Bill Miller Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Since the single-assassin theorists (outside of Purvis) fail to acknowledge this wound, ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- One would often think that perhaps I get lonely out here on this limb by myself.----------NOPE! The EOP wound is, without any doubt, real. Rest assured that this horse was well rode and well lathered when I finished my conversations with Dr. Boswell on the subject, as at that time, all of the implications of the wound did not make sense or register. Still only one shooter! Tom If anyone ever wonders why I referred to you in another reply as 'Baghdad Bob Purvis' ... this was a fine example of it. With all the information laid before you in the past several pages of this thread, all you did was just make a brief statement without anything to support it and didn't address a single fact before you that pointed to the contrary. Saddam would be very proud of you IMO. Bill Miller JFK assasination researcher/investigator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 Bill, since you brought up Robinson, maybe you can explain why he stated that, according to the ARRB, "His most vivid recollection of the probe is seeing it inserted near the base of the brain in the back of the head (after removal of the brain), and seeing the tip of the probe come out the tracheotomy incision in the anterior neck"? While I don't necessarily believe his memory was correct, it undoubtedly supports my scenario of a bullet heading down the neck, and is in conflict with the theories of most who cite Robinson.. I do not specifically recall bringing up the name Robinson, but I do believe that a probe was stuck into the back wound. As far as Robinson, and others in Bethesda, recalling a large wound in the back of Kennedy's head, you need to think outside the Lifton/Aguilar box. Kennedy was on his back when he was first brought in. They x-rayed him. They photographed him. Then they peeled back his scalp and bones fell to the table. From that point on, he had a huge gaping hole at the back of his head. Boswell's measurements could only have come at this point, for how could they have measured the wound with the scalp intact? Everyone who saw Kennedy from then on would have seen this huge hole. As this huge hole would leave a stronger impression then what the back of his head looked like before they peeled back his scalp, particularly since he was laying on his back for almost the whole time, it seems logical that this huge hole would become their dominant impression. I'm sorry, Pat ... I thought we were talking about President Kennedy. Outside the Lifton/Aguilar box? Let me make this clear in case you have forgotten the evidence before you ... The scalp was not peeled back in Dallas when McClelland, Perry, and others stood at the head of the table and looked at the hole. The scalp was not peeled back when the head was turned in such a way that allowed the Parkland nurses on hand to see the large hole in the back of the President's head, nor was the scalp peeled back in the manner Kellerman testified to, nor was the scalp peeled back when O'Conner removed JFK from that shipping casket, nor was the scalp peeled back when Custer stuck his hands into the hole before finishing the Xrays. You appear to be inventing scenarios that never existed in order to dismiss the large avulsed hole seen by people in Dallas and at Bethesda. I have yet to understand why that is? Your viewpoint that the autopsy photos are faked has been made abundantly clear. Are you at least now willing to admit that there is some kind of bullet hole or wound in the mystery photo in White's location number 7. Can we at least agree that there is something there, even if we disagree on whther the photo is an accurate reflection of Kennedy's wounds? The enlargement that Robin posted tells me that it is not a hole. It also explains to me why it is not seen on the frontal Xray allegedly dipicting the President's skull. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 22, 2006 Author Share Posted January 22, 2006 (edited) I'm sorry, Pat ... I thought we were talking about President Kennedy. Outside the Lifton/Aguilar box? Let me make this clear in case you have forgotten the evidence before you ... The scalp was not peeled back in Dallas when McClelland, Perry, and others stood at the head of the table and looked at the hole. The scalp was not peeled back when the head was turned in such a way that allowed the Parkland nurses on hand to see the large hole in the back of the President's head, nor was the scalp peeled back in the manner Kellerman testified to, nor was the scalp peeled back when O'Conner removed JFK from that shipping casket, nor was the scalp peeled back when Custer stuck his hands into the hole before finishing the Xrays. You appear to be inventing scenarios that never existed in order to dismiss the large avulsed hole seen by people in Dallas and at Bethesda. I have yet to understand why that is?Your viewpoint that the autopsy photos are faked has been made abundantly clear. Are you at least now willing to admit that there is some kind of bullet hole or wound in the mystery photo in White's location number 7. Can we at least agree that there is something there, even if we disagree on whther the photo is an accurate reflection of Kennedy's wounds? The enlargement that Robin posted tells me that it is not a hole. It also explains to me why it is