Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 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 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. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Purvis, and myself all agree that there is a wound near the neck lines ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You may fully include Dr. Boswell into this category as well! If recalled, I long ago posted a copy of his drawing, as well as the letter which was sent to Dr. Boswell prior to my having called him and discussed the EOP entry wound with him. Therefore, although "second hand" from me, Dr. Boswell; Dr. Humes; SS Agent Kellerman, and others have informed us of the physical location of this entry point. Rest assured, there was a bullet entry at this point, and just as discussed during the HSCA questioning, it was just up from the lower edge of the hairline of JFK. And since Mr. Miller can not seem to reconcile this, then one should also sleep soundly at night in knowing that the autopsy surgeons did not "mis-locate" the wound which they observed by some four inches. The EOP entry does not show on the AP X-ray! The Cowlick aka Z-312/313 entry does show on the AP x-ray. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I know a few second and third graders that could have figured this one out.! STILL!-------Only one shooter! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 You got it Robin! Glad that someone is finally making an attempt to place ALL of the evidence (pieces of the puzzle) out for all to see. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0032a.htm "Upon reflecting the scalp multiple complete fracture lines are seen to radiate from both the large defect at the vertex and the smaller wound at the occiput. These vary greatly in length and direction, the longest measuring approximately 19 cm." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And yes, rest assured that the somewhat "darkened" area represents that portion of bone mass that is now absent, and even in this lateral x-ray was picked up on the image. And, since this quite obviously is not the defect as is seen in the AP x-ray, which happens to be approximately 4-inches higher than what it is seen here, then we are back to those average third graders who could resolve this one. Tom PS: And of course the dimensions of the two separate defects did not match either. So: 1. They are in different locations 2. They have different dimensions 3. The autopsy surgeons (as well as others) insist that the entry they observed was at the EOP. (& they are not incorrect) 4. The HSCA Medical Panel (as well as others) insist that the entry which they see in the AP X-ray & photo's are in the cowlick area some 4-inches higher. (7 they are not incorrect either) This is sooooooooo difficult to understand! PPS: One may just also want to take a look at the bullet pathway through the mid-brain of JFK and question exactly how it could be that an entry into the cowlick area could cause a bullet pathway through the mid-brain. 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 Back to those third graders! Since this is immediately prior to the Z-313 aka/ second shot aka/ first shot to the head which entered in the cowlick vicinity of the head, there is very little that requires anything "fancy" to explain it. 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. Two shots to the head from behind does not require two shooters. Merely adequate time from shot to shot to accomplish the task. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 And since Mr. Miller can not seem to reconcile this, then one should also sleep soundly at night in knowing that the autopsy surgeons did not "mis-locate" the wound which they observed by some four inches. The EOP entry does not show on the AP X-ray! The Cowlick aka Z-312/313 entry does show on the AP x-ray. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I know a few second and third graders that could have figured this one out.! STILL!-------Only one shooter! I believe that an attempt was made in the official record to make it appear there was a wound down near the hairline, but that is all the evidence there is of it. No one that I have been made aware of saw that wound pre-autopsy. no one at Parkland saw it - no SS Agent saw it - O'Conner and Jenkins didn't see it - and Jerroll Custer didn't see it. Not even Sibert or O'Neil saw it or witnessed Humes, Boswell, or Fink looking at it. What they did see was this "LARGE HOLE" in the back of Kennedy's head. The offical autopsy evidence misleads one into believing there was never a large hole in the back of Kennedy's head - it offers an Xray that shows no such little hole near the lower hairline when viewed from the front - and the only Xray that looks remotely as if it shows a hole near the hairline also shows the entire right front of JFK's face blown away, which the photos do not. I don't know who's Xray you guys think you are seeing, but it cannot be JFK's. So I will say this once more ... you are trying to make sense out of fraudulent photographs and Xrays. