Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 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) ? 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Petty: Then this is the entrance wound. The one down by the margin of the hair in the back? Dr. Humes: Yes, sir. Dr. Petty: Then this ruler that is held in the photograph is simply to establish a scale and no more? Dr. Humes: Exactly. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Davis: Because in No. 42 I interpreted that as a wound, and the other, lower down in the neck as just being a contaminant, a piece of brain tissue. Dr. Humes: No, that was a wound, and the wound on the skull precisely coincided with it. Dr. Davis: Now it was a tunnel----- Dr. Humes: Yeah, tunnel for a way. Dr. Boswell: Yeah, it's longer than it is wide, and tunneled along and actually under here, and then at the actual bone defect was above the--- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Petty: And, you say, Dr. Boswell, that the bullet entered the skin and theat the wound in the skull was a little above that. Dr. Boswell: Right Dr. Petty: Because apparently the bullet had tunneled a little under the skin and then that corresponds with the diagram that I saw which showed a point on the back of the body, the diagram with an arrow pointing upward and slightly to the left. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- At this point, I might add, that this line of questioning was rudely interrupted by Dr. Baden, who, now unlike members of the WC, instantaneously diverted the questioning away from the topic of discussion. "Same ole Trick"!---Too bad that we as humans are creatures of habit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 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) ? 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Petty: Then this is the entrance wound. The one down by the margin of the hair in the back? Dr. Humes: Yes, sir. Dr. Petty: Then this ruler that is held in the photograph is simply to establish a scale and no more? Dr. Humes: Exactly. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Davis: Because in No. 42 I interpreted that as a wound, and the other, lower down in the neck as just being a contaminant, a piece of brain tissue. Dr. Humes: No, that was a wound, and the wound on the skull precisely coincided with it. Dr. Davis: Now it was a tunnel----- Dr. Humes: Yeah, tunnel for a way. Dr. Boswell: Yeah, it's longer than it is wide, and tunneled along and actually under here, and then at the actual bone defect was above the--- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Petty: And, you say, Dr. Boswell, that the bullet entered the skin and theat the wound in the skull was a little above that. Dr. Boswell: Right Dr. Petty: Because apparently the bullet had tunneled a little under the skin and then that corresponds with the diagram that I saw which showed a point on the back of the body, the diagram with an arrow pointing upward and slightly to the left. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- At this point, I might add, that this line of questioning was rudely interrupted by Dr. Baden, who, now unlike members of the WC, instantaneously diverted the questioning away from the topic of discussion. "Same ole Trick"!---Too bad that we as humans are creatures of habit! http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0036a.htm http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0036b.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Neither artifact seen on the alleged autopsy photos can be the alleged bullet hole seen on the Xrays. I invite anyone to compare the photo with the Xray and you will find that the blood spot in the cowlick area is not at the correct location, nor is the artifact stuck in the hair just above the neckline. The Dallas doctors were asked repeatedly about seeing a small hole in the rear of the President's head and each time they replied saying that they did not see such a hole. So between the autopsy photo not matching the hole seen in the Xray, along with the Dallas doctors not seeing a small hole in the back of JFK's head, then is it not fair to say that no such small round hole existed. That such a hole seen on the Xray and then in the peeled back scalp photo must have been man made for if they were real bullet holes between the photo and the Xray - there would be no reason for them not matching each others precise location. This conclusion concerning the cross referencing of evidence would apply to any homicide case. Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 (edited) The large defect in the back of President Kennedy's head as described by the Dallas doctors who saw it is visible in the Zapruder and Nix films if one knows how to look for it. Dr. McClelland, who stood at the head of the table where the President laid during the time that the attempts to save his life was going on, had said that from where he was standing that he could look down into the hole on the back of the President's head. What McClelland is saying in a sense is that from off to the side or anywhere else other than from the rear - one would not see the large hole in the back ot JFK's skull. The reason for the large hole not being so readily visible from anywhere else other than the rear is that it was made up of fractured bones that had been sprung open from a projectile exiting out the back of Kennedy's head. Those bone fractures were still covered with scalp and hair which hide the protruding bones. Below is a view of what I often times call the coning effect. The coning is due to the bones being sprung outward and to the rear just as the Dallas doctors had stated. In the illustration below ... note how the bullet is pushing on the side of the fruit as it is about to exit. As the bullet leaves the fruit it will leave behind an outer skin that is sprung open in the direction that the bullet was traveling. The same ffect has occurred to the President's head as it is seen in profile. (see below) Here I show the coning shape caused by the bones being sprung open. Only a projectile moving from front to back can cause this effect. (see below) Alteration supporters have often been critical as to why the Zapruder film does not show the actual hole in the back of JFK's head and there are several logical reasons for the hole not being seen. As I said earlier, the fractured bones still have thick hair attached to them. The fractures are also seen in profile and this particular wound is located on the dark side of Kennedy's head. Remember that McClelland had to be behind the head in such a way to see down into the hole. More importanly though is the "motion blur" effect. Not even the President's or his wife's facial features are very clear. To demonstrate the effects of motion blur ... I have taken a crop from the Betzner photo and have added some slight motion blur to it. Take note that the details of the foliage of the pyracantha bush and the distant trees gets lost and becomes all meshed together when motion to the image is added. Even before I added motion blur, there was some slight blurring going on with Betzner's original photo. This alone prevents us from seeing the space between the branches of the foliage connected to the pyracantha bush. The effects of motion blur are often overlooked. Note that even Zapruder and Sitzman all but disappear when motion blur was added to Betzner's phoograph. (see below) When one takes these points into consideration, along with the type of camera Zapruder had in 1963, it is no mystery to me why the hole from the avulsed bones on the back of JFK's head is not visible. Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator Edited January 19, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 19, 2006 Author Share Posted January 19, 2006 (edited) Neither artifact seen on the alleged autopsy photos can be the alleged bullet hole seen on the Xrays. I invite anyone to compare the photo with the Xray and you will find that the blood spot in the cowlick area is not at the correct location, nor is the artifact stuck in the hair just above the neckline. The Dallas doctors were asked repeatedly about seeing a small hole in the rear of the President's head and each time they replied saying that they did not see such a hole. So between the autopsy photo not matching the hole seen in the Xray, along with the Dallas doctors not seeing a small hole in the back of JFK's head, then is it not fair to say that no such small round hole existed. That such a hole seen on the Xray and then in the peeled back scalp photo must have been man made for if they were real bullet holes between the photo and the Xray - there would be no reason for them not matching each others precise location. This conclusion concerning the cross referencing of evidence would apply to any homicide case. Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator Bill, I addressed these issues in my presentation at Lancer. A more elaborate presentation is in the link below. I hope you'll take a look. (Good work on the Z-film alteration issue, by the way.) I've resurrected this issue not because I want to beat a dead horse, but because I believe this horse can lead us somewhere. As we've seen, people with as diverse opinions as Jack White, Tom Purvis, and myself all agree that there is a wound near the neck lines. Robin Unger disagrees that the area in question is the neck lines, but seems to agree that it is a wound of some sort. That's fine. The conspiracy/research community can agree to disagree on what this wound represents and still unite around the fact that it is SOMETHING. The WC-defenders/lone-nut community, on the other hand, can NEVER admit this wound exists without admitting the incompetence of the Clark Panel and the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel. They can't admit that the autopsy doctors were right in 1966 when they first described this photo and wrong two months later in 1967 when they signed a report written by the Justice Department that changed their interpretation--because