not seen on the frontal Xray allegedly dipicting the President's skull. Bill I ask a simple question. Please go back to Jack White's post on the first page of this thread. Look at his #7. Is that not a bullet hole? While the black and white version of the photo has been lightened to better show the neck lines (presumably by Lifton) the star-shaped hole is still visible in the color photo posted by Robin. It is not an artifact. I know you think the photos are fakes and that the Dallas witness testimony trumps the testimony of everyone who saw Kennedy before and afterwards. That's fine. I'm trying not to have that argument. I'm trying to focus on one point. Is there a bullet hole where Jack says there is in that photo? It doesn't matter if that photo is of Kennedy's forehead, back of his head, or butt. It doesn't matter if you think the photo is real. Because if there's a bullet hole in that photo, and everyone can see it, we can PROVE to the mainstream media that the government and medical estabishment are guilty of incompetence and deception. It can be SHOWN in a simple sound bite on MTV. "Here's a bullet hole in an autopsy photo--the government has never acknowledged this bullet hole and has, in fact, decided that this photo is of Kennedy's forehead, which would place this bullet hole on Kennedy's left side, where no one saw an entrance--how about that, America?" Bing Bang Out. BTW: I don't remember Custer ever saying there was a huge hole on the back side of Kennedy's head. As I recall Custer agreed that the x-rays he was shown by the ARRB were the ones he took on November 22, 1963. In retrospect, it only makes sense he'd get confused by the enhanced x-rays printed by the HSCA and shown to him by researchers. For at least two obvious reasons. One was that the x-rays he took were of poor quality, and were barely recognizable as the same x-rays after they were enhanced. Two is that the HSCA edited off Kennedy's jaw, where Custer had placed his personal marker. When shown the original x-rays by the ARRB, he immediately recognized his marker and conceded that the x-rays were the ones that he took. As far as me inventing scenarios? The order of events as stated are the order of events recounted by Humes, Boswell, Finck, Ebersole, Stringer et al... Humes, Boswell, and Finck in particular have discussed from the days of the WC the bones falling to the table... There are some inconsistencies in their statements, particularly with Ebersole, as should be expected, considering Ebersole was never questioned about the activities of the night in question until more than 14 years later. As far as the Dallas witnesses, yes, there were many who remembered the head wound as being further back on Kennedy's head than it appears to be on either the Zapruder film or the autopsy photos. This is one of the reasons they take autopsy photos. But those who spent the most time with Kennedy, including Perry, all deferred to the accuracy of the autopsy photos once they saw them in person. Even McClelland, who has stuck to his story of looking down into a hole on the back side of Kennedy's head (how, pray tell, when Kennedy was lying on his back?) defers to the accuracy of the photos. He has suggested instead that the hole he saw was somehow covered up when the doctors tugged on Kennedy's scalp in the back-of-the-head photo. Even if you ultimately reject my theories on what happened, I hope you'll take a look at my presentation. I think my analysis of the HSCA's trajectories, in particular, is an area upon which all CT's can agree. I entitled that section "The Tangled Web." Edited January 22, 2006 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Since the single-assassin theorists (outside of Purvis) fail to acknowledge this wound, ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- One would often think that perhaps I get lonely out here on this limb by myself.----------NOPE! The EOP wound is, without any doubt, real. Rest assured that this horse was well rode and well lathered when I finished my conversations with Dr. Boswell on the subject, as at that time, all of the implications of the wound did not make sense or register. Still only one shooter! Tom If anyone ever wonders why I referred to you in another reply as 'Baghdad Bob Purvis' ... this was a fine example of it. With all the information laid before you in the past several pages of this thread, all you did was just make a brief statement without anything to support it and didn't address a single fact before you that pointed to the contrary. Saddam would be very proud of you IMO. Bill Miller JFK assasination researcher/investigator --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- With all the information laid before you in the past several pages of this thread ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What some consider to be "information", others consider to be garbage. Therefore, if you want your "information" debunked, might I recommend that you refer back to the John McAdams site since he specializes in this and he has done a relatively superior job of doing so. About the only information on this thread which I currently see worthy of review and comment is the work of Mr. Speer. In that regards, many could learn much as regards the head wounds suffered by JFK, as well as the inherent discrepancy these wounds present with the WC scenario of the assassination. Merely because you chose to run down a rabbit hole does not mean that the