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 Pat ... I regret that I missed your presentation this past year. While I have expressed some of my views concerning the wounds seen in the alleged original authopsy photos and Xrays, I still applaud your desire to pursue the evidence in any light that you see it in. Besides, you may have something in your sights that can add something that I am just not seeing at the moment. I need to remind myself at times that I too, have used what I deemed to be fraudulent evidence generated by the Feds and turned it back on the official story in order to debunk it. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 Mr. SPECTER - On the cranium itself, did you observe another bullet hole below the portion of missing skull ? Dr. GIESECKE - No, sir; this was found later by Dr. Clark--I didn't see this. Mr. SPECTER - What makes you say that that hole was found later by Dr. Clark? Dr. GIESECKE - Well, this is hearsay--I wasn't there when they found it and I didn't notice it. Mr. SPECTER - Well, Dr. Clark didn't observe that hole. Dr. GIESECKE - Oh, he didn't--I'm sorry. Mr. SPECTER - From whom did you hear that the hole had been observed, if you recollect? Dr. GIESECKE- Oh--I must be confused. We talked to so many people about these things--I don't remember. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 21, 2006 Author Share Posted January 21, 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. I don't claim that the evidence is authentic, only that it is probably authentic, as I can't figure out any reason the government would fake evidence to show a conspiracy, and then insist there was no conspiracy. If you can come up with any logical reason why they'd do this, I'm open-minded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 21, 2006 Author Share Posted January 21, 2006 Mr. SPECTER - On the cranium itself, did you observe another bullet hole below the portion of missing skull ?Dr. GIESECKE - No, sir; this was found later by Dr. Clark--I didn't see this. Mr. SPECTER - What makes you say that that hole was found later by Dr. Clark? Dr. GIESECKE - Well, this is hearsay--I wasn't there when they found it and I didn't notice it. Mr. SPECTER - Well, Dr. Clark didn't observe that hole. Dr. GIESECKE - Oh, he didn't--I'm sorry. Mr. SPECTER - From whom did you hear that the hole had been observed, if you recollect? Dr. GIESECKE- Oh--I must be confused. We talked to so many people about these things--I don't remember. I think it was Jenkins who eventually came forward stating that he'd seen the lower entrance in Parkland. Or was it the back wound? Anyhow, I remember he came forward stating that he'd seen one of the wounds supposedly created in transit. I have a whole section on the x-rays in my presentation, Bill. I honestly believe I've made sense of them. One of the main things people miss is that the large wound measured and described by Boswell didn't exist at the time of the x-rays. The x-rays were the first images taken at the autopsy. Humes and Boswell have acknowledged that large chunks of bone fell to the table as they reflected the scalp. I believe the x-rays show these chunks of bone held in place by Kennedy's scalp. Another thing which is frequently missed (most egregiously by the HSCA FPP) is that skull fractures reflect the amount of energy released by an impact of an individual missile. (A shotgun blast, for example, leaves a large hole made up of many criss-crossing fractures but no large fractures). Anyhow, the longest fractures on Kennedy's x-rays appear to begin at what was supposedly the exit. While the exit of a bullet will at times leave larger fractures than the entrance (due to the bullet's tumbling and creating a larger impact surface) the bullet striking Kennedy is reported to have broken up as it crossed his skull. The FPP medical report, in one of its sneakiest moves, says that the fractures at the exit were consistent with the exit of a missile with the mass of the two fragments found in the front seat, thus implying that they exited as one. The problem is, of course, that the two fragments found in the front seat were the nose of the bullet and the tail of the bullet, and that roughly half the bullet in between them was never found. In other words, the panel knew that the recovered fragments could not have made the fractures seen near the temple. This is one of the many reasons I concluded that the bullet strike at 313 hit Kennedy directly on the temple, and never entered the back side of his head. Tom, while we share many opinions on Kennedy's wounds, I am still convinced there was more than one shooter. I fail to understand why the government would misrepresent the evidence if the evidence showed Oswald was the only shooter. The only thing I can come up with is that the government THOUGHT the evidence showed conspiracy, and so deliberately misrepresented evidence, never realizing that Oswald REALLY WAS the only shooter. Even if that's possible, however, I can't fathom how Oswald, who was not believed to have practiced with his rifle in ages, could have hit three out of three. The earwitness evidence, furthermore, indicates there was another shooter. Just what is it that convinces you Oswald could have pulled off the shooting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 (edited) Mr. SPECTER - On the cranium itself, did you observe another bullet hole