that would be to admit the likelihood of a cover-up. By the way, this is far from an alleged autopsy photo at this point. As shown in my presentation, Figure 25 in the Forensic Pathology Panel's final report is a blow-up from this photo. Additionally, Larry Sturdivan, Chad Zimmerman, Robert Artwohl, David Mantik, Gary Aguilar, Cyril Wecht, and Robert Groden have all seen the official photos, and have reproduced this photo in their work or reported that it is an accurate, albeit slightly cropped, version of the one in the archives. If by "alleged", you mean that you believe this photo was inserted afterwards and is not of Kennedy, well then you should explain why the government would insert a photo into the record that hurts their case. If you believe this photo helps the government's case, please explain, as I don't see that at all. As I said, to me this photo is the key to changing the official history of the assassination. I don't believe a rational person, no matter how distrustful of conspiracies and conspiracists, can fool themselves into believing there's nothing near the neck lines (in my impression) or forehead (in Baden's impression) or top of the head (in Robin Unger's impression). The doctors were clear: there was no beveled exit on the intact skull, and the only entrance they noticed was near the hairline. The wound I've been arguing for (Jack White's #7) proves a conspiracy, at worst, or widespread government incompetence, at best. If anyone has any friends in the media, please alert them to this thread. Maybe someone will decide to take off their rose-colored glasses and honestly take a look. Edited January 19, 2006 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 (edited) The doctors were clear: there was no beveled exit on the intact skull, and the only entrance they noticed was near the hairline. The wound I've been arguing for (Jack White's #7) proves a conspiracy, at worst, or widespread government incompetence, at best. If anyone has any friends in the media, please alert them to this thread. Maybe someone will decide to take off their rose-colored glasses and honestly take a look. What entrance wound near the neckline? If there was a wound near the neckline - it wasn't present in Dallas, nor in the Xray. It does seems possible to me that someone wanted a wound near the neckline so to get a through and through single shot to account for Connally also being wounded by the same bullet that hit JFK. When the Bethesda doctors were trying to show an entrance wound in the back of JFK's head - it was to explain the top of his head coming off. A downward angled wound hitting near the neckline would not accomplish that neded result, thus I don't believe it was anyones intention to call that piece of matter stuck to the hair near the neckline a bullet wound. I regret missing your presentation this last year. Also, I should have said "alleged original autopsy photo" ... I have no doubt that what you refer to is a photo found in the official record, but that dopesn't make it the original unaltered photo or the alleged wound and unaltered wound, especially once fraud has been shown to exist in those images. Bill Edited January 19, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Carroll Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 (edited) When the Bethesda doctors were trying to show an entrance wound in the back of JFK's head - it was to explain the top of his head coming off. A downward angled wound hitting near the neckline would not accomplish that needed result, thus I don't believe it was anyone's intention to call that piece of matter stuck to the hair near the neckline a bullet wound. It was clearly Dr. Hume's "intention to call that piece of matter stuck to the hair near the neckline a bullet wound" during his HSCA testimony. His position in the late Seventies is reflected in the post-autopsy Warren Commission Dealey Plaza re-enactment, when the wounds were marked on the body doubles. The photo I posted above demonstrates that as late as the date of the re-enactment, the official position was that the hairline spot was the head's entrance wound. T.C. Edited January 20, 2006 by Tim Carroll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 (edited) Here is a visual of the problem they would have had ... of course, the official drawing had the President leaned much further forward as I recall. I would have asked Hume's to pick and angle and then said, "You have some fancy explaining to do!" Bill Edited January 20, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 20, 2006 Author Share Posted January 20, 2006 (edited) What entrance wound near the neckline? If there was a wound near the neckline - it wasn't present in Dallas, nor in the Xray. It does seems possible to me that someone wanted a wound near the neckline so to get a through and through single shot to account for Connally also being wounded by the same bullet that hit JFK. When the Bethesda doctors were trying to show an entrance wound in the back of JFK's head - it was to explain