. In retrospect, my tone was perhaps overly-argumentative. Since the conspiracy theorists I'd read had almost universally accepted that the photo was taken from behind, and since the lone-nutters I'd read had universally accepted that the photo was taken from the front, I was unaware of the difficulties understanding the photo shared by so many in the middle. The relevant slide (for those who haven't read it.)

Reflections on Reflection

Since the most frequent complaint from lone-nutters defending the official view of this photo is that conspiracists print it the wrong way, and that everyone who knows anything about forensic pathology just knows that the scalp is reflected over the face during an autopsy, I decided to confront this argument head-on by finding a photo of a typical reflection of the scalp. And guess what, they are right. Typically the scalp is reflected over the face. But what the lone-nutters forget to say is that just as typically the posterior part of the scalp is reflected down towards the neck and that in this photo (if one is to go along with their interpretation of the photo) there is no reflection at all at the back of the head, just tangles of torn scalp!

Dr. Ed Uthman describes a typical reflection of the scalp as follows: “The diener (an assistant) uses a scalpel to cut from behind one ear, over the crown of the head, to behind the other ear…The skin and soft tissues are now divided into a front flap and a rear flap. The front flap is pulled (this takes some strength) forward (like being scalped) over the patient’s face, thus exposing the top and front of the skull. The back flap is pulled backwards over the nape of the neck.” As the entrance at the back of the head was one of the areas the doctors were trying to inspect, and as the back of the head was reportedly intact, and as none of the four scalp lacerations noted in the autopsy report came anywhere near the exit near the EOP, and as Dr. Humes testified they only made a small incision between Kennedy’s ears before reflection, and as it MAKES NO SENSE for them to have just ripped apart the scalp at the back of Kennedy’s skull with their bare hands, one should have no problem concluding this photograph was taken from behind and that the torn scalp in the photo is where the torn scalp is in the autopsy report, at the front of the President’s head by his ear. When one takes into account that the Bethesda personnel who helped with the autopsy and have been interviewed by such men as David Lifton, Robert Groden, Harrison Livingstone, and William Law seem to have no problem identifying the photo as being taken from the back with the scalp reflected to the left, one can only wonder why the doctors are so much more confused by anatomy than their underlings and assistants. One might even assume they’ve been playing dumb.

Over the years Dr. Humes has made a number of statements regarding the reflection of the scalp that only make sense when one views the photo as taken from behind. He told the Warren Commission.: “I extended the lacerations of the scalp…down in the directions of both of the President’s ears…We had to do virtually no work with a saw to remove these portions of the skull, they came apart in our hands very easily…as we moved the scalp about, fragments of various size would fall to the table…when we reflected the scalp away from the badly damaged skull, and removed some of these loosened portions of skull bone, we were able to see this large defect in the right cerebral hemisphere.” One can only assume that when he says he reflected the scalp away from the badly damaged skull, he doesn’t mean he reflected the scalp over the badly damaged skull near the President’s right temple, as would be the case should he have reflected the scalp in a manner consistent with the lone-nutter interpretation of the autopsy photo.

Dr. Humes’ interviews with the HSCA forensics panel thirteen years later were even more helpful. When asked about the supposed in-shoot in the cowlick, he replied: “I don’t know what that is. Number one, I can assure you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I don’t know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood…it certainly was not any wound of entrance.” Notice that he says they had “reflected the scalp to get to this point,” implying that “this point,” the red spot in the cowlick adjacent to the midline, was some distance from where they had begun reflecting the scalp. Note also that when one views this photo in the official manner the scalp near the supposed entrance in the cowlick has not been reflected at all!

Humes’ comments to the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1992 are also relevant. He said “The head was so devastated by the exploding bullet…that we did not even have to use a saw to remove the skullcap…We peeled the scalp back and the calvarium crumpled in my hands from the fracture lines…” Since there was little damage to Kennedy’s left skull;, and since Humes said there was little or no cutting, Humes’ comment that they did not need to remove the skullcap confirms that they pulled the brain out from the devastated right side of Kennedy’s skull. Since there was talk of an open-casket funeral, it only makes sense that the doctors would try to preserve as much of Kennedy’s face as possible. If this was so, then they would have logically reflected the scalp to his left, pulled the brain out from the right side of his skull, and preserve the left side of his face.