below the portion of missing skull ?Dr. GIESECKE - No, sir; this was found later by Dr. Clark--I didn't see this. Mr. SPECTER - What makes you say that that hole was found later by Dr. Clark? Dr. GIESECKE - Well, this is hearsay--I wasn't there when they found it and I didn't notice it. Mr. SPECTER - Well, Dr. Clark didn't observe that hole. Dr. GIESECKE - Oh, he didn't--I'm sorry. Mr. SPECTER - From whom did you hear that the hole had been observed, if you recollect? Dr. GIESECKE- Oh--I must be confused. We talked to so many people about these things--I don't remember. Great, Tom ... now go find Baxter's testimony and post what he said about seeing this alleged small hole ... that will get us past the hearsay rule. Mr. Specter - Now, will you describe in as much particularity as you can the nature of the head wound Dr. Baxter - The only wound that I actually saw--Dr. Clark examined this above the manubrium of the sternum, the sternal notch. This wound was in temporal parietal plate of bone laid outward to the side and there was a large area, oh, I would say 6 by 8 or 10 cm. of lacerated brain oozing from this wound, part of which was on the table and made a rather massive blood. loss mixed with it and around it. Mr. Specter - Did you notice any bullet hole below that large opening at the top of the head? Dr. Baxter - No; I personally did not. Well it appears that we can put to rest that we are looking at a hole for the hair is seen under the mass, which means it is not a hole at all. Bill Edited January 21, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 Mr. SPECTER - On the cranium itself, did you observe another bullet hole below the portion of missing skull ? Dr. GIESECKE - No, sir; this was found later by Dr. Clark--I didn't see this. Mr. SPECTER - What makes you say that that hole was found later by Dr. Clark? Dr. GIESECKE - Well, this is hearsay--I wasn't there when they found it and I didn't notice it. Mr. SPECTER - Well, Dr. Clark didn't observe that hole. Dr. GIESECKE - Oh, he didn't--I'm sorry. Mr. SPECTER - From whom did you hear that the hole had been observed, if you recollect? Dr. GIESECKE- Oh--I must be confused. We talked to so many people about these things--I don't remember. Great, Tom ... now go find Baxter's testimony and post what he said about seeing this alleged small hole ... that will get us past the hearsay rule. Mr. Specter - Now, will you describe in as much particularity as you can the nature of the head wound Dr. Baxter - The only wound that I actually saw--Dr. Clark examined this above the manubrium of the sternum, the sternal notch. This wound was in temporal parietal plate of bone laid outward to the side and there was a large area, oh, I would say 6 by 8 or 10 cm. of lacerated brain oozing from this wound, part of which was on the table and made a rather massive blood. loss mixed with it and around it. Mr. Specter - Did you notice any bullet hole below that large opening at the top of the head? Dr. Baxter - No; I personally did not. Well it appears that we can put to rest that we are looking at a hole for the hair is seen under the mass, which means it is not a hole at all. Bill Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Clark, would your observations be consistent with some other alleged facts in this matter, such as the presence of a lateral wound measuring 15 by 6 ram. on the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital proturberant--that is to say, could such a hole have been present without your observing it? Dr. CLARK - Yes, in the presence of this much destruction of skull and scalp above such a wound and lateral to it and the brief period of time available for examination--yes, such a wound could be present. Mr. SPECTER - The physicians, surgeons who examined the President at the autopsy specifically, Commander James J. Humes, H-u-m-e-s (spelling); Commander J. Thornton Boswell, B-o-s-w-e-l-l (spelling), and Lt. Col. Pierre A. Finck, F-i-n-c-k (spelling), expressed the Joint opinion that the wound which I have just described as being 15 by 6 mm. and 2.5 cm. to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberant was a point of entrance of a bullet in the President's head at a time when the President's head was moved slightly forward with his chin dropping into his chest, when he was riding in an open car at a slightly downhill position. With those facts being supplied to them in a hypothetical fashion, they concluded that the bullet would have taken a more or less straight course, exiting from the center of the President's skull at a point indicated by an opening from three portions of the skull reconstructed, which had been brought to them---would those findings and those conclusions be consistent with your observations if you assumed the additional facts which I have brought to your attention, in addition to those which you have personally observed? Dr. CLARK - Yes, sir. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill! Although there may in fact be those here who are so misguided and ill informed that they still worship at the "Church of BS of the Altered X-ray's & Autopsy photo's", as a general rule it has been my experience that most here are by far too intelligent to subscribe to this concept. Esecially since it has been completely disputed and disproven by virtually every qualified expert who has examined the documents, as well as the photo's and X-rays having been authenticated by the autopsy surgeons themselves. And, although this is of course an open forum in which all members have the "right" to their opinions, I for one have little time to waste on persons who are merely followers of the David Lifton theories of body kidnappings and altered autopsy evidence. But then again, I am certain that both David Ferrie and Mr. Martin gained followers to their "Holy Order" church, expecting that they could and would receive redemption there. Come on! At least give us some new BS upon which to feed! This is not even close to original. And, when truly "new" and revealing information is being presented by persons such as Mr. Speer, who has to the extent possible really done his homework and research, I would highly recommend that anyone who is seriously interested in the facts of this case pay great attention to the object lesson and learning objective presented. That is provided one actually has an interest in learning and ultimately passing the final test. Tom PS Others, who enjoy being confused and lost in the mire and smoke, please continue to look for body kidnappings and alterations to the medical evidence. I am certain that Mr. Lifton would like to sell you a new book which will further lead you down the rabbit hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 (edited) Bill! Although there may in fact be those here who are so misguided and ill informed that they still worship at the "Church of BS of the Altered X-ray's & Autopsy photo's", as a general rule it has been my experience that most here are by far too intelligent to subscribe to this concept. It seems to me that your experience has been in accepting hearsay evidence and accepting the word of men who were controlled by the military. Esecially since it has been completely disputed and disproven by virtually every qualified expert who has examined the documents, as well as the photo's and X-rays having been authenticated by the autopsy surgeons themselves That is a false statement you have made. The photos have been viewed by some experts who could not tell if anything was wrong with them. Those experts were not afforded the statements of those who were present at the autopsy and had seen the large hole in the back of JFK's head. And, although this is of course an open forum in which all members have the "right" to their opinions, I for one have little time to waste on persons who are merely followers of the David Lifton theories of body kidnappings and altered autopsy evidence. I don't agree with the timing of the alteration that Lifton offers, but I do know that even the FBI Agents who were present during the autopsy saw the large hole in the back of JFK's head. Tannenbaum stated that the report given to the HSCA on whether anyone at Bethesda had seen the large wound in the back of the President's head was false. He went on to say that the actual document that each person had to sign did state that they all had witnessed the large hole in the rear of JFK's head. Maybe you may wish to contact Tannebaum for a copy of that document, unless of course you DON'T HAVE THE TIME! And correct me if I am wrong, but the Bethesda doctors that you cited talked about a hole that was "above and to the right of the occipital protuberant" .... the piece of brain matter stuck to the hair is well below the occipital protuberant ... would you not agree? Come on! At least give us some new BS upon which to feed! This is not even close to original. And, when truly "new" and revealing information is being presented by persons such as Mr. Speer, who has to the extent possible really done his homework and research, I would highly recommend that anyone who is seriously interested in the facts of this case pay great attention to the object lesson and learning objective presented. That is provided one actually has an interest in learning and ultimately passing the final test. Tom PS Others, who enjoy being confused and lost in the mire and smoke, please continue to look for body kidnappings and alterations to the medical evidence. I am certain that Mr. Lifton would like to sell you a new book which will further lead you down the rabbit hole. So it is your opinion that those who saw JFK inside a gray shipping casket had lied. That the mortician who had to place the rubber pad over that large hole in the back of Kennedy's head had lied. That Dennis David is lying when he says that Boswell told him that the casket he had led the detail for had the President's body in it. Maybe you think that all the Dallas doctors had lied, as well as the FBI Agents present at the autopsy. Maybe you think the Zapruder film is lying when it shows the avulsion on the back of JFK's head. No Mr. Purvis, you come across to me on this matter like Fetzer and White do about film alteration. Both misstate the evidence and ignore the majority of the witnesses to keep their faith alive. BillMiller JFK assassination researcher/investigator THE AVUSLION NOT SEEN IN THE AUTOPSY PHOTOS Edited January 21, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 Bill!Although there