the top of his head coming off. A downward angled wound hitting near the neckline would not accomplish that neded result, thus I don't believe it was anyones intention to call that piece of matter stuck to the hair near the neckline a bullet wound. Bill Bill, on the first page of this thread, Jack White posted his interpretation of the photo. In it he numbers important points. Point #7 is, in his interpretation, the entrance wound claimed by Humes. I share this interpretation. But even if Jack and I are wrong, what's important is that there is something there. Please take a look and confirm whether or not you believe there is something there. If we can all agree there is something there, then we can force the lone-nutters and the lone-nut defenders in the media to try and explain what it is. Remember that, in the official story, this photo is of Kennedy's forehead and the area in question is of Kennedy's left forehead, where no one saw an entrance or exit. So what is it? If they can't explain it, then they have to acknowledge something is wrong. If they do try to explain it, it will almost certainly be certifiable b.s. I'm hoping we can all work together on this issue to get a few sleeping dogs in the media and/or medical establishment, to finally wake up. Edited January 20, 2006 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 (edited) What entrance wound near the neckline? If there was a wound near the neckline - it wasn't present in Dallas, nor in the Xray. It does seems possible to me that someone wanted a wound near the neckline so to get a through and through single shot to account for Connally also being wounded by the same bullet that hit JFK. When the Bethesda doctors were trying to show an entrance wound in the back of JFK's head - it was to explain the top of his head coming off. A downward angled wound hitting near the neckline would not accomplish that neded result, thus I don't believe it was anyones intention to call that piece of matter stuck to the hair near the neckline a bullet wound. Bill Bill, on the first page of this thread, Jack White posted his interpretation of the photo. In it he numbers important points. Point #7 is, in his interpretation, the entrance wound claimed by Humes. I share this interpretation. But even if Jack and I are wrong, what's important is that there is something there. Please take a look and confirm whether or not you believe there is something there. If we can all agree there is something there, then we can force the lone-nutters and the lone-nut defenders in the media to try and explain what it is. Remember that, in the official story, this photo is of Kennedy's forehead and the area in question is of Kennedy's left forehead, where no one saw an entrance or exit. So what is it? If they can't explain it, then they have to acknowledge something is wrong. If they do try to explain it, it will almost certainly be certifiable b.s. I'm hoping we can all work together on this issue to get a few sleeping dogs in the media and/or medical establishment, to finally wake up. I gather that Jack marked that spot because of what was seen on the other autopsy photo and not because it was still visible in that very poor and somewhat blurry view. What exactly are you going to show the medical community ... a doctor will want to see the Xray .... the Xray willl not show a hole in that area ... the doctor will have to then tell you that it was an artifact attached to the outside of the head at best. If asked to speculate, he might say it could be a piece of brain matter stuck in the hair, or possibly a piece of tape, but obviously not a hole or else it would be visible on the Xray of the skull. In a court of law once you have evidence like a medical photo and an Xray that is supposed to be genuine and it has been shown that they don't even support one another, then they are deemed unreliable. The important part IMO isn't having to exaplain what the artifact is, but rather it, nor the blood spot on the cowlick match up with the intact hole seen on the Xray. Commander Humes, according to some who knew him such as Dennis David have said that Humes would follow orders without question. That if he was told to say something other than what was really true, then Humes would follow that order to the letter. Paul O'Conner, nor anyone else mentioned seeing a little hole in that area. Jerroll Custer said that he had placed both his hands in that large hole and when he pulled them out he had little pieces of brain matter stuck to his gloves. Custer saw no other smaller hole below it. Two FBI Agents stood over the autopsy and watched carefully as it unfolded and neither of them mention such a small hole, but rather a large hole. So again, if either artifact seen on the autopsy photos do not match the intact hole seen on the Xray - there is some more important explaining that needs to take place than trying to explain what a bloodless artifact is seen near the lower hairline. Regardless, this is just my opinion ... I respect your concerns as well. Bill