Still, one might propose the scalp was reflected forwards on the right side only. The open cranium photo, even when interpreted incorrectly, reveals the flaw in this thinking, as the line of reflected scalp appears so low on the forehead that an incision down the middle of Kennedy’s forehead would have been necessary. When questioned by the ARRB in 1996, Dr. Humes cut-off any speculation along these lines. When asked by Jeremy Gunn whether there were any incisions made in the scalp besides the one extending the large lacerations between the ears, Dr. Humes said succinctly “No, we didn’t make any others,” whereby Gunn interjected “So there were none front to back along—“to which Humes interrupted “No. There were lacerations of the scalp in several different directions, but no, we didn’t make any other incision.”

After reading an online article by Dr. Chad Zimmerman, where he correctly pointed out that to reflect he scalp to the left the doctors would have needed to cut along the base of the skull at the back of the head, that last statement of Humes’ gave me pause. After re-reading Humes’ and Boswell’s discussion with the pathology panel, from 19 years earlier, however, it’s clear there was some minor cutting along the back of the head. Boswell: “we just folded that back and this back and an anterior flap forward and that exposed almost the entire—I guess we did have to dissect a little bit to get to…” Humes: “To get to this entrance, right?” Boswell: “But not much…” Since the scalp by the entrance near the EOP, the only entrance the doctors could have been discussing, has not been reflected or dissected at all in the official interpretation of the open cranium photographs, these statements can only be interpreted as support that the photos were taken from behind.

Still, the lone-nutters choose to ignore such statements, and even common sense, when defending their incorrect impression of this photo. In Dr. Chad Zimmerman’s interpretation of this photo, for instance, the President’s right ear is at the end of a line of reflected scalp. If this is so, however, then the gaping hole directly in front of the ear (where the wing of bone is flipped outwards in the other photos) is hidden by

this reflected scalp. This raises the question of just how one reflects badly lacerated scalp over an area where there is no bone. Zimmerman also claims that when he visited the archives with Larry Sturdivan and saw the original autopsy photos, they could see the fatty tissue of the President’s chest in the background of the color version of this photo, and “that, therefore, this photograph was taken after the Y-incision was conducted on the President’s chest.” Never mind that the doctors testified they finished measuring and photographing the President’s head wounds before they performed the Y-incision, and that lying Kennedy on his left side or sitting him upright, which appears to be the likely positions of Kennedy’s body in the open cranium photo no matter how one orients the photograph, after the Y-incision, would have been a needlessly messy proposition. Never mind doing your homework either. In an attempt to explain how he was able to understand the open cranium photographs to a greater degree than the autopsy doctors, Zimmerman said I “tend to believe that the color prints were not shown to the autopsy physicians during their interview with the HSCA investigators.” This is bizarre, since the doctors were shown all the photos in 1966, and 1967, and again by the ARRB in the late 1990’s, and failed to come to the conclusions espoused by Zimmerman. It’s also misleading in that the record shows the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, not the HSCA “investigators” cited by Zimmerman, showed Dr.s Humes and Boswell open cranium photograph number 44. Number 44 is, of course, a color print.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have just finished discussing at length the "orientation" of the fox F8 PHOTO with John Dolva, in the BE7 thread. ! As for the SPOT at the back of the neck, i beleive it may be the ENTRY OR EXIT POINT for the throat wound.

That's great work Robin did with F8. I've never seen that before.

T.C.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have just finished discussing at length the "orientation" of the fox F8 PHOTO with John Dolva, in the BE7 thread. ! As for the SPOT at the back of the neck, i beleive it may be the ENTRY OR EXIT POINT for the throat wound.

That's great work Robin did with F8. I've never seen that before.

T.C.

Thanks Tim.

I beleive i see in those photos:

(1) a bone flap on the RIGHT side of the head, just above and in front of the ear.

(2) The scalp retracted over the face.

(3) The crack to the right side of the head which extends down to the EYE socket.

(4) The ENTRY point , near the RIGHT ear.

(5) The bevelled EXIT point, near the center of the TOP of the head.

Edited by Robin Unger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Small SPOT at the back of the neck, which Boswell decribed in his ARRB testimony as BRAIN matter.

IMO this SPOT at the back of the Neck has the correct trajectory to line up with the throat wound.

The question is, is it a wound of (EXIT) OR ( ENTRANCE) ?

7406.jpg

Edited by Robin Unger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Small SPOT at the back of the neck, which Boswell decribed in his ARRB testimony as BRAIN matter.

IMO this SPOT at the back of the Neck has the correct trajectory to line up with the throat wound.

The question is, is it a wound of (EXIT) OR ( ENTRANCE) ?

7406.jpg

Mr. KELLERMAN. Entry into this man's head was right below that wound, right here.

Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the bottom of the hairline immediately to the right of the ear about the lower third of the ear?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. But it was in the hairline, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. In his hairline?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. Near the end of his hairline?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...