may in fact be those here who are so misguided and ill informed that they still worship at the "Church of BS of the Altered X-ray's & Autopsy photo's", as a general rule it has been my experience that most here are by far too intelligent to subscribe to this concept. It seems to me that your experience has been in accepting hearsay evidence and accepting the word of men who were controlled by the military. Esecially since it has been completely disputed and disproven by virtually every qualified expert who has examined the documents, as well as the photo's and X-rays having been authenticated by the autopsy surgeons themselves That is a false statement you have made. The photos have been viewed by some experts who could not tell if anything was wrong with them. Those experts were not afforded the statements of those who were present at the autopsy and had seen the large hole in the back of JFK's head. And, although this is of course an open forum in which all members have the "right" to their opinions, I for one have little time to waste on persons who are merely followers of the David Lifton theories of body kidnappings and altered autopsy evidence. I don't agree with the timing of the alteration that Lifton offers, but I do know that even the FBI Agents who were present during the autopsy saw the large hole in the back of JFK's head. Tannenbaum stated that the report given to the HSCA on whether anyone at Bethesda had seen the large wound in the back of the President's head was false. He went on to say that the actual document that each person had to sign did state that they all had witnessed the large hole in the rear of JFK's head. Maybe you may wish to contact Tannebaum for a copy of that document, unless of course you DON'T HAVE THE TIME! And correct me if I am wrong, but the Bethesda doctors that you cited talked about a hole that was "above and to the right of the occipital protuberant" .... the piece of brain matter stuck to the hair is well below the occipital protuberant ... would you not agree? Come on! At least give us some new BS upon which to feed! This is not even close to original. And, when truly "new" and revealing information is being presented by persons such as Mr. Speer, who has to the extent possible really done his homework and research, I would highly recommend that anyone who is seriously interested in the facts of this case pay great attention to the object lesson and learning objective presented. That is provided one actually has an interest in learning and ultimately passing the final test. Tom PS Others, who enjoy being confused and lost in the mire and smoke, please continue to look for body kidnappings and alterations to the medical evidence. I am certain that Mr. Lifton would like to sell you a new book which will further lead you down the rabbit hole. So it is your opinion that those who saw JFK inside a gray shipping casket had lied. That the mortician who had to place the rubber pad over that large hole in the back of Kennedy's head had lied. That Dennis David is lying when he says that Boswell told him that the casket he had led the detail for had the President's body in it. Maybe you think that all the Dallas doctors had lied, as well as the FBI Agents present at the autopsy. Maybe you think the Zapruder film is lying when it shows the avulsion on the back of JFK's head. No Mr. Purvis, you come across to me on this matter like Fetzer and White do about film alteration. Both misstate the evidence and ignore the majority of the witnesses to keep their faith alive. BillMiller JFK assassination researcher/investigator THE AVUSLION NOT SEEN IN THE AUTOPSY PHOTOS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It seems to me that your experience has been in accepting hearsay evidence ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Even "hearsay" evidence is much easier to accept and swallow than is the repeated BS of altered X-rays and autopsy photo's. And I, for one, do not consider the direct testimony of those persons who conducted the autopsy on JFK as being "hearsay". ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- and accepting the word of men who were controlled by the military.[/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keep on shoveling the BS there Bill, no doubt there are those who will swallow some of it. Please, for the record, provide us with your expertise and experience in how an Officer in the US Military Service is "controlled". Especially when one is questioned by a legitimate investigative body which has been given the power and authority to ask any questions deemed necessary, as well as demand an answer. Also, for the enjoyment of the reading public, please explain exactly how this "control" continues to extend long after the Officer has retired from Military Service and has the full and continued support of such institutions of the AMA, etc. Me thinks that you have been reading too much of Mr. Lifton's theories and have suffered an OD. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The photos have been viewed by some experts who could not tell if anything was wrong with them. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And early day photographs of the moon were examined by experts who could not tell if this satellite planet was or was not made of cheese. However, those persons who claim to have been there and claim to have physically examined the evidence, have assured us that it is not cheese and that the dairyland states have no fear of competition. Personally, I would go with those who were there and have examined and verified that the x-rays and photo's are what was taken during the proceedings. Which is of course merely my preference for factual evidence as opposed to BS. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And correct me if I am wrong, but the Bethesda doctors that you cited talked about a hole that was "above and to the right of the occipital protuberant" .... the piece of brain matter stuck to the hair is well below the occipital protuberant ... would you not agree? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- At least you got something correct! 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. 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--- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Exactly what part of "tunneled" is it that you fail to grasp and/or understand? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Petty: And, you say, Dr. Boswell, that the bullet entered the skin and that 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As a "Distinguished Graduate" of the Jethro Bodine school of medicine and forensic science, even I understand this one. In fact, I think my dog understands it! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- you come across to me on this matter like Fetzer and White do about film alteration ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No doubt, you consider this as one of those "low blows" which is meant to place me into the perspective of being somewhat at a loss on the subject matter. However, just for clarification, we will establish the "Two Camps". 1. The "Camp" of Z-film "alterationationists" which not unlike politics ranges from the far right, to the far left (or vice versa), in their interpretations of this claimed alteration. 2. The "Camp" of the Autopsy X-Ray & Autopsy Photo "alterationists" of which many have failed to establish the parameters/ranges of this grouping. And since neither grouping is "entirely" incorrect, and within the scope of the definition lies " to make or become different", then one could state as a matter of record and fact, that I have a foot planted in each "Camp". Nevertheless, one can rest assured that virtually all of what we see of the Z-film is authentic, and what we see of the autopsy X-rays & photo's is also authentic. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Both misstate the evidence and ignore the majority of the witnesses to keep their faith alive. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Then, based on the above statement, we are to accept and believe that the "altered x-ray & photo" concept is the key which will lead us to the holy grail that we may drink from the cup of wisdom??????? Or, is it more likely that you and Mr. Lifton are making some attempt to further "yank our chain" and at the same time repeat the "con" of "BEST EVIDENCE". Surely, you are not a contributor to the new "BEST EVIDENCE II" (or whatever the title) which is going to further enlighten, confuse, and misdirect on the subject matter. Your attempt to misdirect this topic away from the excellent work of Mr. Speer is duly noted, and it is my hope that others will place your comments into the proper BS Bin of which they belong, and thereafter fully review Pat's work. They will in all likelihood learn far more than they would if they continue to follow the same old BS about the autopsy photo's and X-rays not even being of JFK. Having been required to eat many a "BS" sandwich while in the military service, rest assured that I recognize one even if on new bread with onions; mustard; ketchup; (catsup), etc. And in that regards, you are not even a "good cook", who can come up with an "original recipe". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Carroll Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 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???"I don't claim that the evidence is authentic, only that it is probably authentic, as I can't figure out any reason the government would fake evidence to show a conspiracy, and then insist there was no conspiracy. If you can come up with any logical reason why they'd do this, I'm open-minded. Pat previously asserted a "strong likelihood that Kennedy was shot by two shooters from behind," and now illogically asks why "the government would fake evidence to show a conspiracy, and then insist there was no conspiracy." If Pat thinks the unaltered evidence shows two shooters, then no fakery was required to "show a conspiracy." By his own admission, the evidence of two shooters did "show a conspiracy." As for an open-ended pondering of "any reason the government would fake evidence to show a conspiracy," two reasons would be to eliminate the appearance of multiple shooters and elimate the appearance of a frontal shooter. I'm not saying I believe this is what happened, just that the explanation does not lie in a straightforward explication of the shooting scenario and head