remainder of us are convinced that a rabbit exists in the hole and we are to follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Agbat Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 Well, I'll enter the fray (probably against my better judgement)... Getting back to the original questions for a moment: Perhaps my statement of confusion never actually got around to answering the root question that Pat is asking in this thread. Bottom line -- do I see something at Jack White's #7 position? Yes, I do see something. However, I don't know what it is that I am seeing, nor have I completely come to grips with the orientation of the photo on my own. I'm also not convinced that all of the photos were taken before or during the autopsy. I think there is a reasonable chance that some were taken during the work by the funeral people (Gawler's ?). I base this uncertainty on what has been written in "In the Eye of History", especially comments by agent Sibert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 (edited) What some consider to be "information", others consider to be garbage. Therefore, if you want your "information" debunked, might I recommend that you refer back to the John McAdams site since he specializes in this and he has done a relatively superior job of doing so. About the only information on this thread which I currently see worthy of review and comment is the work of Mr. Speer. In that regards, many could learn much as regards the head wounds suffered by JFK, as well as the inherent discrepancy these wounds present with the WC scenario of the assassination. Merely because you chose to run down a rabbit hole does not mean that the remainder of us are convinced that a rabbit exists in the hole and we are to follow. Tom, my interest was in seeing if you were just implementing propaganda or did you actually understand the evidence as it was .... you have answered my question by not having addressed the evidence. And BTW, "Trauma Room One/The JFK Medical Cover-up Exposed" - page 231 - Robert Blakey, HSCA Chief Counsel, is quoted as saying the photographic panel could not authenticate the autopsy photographs. They determined that the camera said to have taken the autopsy photos could not have been the actual camera used at the autopsy. Your saying otherwise in a previous post is just another instance of you misstating the facts, which is why I am sure you have no interest in addressing the evidence before you. Bill Edited January 22, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 (edited) I ask a simple question. Please go back to Jack White's post on the first page of this thread. Look at his #7. Is that not a bullet hole? While the black and white version of the photo has been lightened to better show the neck lines (presumably by Lifton) the star-shaped hole is still visible in the color photo posted by Robin. It is not an artifact. I know you think the photos are fakes and that the Dallas witness testimony trumps the testimony of everyone who saw Kennedy before and afterwards. That's fine. I'm trying not to have that argument. I'm trying to focus on one point. Is there a bullet hole where Jack says there is in that photo? It doesn't matter if that photo is of Kennedy's forehead, back of his head, or butt. It doesn't matter if you think the photo is real. Because if there's a bullet hole in that photo, and everyone can see it, we can PROVE to the mainstream media that the government and medical estabishment are guilty of incompetence and deception. I wouldn't use that photo to try and show a bullet hole in a million years. I personally wish it did show a bullet hole because it damned sure isn't present on the alleged frontal Xray of JFK's skull. Two bullet holes to the back of JFK's head would certainly mean another assassin. The side view Xray shows that the right eye socket is blasted out, which the autopsy photos show to not be the case. Paul O'Conner says that the object near the hairline was a piece of debris stuck to the hair and I see that the HSCA enlargement supports this. It would be noce if we had a better angle at which to see that peeled back area of the head. Have you ever wondered why they took that photo of the notch and none of the area of the hole that you think is there? Could it be that there was no hole to get a picture of? I say this because it seems to me that had there of been such a hole that the Feds would have had billboard size enlargements made of it to help make their case, but yet there is not even a good wallet size photo of such a wound. I wish you like, but I cannot support your determination based on that photo. BTW: I don't remember Custer ever saying there was a huge hole on the back side of Kennedy's head. I have seen Custer, along with Jenkins, O'Conner, David, and Wecht all discussing what they had witnessed on the night of the assassination. I believe it was their first actual meeting together which took place around 1992 if my memory is correct. Custer said that he could put his two hands together and slide them into the opening in the back of JFK's head. That after doing so he had small specs of matter on his glaves. As far as the Dallas witnesses, yes, there were many who remembered the head wound as being further back on Kennedy's head than it appears to be on either the Zapruder film or the autopsy photos. I know of no such witnesses. Each person has always placed their hand on the right back side of their head when describing