Edited January 20, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 20, 2006 Author Share Posted January 20, 2006 (edited) I gather that Jack marked that spot because of what was seen on the other autopsy photo and not because it was still visible in that very poor and somewhat blurry view. What exactly are you going to show the medical community ... a doctor will want to see the Xray .... the Xray willl not show a hole in that area ... the doctor will have to then tell you that it was an artifact attached to the outside of the head at best. If asked to speculate, he might say it could be a piece of brain matter stuck in the hair, or possibly a piece of tape, but obviously not a hole or else it would be visible on the Xray of the skull. In a court of law once you have evidence like a medical photo and an Xray that is supposed to be genuine and it has been shown that they don't even support one another, then they are deemed unreliable. The important part IMO isn't having to exaplain what the artifact is, but rather it, nor the blood spot on the cowlick match up with the intact hole seen on the Xray. Commander Humes, according to some who knew him such as Dennis David have said that Humes would follow orders without question. That if he was told to say something other than what was really true, then Humes would follow that order to the letter. Paul O'Conner, nor anyone else mentioned seeing a little hole in that area. Jerroll Custer said that he had placed both his hands in that large hole and when he pulled them out he had little pieces of brain matter stuck to his gloves. Custer saw no other smaller hole below it. Two FBI Agents stood over the autopsy and watched carefully as it unfolded and neither of them mention such a small hole, but rather a large hole. So again, if either artifact seen on the autopsy photos do not match the intact hole seen on the Xray - there is some more important explaining that needs to take place than trying to explain what a bloodless artifact is seen near the lower hairline. Regardless, this is just my opinion ... I respect your concerns as well. Bill Bill, thanks so much for your answer. This is fascinating. You honestly fail to see the star-shaped bullet hole next to Jack's number 7, which to me is as clear as day. This bullet hole has been the bane of my existence. I first saw it in Groden's TKOAP 12 years ago, and couldn't believe he didn't mention it in the photo caption. When I finally gave in to my curiousity 3 years ago and began reading everything I could, I was shocked that no one in the research community, not Lifton, not Livingstone, not Brown, not Wecht, not Aguilar, not Mantik, mentioned this hole. I then read the HSCA Reports on historymatters and was shocked to find the Forensic Pathology Panel not only failed to mention this hole, they interpreted the photo incorrectly. After that I felt I needed to create a presentation. (In my presentation, by the way, I show where this bullet hole is on both the other back-of-the-head photos and on the x-rays.) In my presentation, in the conclusion section under Alteration Analysis, I mention the research and writings of Stanford Professor Barbara Tversky. I e-mailed her recently to tell her what help her writings were to me when I was trying to understand how people can remember things so differently. Her response stressed that people not only remember things differently, they PERCEIVE them differently to begin with, based upon their pre-dispositions. Our memories are not like videotape (they're more like sand-paintings created under the influence of drugs). After the Peter Jennings insult in 2003, I was so pissed off I got online and started arguing with people on some chat set up by AOL. I remember that there was this one guy who kept saying Posner and the WC were right, because he'd looked at the autopsy photos online, and that there was a bullet hole entrance right where the WC said it was. When I pointed out that Posner ignores the bullet hole he saw and that Posner claims the entrance was 4 inches higher, and that all the top doctors on the Forensic Pathology Panel, including Dr. Michael Baden, agreed, he said "xxxx Michael Baden" and went away. It occurred to me then that the mystery photo, and the bullet hole, can be used to discredit the lone-nut community, and prove, at the very least, that the Clark Panel's movement of the head wound was incorrect. Please take a look at the section of my presentation called "Solving the Great Head Wound Controversy". If you still fail to see what I'm talking about, let me know. In my presentation I was more critical of those who've failed to see the entrance than was deserved. It occurs to me now that the ability to perceive this hole might have a genetic basis, like the ability to curl your tongue. I was watching a movie the other day that repeated a story--I assume it was true--that when Columbus arrived in the new world, the natives originally could not see his ships. Their eyes were not conditioned to seeing large things on the ocean's