snap. It speaks for itself, even if one accepts Pat's two rear shooters conclusion, that the evidence and logic didn't determine the WC conclusion. The Dealey Plaza re-enactment, using the hairline location for the head wound, shows that the WC conclusion hadn't been in effect immediately following the autopsy, and not at the time of the re-enactment. The photos and x-rays are far too inconsistent to eliminate the possibility of evidentiary shenanigans. T.C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 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???"I don't claim that the evidence is authentic, only that it is probably authentic, as I can't figure out any reason the government would fake evidence to show a conspiracy, and then insist there was no conspiracy. If you can come up with any logical reason why they'd do this, I'm open-minded. Pat previously asserted a "strong likelihood that Kennedy was shot by two shooters from behind," and now illogically asks why "the government would fake evidence to show a conspiracy, and then insist there was no conspiracy." If Pat thinks the unaltered evidence shows two shooters, then no fakery was required to "show a conspiracy." By his own admission, the evidence of two shooters did "show a conspiracy." As for an open-ended pondering of "any reason the government would fake evidence to show a conspiracy," two reasons would be to eliminate the appearance of multiple shooters and elimate the appearance of a frontal shooter. I'm not saying I believe this is what happened, just that the explanation does not lie in a straightforward explication of the shooting scenario and head snap. It speaks for itself, even if one accepts Pat's two rear shooters conclusion, that the evidence and logic didn't determine the WC conclusion. The Dealey Plaza re-enactment, using the hairline location for the head wound, shows that the WC conclusion hadn't been in effect immediately following the autopsy, and not at the time of the re-enactment. The photos and x-rays are far too inconsistent to eliminate the possibility of evidentiary shenanigans. T.C. Are there any "good" logic flow-charters out there? If so, perhaps they will diagram for all to see, the potential avenues for which the "logic" of Pat could flow. And, since Pat is completely and entirely correct in his work which demonstrates two bullet entrance wounds to the back of the head of JFK (see below), there is truly little difficult in charting thereafter. 1. The entrance wound located just up from the edge of the hairline, which "tunneled upwards" to strike in the vicinity of the EOP. 2. The cowlick entrance wound as observed in the AP X-ray. In event one fully evaluates the medical evidence, then they should arrive at this conclusion which is in fact totally supported by each and every item of medical evidence. (by the way, a review of witness testimony will also demonstrate the two impacts to the head as well) From this point, the logic must flow to either a single shooter with the time to execute both shots, or else to multiple shooters. A failure to understand motives as regards the WC smoke screen, is not an indicator of multiple assassins. It is merely an indicator of some intentional motive to obfuscate the factual evidence. I would therefore repeat, a political entity, generally has political motives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 (edited) Tom, Please stop the ramblings and address the issues I raised. Now if you do not mind, please answer the question as to where is the avulsion that each and every witness to the head wound in Dallas had described, not to mention those who signed off on the form Tannenbaum mentioned in TMWKK. I do not see that avulsion/large hole in those autopsy photos - please point it out and do not tell me about "BS" if you are going to say that everyone was mistaken. I am as patriotic as the next person, but if you are going to say that our government never lies to its people, then we must be talking about two different countries. So please stop the side stepping and address the large rear head wound that is not present in the autopsy photos of the back of JFK's head, with the exception of the peeled scalp photo. I also didn't appreciate the same side stepping when you didn't address the Bethesda eye witnesses who came forward and told about this large head wound in the back of Kennedy's head because direct eye witness statements and/or testimony is not hearsay ... that would be the same large head wound that each and every person at Bethesda's presidental autopsy signed as seeing in the document Tannebaum mentions. You did the same side stepping over the FBI Agents observations, as well as the mortician's. And if you don't believe the body was switched, then you must be saying that Dennis David is lying about Boswell confirming that his (David's) team carried in the President's body while inside that gray shipping casket. And before you call Dennis David a xxxx, let me remind you that there is in fact a document that notes the President's body arriving at Bethesda in a gray shipping casket. That document has been posted on Lancer's forum many times. Bill Edited January 21, 2006 by Bill Miller 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