that wound. Even the mortician who was hired to cover the hole in the event the President's body was to be viewed ... had validated its location. Even McClelland, who has stuck to his story of looking down into a hole on the back side of Kennedy's head (how, pray tell, when Kennedy was lying on his back?) defers to the accuracy of the photos. He has suggested instead that the hole he saw was somehow covered up when the doctors tugged on Kennedy's scalp in the back-of-the-head photo. I recall McClelland trying to find a way to justify those photographs. he admits that the large hole is not seen on them. I cannot say why McClelland would suggest that pulling on the scalp would hide the large hole in the occipital region for the scalp would have to be pulled on from the top which would pull the scalp even further above the hole and exposing it even more. Even if you ultimately reject my theories on what happened, I hope you'll take a look at my presentation. I think my analysis of the HSCA's trajectories, in particular, is an area upon which all CT's can agree. I entitled that section "The Tangled Web." Thanks, I entend to do that. Bill Edited January 22, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 For those who may not have searched for the facts related to the EOP entry. http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0031b.htm The handwritten notes which reference the 15mm X 6mm entry located 2.5cm right and slightly above the EOP. It should be noted that Dr. Humes had originally written the wording "tangential to the surface of the scalp". By the time we get to the final typewritten report, the wording has been edited down to merely represent the 15mm X 6mm entry. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/jfk2/protocol4.html The supplemental to the autopsy report, which included full examination of the remaining portion of the brain of JFK, after fixation, should demonstrate that the entrance at the EOP also created damage to the "tip" of the occipital lobe upon entry into the brain. http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol16_0506a.htm http://www.thesmokinggun.com/jfk2/supplement1.html It is also somewhat correlating in reviewing that this initial damage to the tip of the occipital lobe was also exactly 2.5cm right of the midline of the brain. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/jfk2/oneill5.html And although not specifically stated as to the location of the entry wound, FBI Agent O'Neil was certainly observing adequately to recognize the "low portion" of the head from the high cowlick area of the back of the head. http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0036a.htm The 15 X 6mm "ragged slanting" wound as depicted in the autopsy protocal drawing also provides some indication that this wound was most certainly not located anywhere near the top/back/cowlick vicinity of the head. And of course, Mr. Kellerman, who went out of his way many times in attempt to give us the facts and truth, was quite obviously observing intently. 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. 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. Mr. SPECTER. What was the size of that aperture? Mr. KELLERMAN. The little finger. Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the diameter of the little finger. Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And needless to say, the autopsy surgeons have, for the multiple time, informed us of the location of this wound of entry: 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 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 final note, one might add that this wound of entry and the resulting injury is totally inconsistant with a shot fired from the 6th floor of the TSDB at/or in the vicinity of what we know as Z-312/313. Nevertheless, still only one shooter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 (edited) As a final note, one might add that this wound of entry and the resulting injury is totally inconsistant with a shot fired from the 6th floor of the TSDB at/or in the vicinity of what we know as Z-312/313. Nevertheless, still only one shooter. In accordance with a science that has since evolved - Blood spatter science proves that the fatal shot came from the front. I suggest you reading about it on Lancer's forum. There is a simple rule of physics that says when you push through another object - pieces of the object being penetrated will avulse in the direction of the force. The bones on the back of JFK's head were sprung open to the rear and it doesn't take a genius to understand why the autopsy photos could not show this. Which direction is JFK's head bulged out? Answer: TO THE REAR! Bill BTW, I am still waiting to hear you address the large hole seen on the back of JFK's head and why you claim the autopsy photos were authenticated when the HSCA says the opposite. Edited January 22, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 22, 2006 Author Share Posted January 22, 2006 I wouldn't use that photo to try and show a bullet hole in a million years. I personally wish it did show a bullet hole because it damned sure isn't present on the alleged frontal Xray of JFK's skull. Two bullet holes to the back of JFK's head would certainly mean another assassin. The side view Xray shows that the right eye socket is blasted out, which the autopsy photos show to not be the case. Paul O'Conner says that the object near the hairline was a piece of debris