horizon. Like the tribesmen who had never seen a gorge in The Gods Must Be Crazy, they couldn't develop a perspective that made sense to them. I suspect this is true in regards to this photo. Every friend or acquaintance who I've shown this photo to, and bullet hole to, has seen it immediately once I've pointed it out. While some have argued that it is not conclusive, they have all agreed that it is most logically a bullet hole. When I showed the bullet hole to Robert Groden in 2004, he immediately agreed that it was the Humes entrance. When I asked him why he never said this in his books, he claimed he did. (I double-checked his books and was unable to find such a statement.) I'm hoping we can clear up some of this confusion in this thread. Pat Robin, when I compared the pre-mortem and post-mortem lateral x-rays, I found that the area in your rectangle was black in the pre-mortem x-ray as well. Accordingly, it appeared that it could be a sinus. The elliptical-shaped smudge mark below it is not on the pre-mortem x-ray, however, and is in the exact spot where I see a bullet-hole in the open-cranium photo. It is also directly adjacent to the EOP. Edited January 20, 2006 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Robin, when I compared the pre-mortem and post-mortem lateral x-rays, I found that the area in your rectangle was black in the pre-mortem x-ray as well. Accordingly, it appeared that it could be a sinus. The elliptical-shaped smudge mark below it is not on the pre-mortem x-ray, however, and is in the exact spot where I see a bullet-hole in the open-cranium photo. It is also directly adjacent to the EOP. Can you or Robin find this alleged hole in the frontal view of the Xrays said to be of JFK? You see, my point is that you are trying to validate a wound from obvious altered or fraudulent evidence which shows conspiracy already. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 20, 2006 Author Share Posted January 20, 2006 (edited) Can you or Robin find this alleged hole in the frontal view of the Xrays said to be of JFK? You see, my point is that you are trying to validate a wound from obvious altered or fraudulent evidence which shows conspiracy already.Bill The frontal (A-P) view of the x-rays was taken with Kennedy's head tilted slightly backwards and doesn't even show the lower occipital region. Even if it did, the Petrous bone would obscure the area. The A-P view is rarely if ever used to examine occipital fractures for this very reason. The view that would have been used if they were trying to get a good image of an occipital fracture is known as the Towne's View. (If I'm not mistaken.) Unfortunately, the x-rays taken were taken for the basic purpose of finding a bullet in the skull, and not for analyzing the fractures. The key to your response is "obvious altered or fraudulent evidence." I'd read High Treason and Best Evidence before I ever started my investigation. I took what was said quite seriously, and was almost a believer. The more I looked, however, the more I realized that this alteration was not so obvious. Ultimately I concluded that it is the interpretations that have been wrong, and not the evidence. Those with the pre-conception that the "real" evidence would show a shot from the grassy knoll were unable to see that the evidence, taken at face value, demonstrates a strong likelihood that Kennedy was shot by two shooters firing from behind. Far worse, however, is that the various doctors hired by the government were unwilling or unable to look at the evidence honestly. An example of this is that Werner Spitz, of the Rockefeller Panel and FPP, and Russell Fisher of the Clark Panel wrote a text book on forensic pathology together, entitled Medicolegal Investigation of Death. In this book they mention the under-appreciated fact that missing scalp is an indication of an entrance wound. The missing scalp on Kennedy was, of course, in the large wound near his temple. Their failure to discuss this or explain this is to me a demonstration of their failure as "experts". On some level they knew they were hired as salesmen to sell the idea of a lone-assassin to the American public. This golden opportunity to "help" the government prove its case blinded them to some of the real issues. IMO. Either that or they were big fat liars...(which I consider unlikely). Edited January 21, 2006 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Carroll Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Ultimately I concluded that it is the interpretations that have been wrong, and not the evidence. Those with the pre-conception that the "real" evidence would show a shot from the grassy knoll were unable to see that the evidence, taken at face value, demonstrates a strong likelihood that Kennedy was shot by two shooters firing from behind. So the bottom-line is that the autopsy evidence (photos and x-rays), deemed authentic by Pat, shows that Kennedy was shot by two shooters firing from behind???" T.C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now