stuck to the hair and I see that the HSCA enlargement supports this. It would be noce if we had a better angle at which to see that peeled back area of the head. Have you ever wondered why they took that photo of the notch and none of the area of the hole that you think is there? Could it be that there was no hole to get a picture of? I say this because it seems to me that had there of been such a hole that the Feds would have had billboard size enlargements made of it to help make their case, but yet there is not even a good wallet size photo of such a wound. I wish you like, but I cannot support your determination based on that photo. I have seen Custer, along with Jenkins, O'Conner, David, and Wecht all discussing what they had witnessed on the night of the assassination. I believe it was their first actual meeting together which took place around 1992 if my memory is correct. Custer said that he could put his two hands together and slide them into the opening in the back of JFK's head. That after doing so he had small specs of matter on his glaves. Each person has always placed their hand on the right back side of their head when describing that wound. Even the mortician who was hired to cover the hole in the event the President's body was to be viewed ... had validated its location. Bill[/b] When I sat down to try and understand the x-rays by leafing through old copies of the American Journal of Roentgenology, I came across an x-ray of a man suffering multiiple gunshot wounds to the head, where his skull remained intact. His A-P x-ray was nevertheless all black on his right side, save the bullets suspended seemingly in mid-air. The caption explained that this was a result of pneumocephalus and loss of brain parenchyma. Basically, when brain is turned to mulch it shows up as black on an x-ray. As far as the lateral x-ray...x-ray settings are determined based upon the width of the object. Since there was a wing of bone flipped back and over the area of Kennedy's skull above and behind his right ear, this area showed up as incredibly white. The area in front of it, from whence the wing of bone had been sprung, showed up as incredibly black. The white section represented 3 layers of bone, including 2 on the side closest to the ray ( on Bethesda's GE portable machine, this means it was magnified compared to the other side.) Meanwhile, the area in front of it, by the temple, only represented one layer of bone, and it was on the far side. It only makes sense then that there would be a large range of density. Since there was no way to develop the section of the x-ray by the temple to show there was bone on the far side without also raising the levels of the white section to the point of being freakishly white, the x-ray is under-developed. As far as the brain matter in the hair, the actual entrance is slightly above that on the back-of-the-head photo. In my presentation I compare the back-of-the-head photo to the mystery photo and show that the entrance wounds are in the same place. As far as this meeting of Custer, David, O'Connor, and Wecht (I assume you mean Jenkins or Riebe)I must admit I haven't seen it. I've seen them interviewed separately on a Lifton video, but not together. As far as Custer actually sticking his hands in Kennedy' skull that sounds highly unlikely. He was an x-ray tech. Maybe it was Jenkins, who if I remember correctly was Boswell's assisitant. Anyhow, it seems possible that Jenkins would put his hands inside the skull, but only after the brain had been removed. One of the many interesting things about the Bethesda witnesses used by some to support the rear wound seen in Dallas is that they actually weaken Lifton's theory that the wound was changed. You can't have it both ways. You can't say Humes isn't lying, and the autopsy photos aren't fake, if Kennedy's body really did have a huge hole in the back of his head upon arrival in Bethesda. Similarly, you can't say these men's memory of a shipping casket is credible if, at the same time, you're expressing doubt on their memory of the wounds. The ARRB release of the Bethesda testimony mortally wounded Lifton's theory, as far as I'm concerned, and yet few seem to acknowledge this. It doesn't mean that Lifton's work was a waste of time. It simply means his work was a stepping stone to the truth rather than an altar. Myself, I decided to go beyond "who was telling the truth and who was lying" conjecture. Instead, I tried to understand how people can have such different memories of the same event, and how there can be a subset of these memories which appears consistant, but is in contradiction to the evidence. I spent a lot of time reading articles on the website of Stanford Professor Barbara Tversky. These articles convinced me that there is a scientific basis why people would remember a wound on the top of a prone man's head as being on the back of his head (even if they never saw the back of his head and particularly if they were used to seeing the man in a standing position). A lot of what we see and remember is based upon what we're used to seeing and what we expect to see. At one point I asked a prominent memory expert if tests had ever been performed which could be used to support my theory of body location transferrence based upon varying positions. She said "no". On Tversky's site, however, I found several test results which I felt applied to the Kennedy assassination. I describe them in my conclusions section under "Alteration Analysis." Keep in mind that this is a small section and is not central to my over-all presentation. There can be alteration or there can not be alteration. My presentation was designed to show that, even on the government's playing ground, even when using the evidence accepted by Posner et al, the evidence still points convincingly to conspiracy. I felt this was significant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 22, 2006 Author Share Posted January 22, 2006 (edited) Which direction is JFK's head bulged out? Answer: TO THE REAR! Bill BTW, I am still waiting to hear you address the large hole seen on the back of JFK's head and why you claim the autopsy photos were authenticated when the HSCA says the opposite. Bill, are you saying that the dark shadow behind Kennedy's head, which to me appears to be Jackie's elbow, is the back of Kennedy's head? I see a line of brown along the back of his head in contrast to this shadow. Wouldn't there be some blood? As far as the HSCA, they did the opposite of what you said. They authenticated the autopsy photos but refused to authenticate the camera given them by the military. They even hid this fact from the pathology panel. In my presentation I argue that the reason they felt this camera couldn't have taken the photos is because its field of view was such that it couldn't have taken the mystery photo, if the photo was of Kennedy's forehead. The ruler would be too small. In my section on the head wounds (entitled Forehead Analysis) I get into this in fairly good detail. I found, not coincidentally, that the camera could have taken the photo if it was of the back of Kennedy's head. Edited January 22, 2006 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 (edited) Edited January 22, 2006 by Robin Unger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 (edited) Bill, are you saying that the dark shadow behind Kennedy's head, which to me appears to be Jackie's elbow, is the back of Kennedy's head? I see a line of brown along the back of his head in contrast to this shadow. Wouldn't there be some blood? The white arrow I placed on the lower side of Kennedy's head partially covers Jackie's elbow. The head of the President is between the two arrow tips. As far as the HSCA, they did the opposite of what you said. I cited Robert Blakey ... take it up with him. The whole idea of presenting fakes is that some are good enough that the human eye cannot tell if it is authentic or not. This is why the camera being sought was important. Read what Richard Lipsey told the HSCA. Part of the problem is some wounds were omitted from the offical report. Lipsey says the Bethesda doctors found that at least three bullets hit JFK if I remember right. Where is there any mention of this in their reports? It appears that some evidence was being supressed and possibly some of it was invented - who knows what to believe once this web of deception starts being woven? Bill Edited January 22, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 22, 2006 Author Share Posted January 22, 2006 (edited) Bill, are you saying that the dark shadow behind Kennedy's head, which to me appears to be Jackie's elbow, is the back of Kennedy's head? I see a line of brown along the back of his head in contrast to this shadow. Wouldn't there be some blood?The white arrow I placed on the lower side of Kennedy's head partially covers Jackie's elbow. The head of the President is between the two arrow tips. As far as the HSCA, they did the opposite of what you said. I cited Robert Blakey ... take it up with him. The whole idea of presenting fakes is that some are good enough that the human eye cannot tell if it is authentic or not. This is why the camera being sought was important. Read what Richard Lipsey told the HSCA. Part of the problem is some wounds were omitted from the offical report. Lipsey says the Bethesda doctors found that at least three bullets hit JFK if I remember right. Where is there any mention of this in their reports? It appears that some evidence was being supressed and possibly some of it was invented - who knows what to believe once this web of deception starts being woven? Bill Lipsey is indeed interesting, as his memory of the wounds corresponds precisely with my analysis of the photos and x-rays. The HSCA FPP report does indeed mention Lipsey, but only to discredit him. They say that his version is in conflict with the autopsy doctors, so we needn't take him seriously. The FPP, of course, came to a number of conclusions that were in conflict with the autopsy doctors, including the location of the entrance wound in Kennedy's skull. Their dismissal of Lipsey, therefore, without ever asking the doctors if they'd tracked the wound in the hairline to Kennedy's tracheotomy incision (a memory shared, by the way, with mortician Tom Robinson), is highly hypocritical, and slightly suspicious. There is a Doug Horne memo that tracks the camera turned over by the military and the shenanigans engaged by the HSCA (that is, Blakey) to hide this camera . Baden confirmed to Horne that he was never told about the "problems" with the camera. Horne was also unable to find the HSCA tests that showed the camera couldn't have taken the autopsy photos. So he was never able to explain what was "wrong" with the camera. I explain in detail what I think happened and why in "Forehead Analysis". Edited January 23, 2006 by Pat Speer 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